Studies in Early Christology

STUDIES IN EARLY CHRISTOLOGY
Studies in
Early Christology
Martin Hengel
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
T & T C LARK LTD
59 GEO RG E STREET
E D IN B U R G H EH2 2 L Q
S C O T LA N D
Copyright © T & T Clark Ltd, 1995
Figures 1 and 2, pp. 177-78, copyright © O. Keel, 1972.

Reprinted with permission.
All rights reserved. N o part o f this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior permission o f T & T Clark Ltd.
First published 1995
ISBN 0 567 09705 6 (H B )

ISBN 0 567 29291 6 (PB )
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Typeset by Waverley Typesetters, Galashiels

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Bookcraft, Avon
Contents
Foreword ix
1 Jesus, the Messiah o f Israel 1

2 Jesus as Messianic Teacher o f Wisdom and the
Beginnings o f Christology 73
3 ‘Sit at My Right Hand! ’ 119
4 The Song about Christ in Earliest Worship 227
5 The Dionysiac Messiah 293
6 The Kingdom o f Christ in John 333
7 Christological Titles in Early Christianity 359
Index of Modern Authors 391

Index of Names and Subjects 399
Index of ChiefPassages Cited 401
v
TO
CH ARLES KIN G SLEY BARRETT

IN G R A T IT U D E
Foreword
Christology, the doctrine concerning God’s revelation in Christ

and the salvation wrought through Christ, constitutes the core
o f Christian theology and belongs to the centre o f the church’s
proclamation. This significance is already evident in the
writings o f the first ‘theologian’ Paul, who says o f himself that
on the way to Damascus he received the gospel ‘ through a
revelation ofjesus Christ’ (Gal. 1:12) when ‘God chose . . . to
reveal his Son in me’ (1:16). When the apostle Paul refers in
his letters to ‘the gospel o f God’ 1or, more frequently, to ‘the
gospel o f Christ’ ,2 the basic notion o f God’s self-revelation is
being cast in terms o f the inseparable ‘solidarity’ o f the Father
and Son, an idea which later would come to characterize the
trinitarian understanding o f God in Christianity. In Paul both
the Father and Son can be addressed and invoked
as ‘Kyrios’ , and sometimes it is unclear (perhaps intentionally
so) just which one is intended. Further, to a certain extent
both are similarly addressed as the coming judge3 and can
be credited with the opus proprium Dei, i.e. creation itself.4
The Father has sent his Son into the world, and the Son is
1Rom. 1:1; 15:16; 1 Thess. 2:2, 8f.

2 Rom 15:19; 1 Cor. 9:12; 2 Cor. 2:12; 4:4; 9:13; 10:14; Gal. 1:7; Phil. 1:27;
1 Thess. 3:2.
3Rom. 14:1Of. and 2 Cor. 15:10; Phil. 2:10f. and Isa. 45:23 (LX X ).
4 1 Cor. 8:6 (cf. Col. 1:16); 10, 26; 2 Cor. 4:6; Rom. 1:25.
vii
viii Studies in Early Christology
reconciling the present fallen world to the Father through his
death on the cross. In restoring the world to the Father, the
Son assumes the Father’s glory, though, to be sure, this all
happens etc; ôoâv tou Öeoü naxpôç (Phil. 2:11). We may be
reasonably certain, then, that this first Christian author and
theologian, whose unique - because apostolic - authority
spans into the present, tells in his writing o f an event between
God and humanity, between heaven and earth; it is an event o f
incomparable drama with a programmatic comprehensiveness
which supersedes anything else known from religious writers
o f the ancient world. On the basis o f the Christ-event Paul
formulated at once both a ‘theology’ and ‘anthropology’ and
thus was well on the way to the later confession o f the
triune God, a way which would reach its first climax in the
Johannine corpus. Paul and John are both witnesses, each in
his own way, to the conviction that Christology lies at the
heart o f theology.
This conviction is underscored by a consideration o f the
creeds o f the early church. The Apostles’ Creed and, in
particular, the so-called Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum, as
other such credal statements o f the early church, are
dominated by the second article. At the same time, the
christological sections are intertwined with the first and third
articles o f the creeds. They therefore seem little more than
straightforward narratives o f the history o f revelation about
G od’s Son as contained in New Testament passages, beginning
with the pre-existence o f the ‘only begotten Son’ and
proceeding to tell o f his incarnation, his death on the cross,
and his resurrection and exaltation until the parousia and
final judgement. And yet, these apparently simple credal
texts reflect something o f later, more fully developed
trinitarian understanding, opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa
(see p. 276 below). The triune God - Father, Son and Holy
Spirit - is revealed in the world as the one God. Today, as many
are questioning this central Christian doctrine o f God -
allegedly because o f the growing dialogue with other
‘monotheistic religions’ - we do well to devote our attention to
the dynamic within New Testament Christology as it evolved
out o f its earliest beginnings into a full-blown belief in the
Foreword ix
triune God. In my opinion, this is a matter which determines

the extent to which, if at all, we can remain really Christian
theologians.
The essays collected in this volume mark an attempt to
trace, from various vantage points, the development o f the
earliest christological beliefs into the second article o f the
church’s creed. Here we are confronted by an (as yet)
unresolved theological problem which already surfaces in
Paul’s theology: how is God’s activity manifest through the Son
and how can the Son’s activity be identified with that o f the
Father? In Paul’s writings, our earliest Christian source, we are
already invited to think o f God in a way which is open to
trinitarian terms.
But this development in the understanding o f God and
Christ did not originate with Paul. It is ultimately rooted in
Jesus’ own self-understanding, his Tersongeheim nis’ . O f
course, what Jesus thought about himself is inaccessible to
our historical and pyschological curiosity. We can say,
however, that Jesus’ own proclamation contained quite a new
form o f ‘messianic’ claim which became visible and audible
through his activity. Moreover, Jesus’ closest followers, the
disciples, and thereafter the evangelists who were either
directly or indirectly dependent on them, unanimously
preserved the thrust o f this claim despite the sometimes great
theological differences among them. For the disciples, there
was no doubt that their master taught, ‘not as the scribes’ ,
but rather proclaimed ‘a new teaching in fullness o f power’
(Mark 1:22, 27). They were also convinced that in the
parables ‘ the mystery o f G od’s reign’ , previously only
known byjesus, had now been disclosed to them (Mark 4:11,
33-34). And further, they knew that Jesus’ healings and
exorcisms not only fulfilled the eschatological promises o f
the Old Testament prophets, but also demonstrated that
God’s heavenly and transcendent rule had now been made
tangible. Yes, in the prerogative o f divine power Jesus even
dared to offer forgiveness o f sins, that is - as Ernst Fuchs has
said - ‘ to act in place o f G od’ . It is no wonder that
in all four gospels, from Mark to John, those who observe
and hear Jesus are repeatedly made to ask a question which
X Studies in Early Christology
serves as a point o f departure for Christology: tiç ap a outoç

éoTiv, ‘Who is this one?’ (Mark 4:41). This question, which
has constantly been the subject o f dispute, continues as a vital
issue into the present day.
The high Christology o f the Fourth Gospel is already, at
least partially, foreshadowed in a number o f synoptic passages.
These include the saying about authority in the relationship
between the Father and Son,5 the temptation stories - both
from ‘ Q ’ - the parable o f the wicked tenants, the question
concerning the sonship o f David and lordship o f the
Messiah on the basis o f Psalm 110, and Jesus’ answer to the
high priest’s question in Mark. These are all passages whose
historical origins have been debated by modern exegetes.
The rise o f ‘historical-critical’ analysis has not, however, been
able to curb the prejudicial biases o f scholars with respect
to the historical figure o f Jesus and his divine mission, and
thus historical-critics cannot lay claim to an objectivity any
more than those who, in the ‘hey-day’ o f Protestant ortho
doxy, held that the written text itself possesses final authority.
In the end, the old ‘orthodox’ rationalism, which betrays
an ahistorical and fundamentalistic longing for security, and
modern forms o f rationalism, which seek to domesticate Jesus
in accordance with selfish interests and ideologies, are after
all in their roots not very different from one another.6 By
way o f contrast, we should first attempt to comprehend this
Jesus and the disciples’ message about him in all their
strangeness and unfamiliarity! The OKàvôaÀov xoC oxaupot)
o f the crucified Messiah is less understood today than in the
time o f Paul.
Since the religious Enlightenment in the second half o f
the eighteenth century up to our present time (most recently
especially in the English-speaking world), a bewildering
number o f books about Jesus have been produced. They
often only confirm the famous passage in Goethe’s Faust
5 Luke 10:21-22 = Matt. 11:25-27.

6O f course, this problem is much older, at times already encountered within
the early church; see the often overlooked, but instructive study by H. Merkel, Die
Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien und ihre apologetische Behandlung bis Augustin
(W UNT , 13; Tübingen, 1971).
Foreword xi
Was ihr den Geist der Zeiten heißt,

das ist im Grund der Herren eigner Geist,
in dem die Zeiten sich bespiegeln.
All too frequently, such works are neither a ‘real historical-

critical’ picture o f Jesus nor a theologically thoughtful
testimony o f the truth o f G od’s revelation in him. Beyond
history and faith they are often little more than products o f
sensational and profitable phantasy.
In contrast to the seemingly unending controversy over the
intention o f Jesus and his activity, it is striking that all four
gospels agree that, during Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem before
passover in a d 30, the disciples and other companions o f Jesus
respond to the question ‘Who is this one?’ in the same way;
they hail him - without any contravention from their master -
as a messianic pretender. Jesus’ subsequent behaviour in the
temple cleansing, in the controversy dialogues, and before the
high priest and Pilate seems to support their messianic inter
pretation o f him (though they may have been disappointed by
his outright and uncompromising way into passion) .Jesus does
acknowledge his messianic mission; but it is precisely because
o f this that he is arrested, accused, and, as a ‘messianic rabble-
rouser’ , put to death on a cross after a brief trial. He dies the
death both o f an unsuccessful deceiver o f the people and o f
one who is cursed according to the law.
Ever since W rede’s study o f the ‘messianic secret’7 and
especially due to the far-reaching influence wielded by Rudolf
Bultmann and his students, one has been prone to reject the
historicity o f Jesus’ messianic claims. As a result, despite occa
sional dissension, an ‘unmessianic’ Jesus has almost become a
communis opinio, particularly in Germany.
Such scepticism, which thrusts aside the unanimous
accounts o f the evangelists, comes at a high price. We can no
longer satisfactorily explain the rise o f christology among Jesus’
followers who banded together at Easter. An appeal to the
resurrection event does not solve anything. Not only is the
question o f what actually happened after Good Friday a matter
7 Willaim Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Göttingen, 1903, 3rd

ed., repr. 1963).
xii Studies in Early Christology
o f scholarly dispute, but also - more significantly for our

purposes and conveniently overlooked - there is no religio-
historical connection between the notion o f the resurrection
o f who has died and that one’s ascendancy to a messianic status.
The Easter appearances alone do not suffice as an explanation
for why the crucified one came to be recognized as the
Messiah, Son o f God, and Lord.
The somewhat bizarre attempts to shed light on the
inexplicable have only shown the extent to which such an
enterprise has been detoured into an impasse. In terms o f
religio-historical development, the discrepancy between
Pauline proclamation, which begins just two or three years
after Easter, and what radical criticism has imposed on the
‘historical Jesus’ on the basis o f the Synoptics remains an
unbridgeable gulf. There is no transparent means for tracing
a linear development from Jesus to Paul, that is, for
ascertaining how - to borrow a phrase o f Bultmann - ‘ the
proclaimer could become the proclaimed’ . At issue is whether
it is possible to discern an inner dynamic within the activity
and message o f the ‘proclaimer’ himself, the kernel o f some
thing which is qualitatively distinct from what we know o f other
‘proclaimers’ . We may ask, then, whether Jesus’ word and work
reflects not only an implicit, but also in nuce an explicit
Christology which reaches a first initial climax (and crisis)
when he died at passover in a d 30.
1. The first essay o f this volume, ‘Jesus, the Messiah o f
Israel’ , is concerned with the problem o f Jesus’ messianic
claim, beginning with Pauline Christology and working back
to the passion o f Jesus. This study represents an expanded
version o f three ‘Elizabeth James Lectures’ which I held at
the University o f Cardiff in the autumn o f 1991. As a whole,
the material presented in the lectures has not reached pub
lished form until now. The lectures, in turn, were derived
from a less extensive, one-hour version given as ‘Franz-
Delitzsch-Vorlesung’ on the centennial anniversary o f Franz
Delitzsch’s birth on 19 October 1990 in Münster and pre
sented again on 26 June 1991, before the philosophy-history
section o f the Heidelberg Academy o f Sciences. That
German lecture appeared in the Festschrift for David Flüsser
Foreword xiii
(in honour o f his 75th birthday) under the title Messiah and
Christos. Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity (TSAJ, 32;
Tübingen, 1992) pp. 155-70. As with most o f my larger studies,
this one has a relatively complicated history!
2. The essay o f chapter 2 is closely related to the first in its
focus, though the study is carried out under a different aspect.
Traces o f wisdom in Q and Mark (where its presence is less
conspicuous) do not stem from additions introduced into Jesus
tradition by a latter community - nowadays one frequently
speaks o f a ‘community Sitz im Leben' without, however,
possessing any real knowledge about the community or com
munities in question. These wisdom traditions, rather, go back
to critical comments expressed by Jesus himself in his
preaching. Together with the ‘son o f man’ tradition, they
constitute the beginnings o f what would become a pre
existence Christology in the post-Easter Palestinian com
munity. Perhaps the use o f Psalm 110:3, though infrequently
cited up until the time o f Justin Martyr (see pp. 127f. below),
may have played an additional role. Behind this study, the
earliest o f the present volume, is a lecture given in 1976 at a
colloquium in Strasburg; it was subsequently published in a
collection o f essays from the colloquium edited by E. Jacob
and entitled Sagesse et Religion. Colloque de Strasbourg (October
1976) (Paris, 1976), pp. 146-88.
3. The most extensive study o f this book, ‘Sit at My Right
Hand’ likewise originates from a Strasburg colloquium lecture,
this one held in September o f 1990. The written paper
underlying the lecture appeared in the 1991 Festschrift in
honour o f Ferdinand Hahn’s 65th birthday.8 It explores
the significance o f Psalm 110:1 for the development o f
Christology until the third century a d . Once an important
topic has captured one’s attention, it often leads to further
analysis, especially if it has been neglected in scholarship.
Thus, for the colloquium volume I expanded the study
considerably under the title ‘Setze dich zu meiner Rechten.
Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm
8 C. Breytenbach and H. Paulsen (eds), Anfänge der Christologie (Göttingen,

1991), pp. 43-73.
xiv Studies in Early Christology
110,1’ .9 Psalm 110:1 is o f fundamental significance for the

interpretation o f the earliest passages which speak o f the
resurrection and constitutes, at the same time, an important
starting-point for early Christology. Here, in a single statement,
God and Jesus are both thought to be addressed as ‘Lord’ ,
thereby catapulting the resurrected one into an almost
unprecedented proximity to God. This interpretation o f Psalm
110:1 is only exceeded by the Johannine corpus in John 1:18, a
statement which derives from wisdom tradition. The idea o f
Christ as one exalted to the status o f a primary angelic figure,
as we already find in Qumran texts or in the later Enoch/
Metatron tradition, is quite uncommon already in earliest
Christology because Christ is much nearer to God, his father,
than the angels. From the very beginning Christ sits to God’s
right, exalted above all the angels. How was this possible?
Beginning with the gnostics, Justin Martyr, and other intel
lectuals o f the early church trained in platonizing philosophy,
the anthropomorphic language o f Psalm 110 posed a piroblem,
since here God seemed to be conceived in spatial categories. A
further difficulty with the passage, as has also been demon
strated by Christoph Markschies in an article appearing in the
same colloquium volume,10 was that it was prone to be
misinterpreted as a reference to two gods seated on a hisellium,
that is, it came potentially close to a bitheism which threatened
the church’s confessional belief in one God. I have therefore
had relatively frequent occasion to refer to Markschies’ study.
4. In addition to Psalm 110:1 there are other ‘christological
psalms’ which contributed to the formation and development
o f earliest christological reflection; these include Psalms 2, 8,
16,22,69,89 and 118. Such psalms were chanted by the earliest
congregations as hymns to Christ and functioned as scriptural
proof-texts. They were supplemented by further Jewish-
Christian psalms composed under inspiration o f the Holy
Spirit, o f which examples may be found in the birth narrative
9 In M. Philonenko (ed.), Le Trône de Dieu (W UNT, 69; Tübingen, 1993), pp.
108-94.
10 ‘“Sessio ad dexteram”. Bemerkungen zu einem altchristlichen Bekenntnis
motiv in der christologischen Diskussion altkirchlicher Theologen’, in Trône de
Dieu, pp. 252-317.
Foreword xv
o f the Gospel o f Luke. These songs are heavily influenced by

the Psalter and prophetic passages o f the Old Testament. Most
o f the early Christian ‘Psalms’, which were primarily used to
interpret the significance o f Christ, were creations o f Greek
speaking missionary communities and thus bear a distinctive
character. In an inspired song o f poetry one would be more
likely to make bolder claims than in didactic prose. The
composition o f such psalms continued unbroken into the third
century a d ; thereafter the biblical parallelismus membrorum
fell into general disuse, gradually yielding to the Greek metre
form. In the New Testament this shift is not yet discernible.
The Spirit-inspired ‘Christ-psalm’ was an essential means for
the unfolding o f a high Christology, which may be traced back
to the earliest period. Within the New Testament this type o f
composition culminates in the Prologue o f the Gospel o f John.
My discussion, entitled ‘The Song about Christ in Earliest
Worship’ , focuses on this complex material, though such a
survey actually would have merited a full monograph-length
treat-ment. The basis for this chapter is, moreover, a paper
given at a Tübingen ‘Oberseminar’ organized by Günther
Zuntz and myself during the summer semester o f 1983. In its
current form, this study has appeared in the Festschrift for
Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger.11
5. Compared with the first four somewhat extensive over
views o f some basic questions o f Christology, the following two
are miniatures. ‘The Dionysiac Messiah’ focuses on a passage
long thought to be offensive by ‘orthodox’ and ‘liberal’
exegetes alike; David Friedrich Strauss characterized it as a
‘Luxuswunder’ . This chapter evolved from my lectures on
the Gospel o f John and was dedicated to the memory o f
that great Oxford exegete, George Bradford Caird.12
This masterpiece o f Johannine irony is often readily ascribed
to the so-called ‘Semeia source’ , which is nothing less than
an exegetical illusion. On the contrary, this passage is replete
with christological allusions which are only destroyed by
11 ‘Weisheit Gottes - Weisheit der Welt’, in vol. 1, Festschrift fü r Joseph Kardinal
Ratzinger, ed. by W. Baier et al. (St Ottilien, 1987), pp. 357-404.
12L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (eds), The Glory o f Christ in the New Testament,
Studies in Christology in Memory o f George Bradford Caird (Oxford, 1987), pp. 83-112.
xvi Studies in Early Christology
incompetent attempts at source-critical analysis. Standing at

the beginning o f the gospel, the pericope is o f paradigmatic
significance for the whole. An analysis o f the story too tends to
drive the old, but still maintained, distinction between
‘Judaism’ and ‘Hellenism’ ad absurdum by attributing to Jesus
the Messiah ‘Dionysian traits’, traits which, however, are also
frequently encountered in Jewish midrashic interpretation o f
Exodus and concerning the Messiah.
6. ‘The Kingdom o f Christ in John’ goes back to a paper
delivered as part o f a lecture series in Tübingen which
addressed the problem o f the state and religion. In a more
extensive form, it was later published in Theologische
Beiträge.™ No writing o f the New Testament emphasizes the
kingship o f Christ as much as the Fourth Gospel. This motif
is at the same time, represented as a paradox; it unfolds
within the passion narrative, reaching its climax in 19:30, the
last word o f the dying Saviour. A representative passage
containing the theme occurs in the encounter with Pontius
Pilate in which Jesus, in a revolutionary manner, is made to
pronounce an end to the ‘ theocratic ideal’ o f antiquity and
to reject every form o f a political theology. Corresponding to
the evangelist’s understanding o f the unity o f revelation
coming from the Father and Son, it becomes apparent that the
‘kingdom o f Christ’ in the dialogue with Pilate contains one
and the same subject as the ‘kingdom o f God’ mentioned in
Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John 3. Consequently,
this kingdom involves a ‘reign which is not o f this world’ , which
from now on is to characterize how the young church defines
itself in its conflicts with political power.
7. The final - and summarizing - study on ‘Christological
Titles in Early Christianity’ derives from a contribution to a
Tübingen lecture series on divine names. The lecture was,
again, substantially altered and expanded and, in its present
form, was delivered in 1987 at a symposium on the Messiah at
Princetown Theological Seminary.14 Its point o f departure is
13 ‘Reich Christ, Reich Gottes und das Weltreich im vierten Evangelium,’ TheolBtr
4 (1983) 201-16; see also M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer (eds), Königsherrschaft
Gottes und himmlischer Kult (WUNT, 55; Tübingen, 1991), pp. 163-84.
Foreword xvii
the earliest preserved Roman witness to Christians, Pliny’s

letter to Trajan, which states that in worship the Christians were
known Christo quasi Deo carmen dicere. Significantly, this comes
close to the claim made at the beginning o f the Johannine
Prologue: ‘and God was the word’ . The unprecendented fact
that a crucified Jew was predicated as ‘God’ may be traced
all the way back to the Pauline hymn in Philippians 2:6-11.
This development reflects what may be called the ‘riddle o f
Christology’ which, in turn, forms the basis for christological
thought in the period o f the early church. Historically, and
theologically, it is founded upon the self-understanding
( ‘Persongeheimnis’ ) o f Jesus as well as upon the early com
munities’ belief in his atoning death and exaltation. This
‘riddle o f Christology’ has its ultimate inception in the person
o f Jesus conceived in its two-fold sense: as the teacher o f the
disciples who was crucified as a messiah, on the one hand, and
as the exalted Lord o f the earliest community, on the other.
Just as them, and as already for Mark, so also we find ourselves
confronted by the question, ‘Who is this one?’ .
It is no less than astonishing how Paul, Mark (in the tradition
o f Peter) and John - despite sometimes considerable differ
ences - tend to answer this question in the same way. Their
respective answers set Christology well on its way to the
church’s confession o f the triune God. Today ‘evangelical
churches’ [because all Protestant Churches in Germany are
called ‘evangelical’ ; this is not possible without keeping firmly
to the ‘truth o f the Gospel’ (cf. Gal. 2:5-14)] must ask them
selves whether they want to remain ‘evangelical’ , that is,
whether they want to be churches which are committed to the
‘ euangeliori the one gospel attested by Paul, Mark and John as
the centre o f their message (cf. 1. Cor. 15:11). The alternative
would be a programme leading to a diffuse, moralizing and
accommodating world religion with deistic or pantheistic
dimensions, according to which Jesus is no more than one
great moral teacher among others (something which, in my
opinion, he never was to begin with). If we choose this option,
14 In J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah. Developments in Earliest Judaism and
Christianity. The First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins
(Minneapolis, 1992), pp. 425-48.
xviii Studies in Early Christology
then any effort to consider the unity o f God and humanity in

the person o f Jesus is rendered pointless. The christological
belief which until now has united the largest church
confessions would then be little more than a rubric o f the
past, and the controversy surrounding ‘ the myth o f God
incarnate’ - which has raged within Protestant Christianity
since thé Enlightenment and in 1977 became the title o f a
book - would merely be a matter o f trivia. What I mean,
however, is that no greater thought has been conceived than
that o f the one God who, for the salvation o f all, became a
human being in Jesus o f Nazareth and who gave his life for
all. The expression ûnèp fjpwv in early tradition preserves
this understanding and helped transform what the earliest
witnesses attested into the message o f the gospel. We need
not be apprehensive about applying the predicate ‘mythical’
since by definition it is indispensible to human language when
it refers to God; it is appropriate when attempting - the
humanly impossible work - to speak o f the mystery o f God’s
love for his lost creature, that is, o f God’s radical kenosis (Phil.
2:7). Our descriptions o f God’s activity are at best approxi
mations o f what can only be discerned ôi’ eoom pou év
aiviypaxi (1 Cor. 13:12), as something veiled within the
confines o f history; ‘seeing face to face’ is for us a promise
intended for the future (Paul uses the term xoxe). In our
reflection about the beginnings o f Christian faith, i.e. about
the path that brought Jesus the Jew from the manger to the
cross and from the incarnation to the ‘sitting
at the right hand o f God’, there is another fitting response.
At the conclusion o f Paul’s exhortation for the collection in
2 Corinthians 9:15 we read: \apic; xco 0£(p ém xf\ àveKÔuiyqxcp
auxoü ôcopect, ‘Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!’
During the process o f translation several o f these studies
underwent minor corrections and expansions. This occurred,
for instance, as effort was made to include the newly available
material from Qumran.
My thanks go to the publishers for their efforts at bringing
this book to press, as well as to the translators Professor Rollin
Kearns (chapters 3 and 4), Mr Paul Cathey (chapters 1, 2,
6, 7), Mr Gerhard Schmidt (chapter 5) and Dr Loren
Foreword xix
Stuckenbruck (Foreword). Finally, I would like to thank Dr

Anna Maria Schwemer and Mr Johannes Zimmermann for
their advice and help.
I dedicate this volume in deep gratitude to Charles Kingsley
Barrett, who has been a bridge-builder between British and
German scholarship in the New Testament.
August 1994
M a rtin H e n g e l
1
Jesus, the Messiah of Israel

1. Xpioxoç in Paul
Paul, the earliest Christian author, whose oldest extant letter

to the churches in Thessalonica was composed some twenty
years after the crucifixion o f Jesus, gives this same Jesus the
name Xpioxoç 270 times in his seven genuine letters; this is
more than half o f all occurrences in the New Testament. The
compound name ’Iqooûç Xpioxoç, or its variation Xpioroç
’Iqooüç, occurs 109 times. In all these cases Xpioxoç is used as
a true name - a few texts may retain, at most, a glimmer o f its
titular use in the sense o f IT’CtfD, ‘The Anointed O ne’ . For
Paul and his community, the name Tqooüç Xpioxoç has
completely absorbed in certain respects the title ô Xpioxoç,
‘The Anointed O ne’ - there is only one Xpioxoç, this very
Jesus who was crucified. Thus, already in the earliest Christian
texts, he has no other name than ’Irjooûç Xpioxoç, and in
theological exchanges Paul can pointedly add: ‘who was
crucified’ , ô êoxaupcopévoç (Gal. 3:1; 1 Cor. 1:23,2:2). Already
in the first literary witness the title has become fully a part o f
the name, and thus Paul frequently speaks not o f ‘Jesus’ , but o f
ô Xpioxoç.
In Paul’s Bible, the LXX, the situation is very different.
There the verbal adjective xpioxoç, formed from xpio), anoint,
translates rPE?D, the Anointed One, some thirty-seven times,
and this not in the absolute, but generally connected with a
genitive object: God, Lord, or a possessive pronoun referring
to God. Notwithstanding the few texts where xpioxoç signifies
the anointed priest, it refers to the king o f Israel as Yahweh’s
1
2 Studies in Early Christology
Anointed, in particular, the first two kings, Saul and David. In

addition the word appears as an appellation o f the Israelite
king in the acclamation and supplication o f the Psalms.
It must also be noted that, for a Greek, xpioroq referring to
a person would have been meaningless. Such a usage will have
communicated something like ‘ [he] who has been smeared’ ,
but this never occurs in a personal sense. The neutral xpioxov
meant ‘rubbing ointment’ , and veoxpioxoç, ‘newly plastered’ .1
The title Xpioxôç as a proper name was so unusual that, non-
Jews confused it, by itacism, with the common slave name
Xpqoxoç, as does Suetonius in his well-known remark on the
reign o f Claudius. Tacitus likewise, in his account o f the
Neronian persecution, calls the Christians Chrestiani That
even the Jew Josephus refers to James as xöv à Ô £ À (j)ô v xoö
Àeyopévou Xpioxoö (Ant. 20.200), using the name for Jesus
known to his Graeco-Roman readers, shows how completely
Xpioxôç had become a proper name.
Suetonius’ note indicates the use o f the proper name Christos
in the Christian community at Rome during the 40s. The des
cription o f the Christians at Antioch as Xpioxiavoi likewise
presupposes the intensive use o f Xpioxoc; as a name, and
according to Luke, began there already ca. a d 35-40 (see
below, pp. 7ff.). This means that within an amazingly brief
period Christians changed the title Xpioxôç into a name and
thereby usurped it for the exclusive use o f their Lord, Jesus o f
Nazareth.
Accordingly, we find several times (chiefly in Paul) , with
some variations, the formula Xpioxôç ûnèp qpcov ànéGavev
(Rom. 5:8, cf. 5:6; 14:9, 15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:15;
1 Thess. 5:10; Gai. 2:21; 1 Pet. 3:18). We can still discern in this
formula traces o f the originally titular meaning, even though
it no longer retains a direct significance for Paul; for at the
centre o f the primitive Christian message - at once offensive
and salvific - was this: it was the sinless Messiah, the
eschatological emissary and saviour - not merely a suffering
righteous man or prophet - who sacrificed his life ‘for the
many’ , that is, for all. Hence Paul’s recurring protestation that
1Liddell/Scott/Jones, 1170.
Jesus, the Messiah of Israel 3
the substance o f his proclamation is ‘ [the] Christ crucified’ .

This can be balanced with the resurrection formula, which
occurs almost as frequendy in Paul and later authors, ‘ God
raised Jesus from the dead’ , that is, the man Jesus, not some
ethereal, semi-divine figure. Further, it is probable that the
bipartite form o f the name, the familiar ’Iqooüç Xpioxoq,
as well as the Xpioxoç ’Iqoooç preferred by Paul, were origin
ally formulaic confessions before they became set as names:
’Irjooüç XpiOTÔç derives from an Aramaic KrPE?Q
Jesus the Messiah, whereas Xpioxoç ’Iqooüç originally was
probably used analogously to the cry o f acclamation, KÛpioç
’Iqooüç.
That Paul was perfecdy acquainted with the Old Testament-
Jewish conceptions bound up with the messianic name ’Iqoouç
Xpioxoç (although an appositive-titular usage no longer occurs
in his writings), can be seen from any number o f texts. Thus,
the reference to Jesus’ descent ek onéppaxoç Aainô Kaxà
aapKa (Rom. 1:3f.). The appointment to ‘Son o f God in power
. . . by his resurrection from the dead’ which follows, means
nothing other than the effective, powerful installation o f the
resurrected Jesus in the fullness o f his messianic power. On the
basis o f 2 Sam. 7; Ps. 2; Ps. 89, and 1 Chr. 17:13, the Messiah
could also be described as ‘God’s Son’ , and for Christians this
title quickly became more important than the earlier formal
and ambiguous Xpioxoç, because it connected him, who had
taught them to call upon God with Abba, ‘dear Father’ ,
uniquely with God himself, him who by his resurrection had
been exalted to the right hand o f God as sharer o f his throne.
The Davidic descent o f Jesus - which Paul, in an ancient
formula, presupposes to be well known as a matter o f course
even by the Roman Christians - probably derives from a
tradition in the family o f Jesus attested by Hegesippus and
Julius Africanus. Such claims were frequently found in the
Jerusalem o f Jesus’ day. In 1971 an ossuary was discovered there
with the inscription ‘o f the house o f David’ , T H *0
with the names Shallum (?) and Chanan.
2 D. Flusser, ‘“The House o f David” on an Ossuary’, Israel Museum Journal 5
(1986), 37-40; L. Y. Jewish Ossuaries in the State of Israel, Museum, Collection,
1991, No. 430.
For Paul, Jesus was the Messiah o f Israel promised in the

‘Scriptures’ . This can be seen not only from Rom. l:lff., but
also from the rehearsal o f the salvation-historical privileges o f
Israel (Rom. 9:3-5):
. . . my kinsmen by race . . . are Israelites, and to them belong the
sonship, the glory, the covenants... the worship, and the promises
. . . , the patriarchs, and of their racey according to theflesh, is [the]3
Christ.
The promises, particularly those made to the patriarchs, and
the descent o f Christ from Israel form a climax to the con
clusion o f this series. For Paul it is a self-evident fact that Christ
is the Messiah promised to Israel - to be sure his salvific work,
as already attested in the promises given to the fathers, and to
the prophets, has universal significance. A. Schlatter’s remark
regarding Jesus himself describes the final, barrier-bursting
resolution o f Paul’s understanding o f Christ:
For Jesus, there was never a contradiction between being sent to
the people [o f Israel], and being sent to mankind. In believing
that whatever happened for Israel was also done for the world and
possessed universal significance, he simply thought as an Israelite.
Because Israel alone among the peoples o f the earth is the
community called o f God, that which comes upon her has universal
importance.4
Because the God o f Israel is also the God o f the Gentiles

who will justify both, Jews and pagans, groups o f people
through faith alone (Rom. 3:30), the salvific work o f Christ
also has universal significance. This fact is so self-evident that
he no longer needs to develop it expressis verbis. This certainly
forms one o f the pillars o f his apostleship to the Gentiles. At
the end o f Romans (15:7ff.) he treats this very question in
passing: weak and strong, that is, Christians from Jews and
Gentiles in Rome, ought to welcome one another
3 The RSV translates ô Xpiotoç here as a title, and indeed this deserves
consideration - it almost improves the sense. However, since Paul nowhere else
uses the word as a title it is better to render it here as the name.
4A. Schlatter, ‘Der Zweifel an der Messianität Jesu’, BFChTh 11/7 (1907), 39
(= idem, ‘Zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments und zur Dogmatik’, in Kleine
Schriften, 77? 41, Münich, 1969, p. 175).
as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory o f God. For I tell you
that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s
truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the
patriarchs.. . .
With this Xpioxöv ôiaxovov yeyevqoöai iï8pixojjif|ç Paul

refers to the ‘messianic ministry’ o f the earthlyjesus to his own
people, through which the truth o f G od’s promises to the
patriarchs (and later to the prophets) becomes manifest: God
has promised nothing in the messianic prophecy o f Scripture
that he does not keep (cf. Rom. ll:2 8 f.). On the other hand,
the ‘Gentiles” access to salvation in Christ results from his
free mercy, and for this reason they ought to give God the
glory: xà ôè £0vq ûnèp éÀéouç öol;äoaixöv Geöv (15:9a). This
means that eiç ööâv xoû öeoö (15:7c; see above) includes both
Jews and Gentiles. It is the goal and final point o f Pauline,
indeed o f all proper, theology.
How very conscious Paul is o f the actual meaning in
the name Xpioxôç - which implies G od’s acting on, and
with, Jesus - can be seen in the word play o f 2 Cor. 1:21. This
also is entirely within the context o f the Old Testament
promises: ‘For the “Yes” to all God’s promises are in him’ ,5that
is:
In Christ all the promises o f God, however many, have been

realized, the promises o f blessing to Abraham . . . , the promise o f
the Messiah and his kingdom . . . , o f the New Covenant. . . , o f the
Servant o f God, who bears the sins o f the many . . . , and the
promise o f the Son o f Man and his ultimate victory over the
powers at enmity with God.6
To this ‘Yes’ , manifest in Christ in the fulfilment o f all

promises, the believing community answers with the con
firming Amen ‘ to the glory o f God’ (xco Oscp npoç ööâv). Paul
continues (v. 21):
ô ôè ßsßaiwv qjiâç oùv ùjilv eiç Xpioxöv Kai xpfoaç Qeoç, à

Kai o^payioàpsvoç qpâç Kai ôoùç xöv appaßcova xoö nvsupaxoç
év xaïç Kapôiaiç qjxôv.
5 As formulated by F. Lang, Die Briefe an die Korinther, N T D 7 (Göttingen, 1986).

(i Ibid., p. 259.
Except for a slight alteration, I follow Lietzmann’s rendering

o f this disputed text:
But it is God who has established us with you [together] in Christ,
and has anointed us; and he has sealed us and given us the earnest
o f the Spirit.7
The verb xpieiv appears only here in Paul; elsewhere in the
New Testament we find it only in Luke (Luke 4:18 = Isa. 61:1;
Acts 4:27; 10:39) and Hebrews (1:9 = Ps. 45:8) for the messianic
anointing o f Jesus, and two occurrences are in a single
Scripture citation. Paul might easily have avoided using this
(for him) unusual word since, as do the following participles,
it refers to the gift o f the Spirit; he uses it to show the
connection between those ‘anointed’ with God’s Spirit and
him who is the ‘Christos’ , that is, the Anointed par excellence.
Just as the Son makes believers sons o f God, that he might be
the first born among many brothers, just as the Lord and Judge
gives them participation in his reign and judgement, even so
he gives them a share in the Anointing o f the Spirit. To be
sure, whereas they receive only the ‘earnest’ o f the Spirit, the
XptOTÔç is thoroughly imbued with, and determined by, the
divine pneuma. This is already true for the earthly Jesus, for he
alone ‘knew no sin’ (2 Cor. 5:20), and he alone could be sent
from the Father êv ôpoicopaxi oapKÔç otpapTiaç, and his
atoning death break the power o f death, sin (Rom. 8:3f.), and
by his ‘act o f righteousness’ offer to all men the justification
leading to eternal life (Rom. 5:18).
An adoptionist christology, first valid via the resurrection,
was an impossible idea for Paul. This can be seen not only in
Paul’s pre-existence and ‘mission’ christology, but also in that
the earthly Jesus, that is, the Crucified, already speaks as the
Kyrios (1 Cor. 7:10; 9:14; 1 Thess. 4:15); it is also apparent in
the ‘biographical’ account o f an episode from the life o f Jesus,
the relating o f the institution o f the Lord’s Supper: in the last
night, he dedicates the fruits o f his death to his disciples and
makes them members o f the New Covenant. That is, already
before his death, as Kyrios with ‘messianic authority’ , he
promises them full eschatological salvation (1 Cor. ll:2 3 ff.).
7 H. Lietzmann, Korintherbriefe, HNT, p. 102.

To be sure, it may appear to be historically insignificant that

Paul (o f whom it is at least possible that he knew o f Jesus, albeit
at a distance, during his lifetim e), after his conversion,
regarded the earthlyJesus to be the promised Messiah o f Israel.
However, we should remember here that Paul’s conversion was
separated from the event by a relatively brief period o f some
two or three years, and that as a young Pharisee scribe he
probably resided in Jerusalem during the very period o f those
critical years before and after a d 30 when the controversy over
the messiahship o f Jesus arose and, as a persecutor, ‘knew
Christ according to the flesh’ (2 Cor. 5:16).
He holds in common with all the gospels the certainty that
Jesus was the Messiah o f Israel promised in Scripture. Even in
John, Jesus acquires his first disciples because they recognize
and confess him to be the Messiah o f Israel (1:41, 45, 49),
indeed, the gospel is written ‘ that you might believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son o f God . . .’ (20:30f.)
Here the question necessarily arises: ‘Does this confession
o f Jesus as Messiah o f Israel have anything to do with the real
person o f Jesus, his ministry and death, or is it confined merely
to its “later influence” [Wirkungsgeschichte] in the post-Easter
communities’? (This question has all too often been negatively
answered, especially in Germany in the ninety years since the
appearance o f W rede’s book, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den
Evangelien [see below, pp. 15ff.]).
2. The Pre-Pauline Tradition and

the Resurrection o f Jesus
If the original title XpiOTÔç already occurs as an established

cognomen o f Jesus fully as a matter o f course in Paul, our
earliest Christian author, so that it frequently replaces the
name Jesus in his letters, when did this conversion take place
which inseparably fused the title to the name o f Jesus? In my
opinion it happened already early on in the movement o f the
Gospel from the Aramaic into the Greek language sphere.
According to Acts 11:26 the young Jewish messianic sect was
already called Xpioxiavoi in Antioch, and this apparently soon
after the establishment o f the community, still prior to a d 41
when Agrippa I acceded as king o f all Judaea. The analogy

between this appellation and other names provided by the
Roman authorities for person-oriented political groups, such
as Caesariani, Pompeiani, or even ‘Hpcoôiavoi, suggests that its
origin is probably Roman. This presupposes, however, that
Xpioxoç was already at that time the pre-eminent designation
for Jesus. The term Trjoouiavoi is nowhere to be found. The
Jewish designation for the Christians as NaÇoopaïoi or
Naâpqvoi (Heb., CnX13 ) is based on the founder’s city o f
origin: the intent was to avoid using the accursed name o f
Accordingly, relatively soon after the second half o f
the first century, the name disappears in Judaism, although
prior to this it had been fairly popular. Presumably, the
confession formula Jesus is the Messiah’ (Ki"PtÖD PIET1;
Iq oo û ç [ô] Xpioxoç), by virtue o f constant use, gave rise
(automatically, as it were) to a permanent name both among
Christians, who thereby emphasized that only one could bear
this name, and their Gentile auditors, who were not par
ticularly conversant with the language o f Jewish piety.
This also means, however, that this confession was
fundamental to the earliest community in Jerusalem, whether
the Aramaic-speaking ‘ Hebrews’ , or the Greek-speaking
‘Hellenists’ . The persecution o f the early church in Jerusalem
as reported in Acts 4-8, including the stoning o f Stephen and
Saul’s activity as persecutor, was directly connected with this
confession o f Jesus o f Nazareth as the crucified Messiah whom
God had raised from the dead. When Stephen is charged with
saying that Jesus would destroy the Temple and change the
Law o f Moses, he appeals to the expected judgement which is
to be conducted by Jesus as the coming Messiah-Son o f Man.
This statement, however, probably already owes some o f its
content to words uttered with messianic authority by Jesus
himself. The bitterness shown by the Sadducean leaders
towards the new sect was engendered by the new unrest stem
ming from the Galilean followers o f this Jesus, who, although
he had been delivered as a blasphemer and seditionist to the
Romans and thus to the accursed death o f crucifixion, were
now proclaiming him to be raised by God and enthroned at
his right hand. It was necessary to oppose with violence such
detestable messianic fanaticism. That the followers o f this (so

questionable) ‘ Messiah’ were not persecuted even more
fiercely, is evidence o f a relatively tolerant attitude in Jerusalem
towards apocalyptic and enthusiastic groups. Luke’s depiction
in Acts 2-5 o f this unique Jerusalem milieu is ‘woodcut-like’ in
its simplification, but graphic nonetheless.
There exists an inseparable connection between the appear
ances o f Jesus, which established the new messianic community
o f disciples, and the proclamation o f the crucified Messiah
by the messengers whom he himself authorized, the anooroAoi
( ’Iqooü) XpiOTOü (1 Cor. 1:1; cf. 2 Cor. 1:1; 11:13; Eph.
2:1; Col. 1:1). The Resurrected O n e’s commission o f his
messengers is a part o f the orginal event by which the com
munity was established.
There is no proof whatever (contra Becker, Schmithals, et a l)
that in the beginning the confession ‘God raised Jesus from
the dead’ stood alone - the appearances o f Jesus being
understood merely as the beginning o f the general resur
rection - and only after a secondary level o f reflection (for
which Peter is alleged to be responsible), was the Resurrected
One proclaimed as the Messiah. How are we to suppose this to
have happened? Did Peter (?), perhaps after a long, vain wait
for the general resurrection, ‘discover’ the messiahship ofjesus
as a makeshift solution to the dilemma? Were the beginnings
o f early Christianity based on a twofold self-deception?
Nor is there any justification for F. Hahn’s supposition that
the disciples at first understood the resurrection ofjesus to be
no more than the translation o f the Son o f Man; the title
‘Messiah’, Hahn alleges, did not occur until later in connection
with the idea ofjesus’ exaltation. According to Dan. 7:13 LXX,
the Similitudes o f (1) Enoch, 4 Ezra 13 and rabbinic-tannaitic
sources, Son o f Man and Messiah were already identified by
the time ofjesus (see above, pp. 58ff.). Instead, the certainty
that Jesus’ resurrection also meant his exaltation as Messiah-
Son o f Man (or Son o f God) to the right hand o f God were a
direct consequence o f the appearances; for the commissioning
o f the disciples as messengers o f the Messiah, and the giving o f
the Spirit, were connected with these. The disciples’ task was
to proclaim the crucified and resurrected Jesus as the Messiah
o f Israel, and thereby to offer the people a final opportunity

for repentance. The coming Messiah and Lord was
proclaimed, whereas the ambiguous cipher ‘Son o f Man’ ,
which stems from Jesus himself (see below, pp. 60ff.), was not
used kerygmatically. The prodigal use o f (’Iip oü ç) Xpioxôç in
Acts, Revelation, and all the epistles stands over against the
phenomenon that here the Son o f Man fades fully into the
background. Apart from Acts 7:56, uloç àvOpconou -
anarthrous - appears only three times in Old Testament
citations (Heb. 2.6 = Ps. 8:5; Acts 1:13 and 14:14 = Dan. 7:13).
Furthermore, in contrast to Xpioxôç, it never appears on the
lips o f the disciples or the people; it occurs only in the words o f
Jesus. The single exception isJohn 7:34, where the people take
up a saying o f Jesus and, significantly, identify Xpioxôç and
uioç xou avOpconou. The striking pre-eminence o f the Christ
name (or title) in the letters, that is, outside the gospels, in
which the linguistic usage o f the earthly Jesus has left more
trace than is commonly recognized, can only be explained if
from the beginning - indeed, especially at the beginning- it was
fundamental for the post-Easter community.
The reason the ’Irjooüç Xpioxôç (or Xpioxôç Iq ooû ç)
became so early, so completely, so self-evidently, and so
pervasively, the compound name for Jesus o f Nazareth, is
because this formula was above all the basic confession for
the resurrected Jesus: ‘Jesus is the Messiah’ (see above, pp.
3ff.). Thus, God’s acting on and through this Messiah Jesus
was also the content o f the earliest post-Easter proclamation o f
the messengers.
The ancient confession, ‘God raised Jesus from the dead’ ,
only became a meaningful part o f the proclamation because it
originally stood beside the confession ‘Jesus is the Messiah’ .
The mere revivification o f a person or, as the case may be, his
translation into the heavenly realm, establishes neither
messianic majesty nor eschatological mission, nor could it, o f
itself, supply the content o f a message o f salvation ( m i t o
iT D D = euayyeAiov).
Another phenomenon also sheds light on this: the
completely different (in some respects overlapping and
supplementing) formula ‘Christ died for us’ finds itself in
company with the statement concerning the raising o f Jesus.

1 Cor. 15:3f. shows that the Jerusalem church had already
combined into a compound formula this confession-like
statement and the resurrection confession. This later forms the
basis o f Paul’s gospel and, by his own report ( 1 Cor. 15:11), was
the original ‘Jerusalem confession’ that formed the bedrock
for the proclamation o f Cephas, the Twelve, James, and all the
Apostles.
Does this mean then that in the eyes o f the disciples Jesus
became Messiah only after God’s act o f raising him from the
dead, that is, that - in opposition to the clear verdict o f all four
gospels - the earthly Jesus had no messianic consciousness o f
his divine mission, or possessed no messianic authority?
Here it is popular to refer to two ‘adoptionist’ statements,
Rom. l:3f. and Acts 2:36. However, Rom. 1:4 does not say that
the Son possessed no messianic claim prior to the resurrection;
indeed, this is already alluded to with the 8K oneppaxoç Aainô
Kaxà aàpKa. Rather, this is referring to the enthronement o f
the Son o f God êv Suvdpei, that is, in his fu ll eschatological
majesty and power at the right hand o f God (cf. 8:34). Nor is it
legitimate to divine from a hypothetical, simpler, preliminary
christological phase that Jesus was not Messiah and Son o f
God prior to the resurrection, and possessed no messianic
consciousness. This is valid for Acts 2:36: ào<j)aÀG)<; ouv
yiyvcooKexo) ncxç oikoç ’IoparjÀ öxi Kai Kupiov auxöv Kai
Xpioxöv ên0Û]0 £v ô Oeoç, xoöxov xöv ’Iqooöv öv ûpeîç
èoxaupcooaxe. Here Peter proclaims to the Jews gathered in
Jerusalem for the Feast o f Pentecost this same crucified Jesus
o f Nazareth to be the Messiah o f Israel, invested with his right
o f lordship. This text - probably formulated by Luke himself -
expresses not an adoptionist christology, but a radical volte-
face o f the ‘powers that be’ : God made him who had been
delivered up by the leaders o f the people for crucifixion as an
alleged criminal on the accursed tree to be ‘Lord and
Anointed’ ; that is, he installed him in his eschatological office
as the God-anointed ‘Lord’ and ‘J udge’ . In the same context
(2:34), Ps. 110:1 is cited, and it is said that he is ‘exalted to the
right hand o f G od’ (2:33; cf. 30). This is similar to the
statement in the resurrected Jesus’ final address to his eleven
disciples (Matt. 28:18f.), which in its turn is oriented on Dan.

7:14: ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to
m e . .. and lo, I am with you always, to the close o f the age.’ For
Luke, the ‘kingly rule’ o f the Messiah Jesus over his people is
already expressed in the angel’s announcement to Mary (Luke
l:32f.). And although he emphasizes in the gospel itself - in
contrast to Matthew and John - the prophetic rather than the
kingly characteristics, he has no doubt whatever thatJesus, with
his miraculous conception, is the Messiah o f Israel. We, with
our analytical thinking, are gready occupied by a meticulous
differentiation suggested by the various functions o f Teacher
and Prophet, Son o f Man and Son o f God, the Anointed One,
Saviour, Lord, and King. Luke - even as the other evangelists -
is little concerned with this. Much more important for them
all is (each with his own accent) the supplementing
accumulation, or perhaps the complementary balance, o f
functions and titles. That an adoptionist christology in the
fullest sense - that is, in which Jesus is not regarded as the
Messiah until his Passion, this first being established through
the resurrection - ever existed in early Christianity seems to
me more than doubtful.
Jewish Religionsgeschichte presents an additional problem. To
be sure, we have accounts o f the translation o f certain
righteous men, and we hear also o f isolated instances o f
resurrection. But that a righteous man via resurrection from
the dead is appointed as Messiah, is absolutely without analogy.
Neither resurrection nor translation have anything to do with
messiahship. Indeed, the suffering righteous man attains a
place o f honour in Paradise or Heaven, or in certain circum
stances in the very presence o f God, but there is never any
question o f messianic majesty and the transfer o f escha-
tological functions in this connection. Enoch and Elijah are
exceptions, but then death and resurrection are not part o f
their tradition: God translated them alive (cf. Josephus, Ant.
9.28). At most one might mention the identification o f Enoch
with the Son o f Man in 1 En. 71, but in the Similitudes o f the
Ethiopie Enoch no trace at all is found o f suffering and death,
despite certain references to the Servant o f God in Deutero-
Isaiah (see below, pp. 35ff.). The entire religio-historical
problem has already been discussed in extenso by Johannes

Weiss in the dispute with Wrede and his followers. Since it is
occasionally good to be reminded o f what has almost been
forgotten I will cite the entire passage. Discussing the ‘religio-
historical meaning o f the belief in the exaltation o f Jesus’ , he
says:
It repeatedly strikes us that the disciples did not draw from the
appearances the bare conclusion, ‘he lives’ , but that they
immediately progressed to the other deduction: he is therefore
(indeed) the Messiah (Acts 2:36). We do not see from the thing
itself why Jesus’ messiahship necessarily followed his resurrection
or revivification. When a dead man appears to his own, they will
probably at first conclude nothing other than that the departed
lives, and that, despite the separation, he is near them. Especially
where the resurrection from the grave stands at the fore o f
reflection, nothing more suggests itself than the conclusion that
the power o f death has been overcome; Hades could not hold him:
it is, in and o f itself, no proof o f messianic dignity. It is otherwise
the place where he who been exalted to heavenly glory has
appeared. There it is probable that the glory o f this picture could
awaken more elevated ideas. However, even the exaltation still does
not prove messiahship. According to Jewish belief, Moses, Elijah,
and Isaiah were also taken up into Heaven; the same expression
(àvdÀqijnç, assumtio |>’c]) is used for them as for Jesus (Luke
9:51), yet no one thinks o f messiahship or kingship in connection
with them. Concerning Jesus it is always ‘exalted to the right hand
o f God’ (Acts 2:33); Ps. 110:1 is applied to him: ‘Sit at my right
hand’; and he is described as the throne companion o f God (Rev.
3:21) who has been ‘crowned with glory and honour’ (Heb. 2.7).
That this conviction immediately breaks forth as spontaneous can
only be explained if, within the oldest circle o f disciples, the
Messiah question already stood completely in the foreground,
before the death o f Jesus.8
In the resurrection accounts in the gospels, and Paul as well,

the explicit Messiah confession never stands at the centre; it is
nowhere said that the disciples (only) now recognized and
confessed Jesus as the Anointed o f Israel. The accounts are
concerned with the recognition o f Jesus’ identity as the one
whom God had raised (and transformed), the overcoming o f
8 J. Weiss, Das Urchristententum (Göttingen, 1917), p. 22.
doubt, the giving o f the Spirit, and the commissioning o f the

disciples.
I f Jesus never possessed a messianic claim o f divine mission,
rather sternly rejected every third-hand question in this regard,
if he neither spoke o f the coming, or present, ‘Son o f Man’ ,
nor was executed as a messianic pretender and alleged king
o f the Jews - as is maintained with astonishing certainty
by radical criticism unencumbered by historical arguments -
then the emergence o f christology, indeed, the entire early
history o f primitive Christianity, is completely baffling, nay,
incomprehensible. But this is not all - all four gospels, and
above all the Passion narrative as their most ancient
component, would be a curious product o f the imagination
very difficult to explain, for the Messiah question is at the
centre o f them all. If Mark 1-10 stands under the rubric o f the
‘messianic secret’ , the remainder o f the gospel, following the
Entry into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1—11), dissolves this step by
step. Is this no more than a construct o f the novelistic art
and christological imagination o f the Evangelist? With regard
to christology, are not the gospels also a part o f the
Religionsgeschichte derived from the Jewish heritage?
When all is said and done: if the eleven disciples with Peter
at their head, on the basis o f appearances o f the resurrected
Jesus so difficult for us to comprehend, and completely
unprompted, reached the view that Jesus was the Son o f Man
exalted to God, knowing that in reality he had been merely a
simple proclaimer o f the imminent kingdom o f God, a rabbi
and a prophet, knowing nothing at all o f eschatological offices,
dignities and tides, did they not then completely falsify the
pure (and so unmythologically modern sounding) intention
o f their master? Does the Christian faith then not rest on a
grandiose self-deception? Is it not the case that not only Judas,
but also the disciples, wallowing in messianic mythology against
their master’s will, were - viewed historically - at bottom
betrayers o f Jesus, since they misunderstood his cause as
thoroughly as it could possibly be misunderstood? Must we not
understand this betrayal o f the original cause ofjesus perhaps
even as a kind o f intellectual confusion, and would we not then
be forced unreservedly to admit the Markan theory o f the
incomprehension o f the disciples, albeit, to be sure, in a

completely different sense than Mark intended? And is then
anything even remotely credible still to be salvaged from this
so completely falsified tradition o f Jesus?
On the other hand, since human beings also had memories
then (presumably very much better than our own today), why
do we nowhere find a protest against this ‘messianic’
falsification o f Jesus, his message and his will? Must there not
have been groups in early Christianity who would have
defended the true Jesus against such falsification, particularly
since by means o f such a protest the deadly offence o f the
crucified Messiah could have been eliminated? A pious
veneration o f a suffering righteous Jesus, who now (as with all
the righteous) resided with God, would have given less offence
among their own compatriots, and the impending separation
from Judaism could have been avoided (removing all the
contemporary difficulties o f Jewish-Christian dialogue). But
such a protest in favour o f the true, unmessianic intention o f
Jesus is nowhere attested or even alluded to in early
Christianity.
3. The Problem in the History o f Research
The ‘doubt o f the messianic certainty o f Jesus’ self-

consciousness’ can be traced to a few nineteenth-century Life
o f Jesus researchers, such as Volkmar and Schölten; these
tended to be outsiders, however. Already in 1873, the anti-
Jewish Paul de Lagarde could also emphatically maintain, ‘that
it did not fall to Jesus to present himself as Messiah’ .9 On the
other hand, no less aJewish scholar than Samuel Krauss could
regard it as questionable, ‘whether Jesus regarded himself as
in any sense a Messiah or spiritual ruler’;10but here and there
the direction is clear. However, it was William Wrede who
first set the unmessianic Jesus in motion with his 1901 study
Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien [ The Messianic Secret in
the Gospels], with the subtitle Being a Contribution Toward
9 H. J. Holtzmann, Das messianische Bewußtsein Jesu (Tübingen, 1907), pp. 4ff.;
Paul de Lagarde, Deutsche Schriften, Gesamtausgabe letzter Hand (51920), p. 58.
10 S. Krauss, ‘Jesus’,ß A (1904), 163f.
Understanding the Gospel of Mark. In the foreword he explains in

detail why he only addresses the ‘gospel tradition o f Jesus as
the Messiah’ and not directly the ‘question whether Jesus
believed himself, and claimed, to be the Messiah’ .11 Accord
ingly, he limits himself to - as we would call it today - a
redaction-critical investigation primarily o f the Second
Gospel. It is characteristic that in the continuing ‘historical
illumination’ ,12 despite his espousal o f an original adoption
christology, first arising out o f the resurrection visions, he
concludes the historical question not with a quod non, but with
a non liquet Over against the view hitherto accepted as certain,
the study intends ‘only to set a question mark’ .13 Even Peter’s
confession ‘in the environs o f Caesarea Philippi’ is no ‘proof
o f non-historicity’ . For him it is the ‘other reports o f Jesus’
messianic claim and its denial’ which are ‘decisive’ . ‘Until this
has been clarified, it is best to exercise caution with a final
judgement’ .14 He was unable to complete the ‘further studies
on the topic’ . On 23 November 1906, he died much too young
at forty-seven, five years after the appearance o f his best-known
work.
Thus, in the foreword to the second edition o f Wrede’s
Paulus, his friend, Wilhelm Bousset, can say that the work ‘ends
with a great question mark. Did Jesus believe himself to be the
Messiah or not? Wrede tends toward a negative answer to this
question, but he is much too cautious and conscientious to
utter the “N o ”’ .15Whereas Bousset and, similarly, Wellhausen -
probably the most critical researchers at the turn o f the century
- could not accept a fundamental ‘no’ to the question, later
investigators were less ‘cautious and conscientious’ . Today the
unmessianic Jesus has almost become a dogma among many
New Testament scholars. One is tempted to describe this
phenomenon as ‘non-messianic dogmatics’ .
11 W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (third unaltered edition,

Göttingen, 1963), p. v.
12 Ibid., p. 207.
13 Ibid., p. 222; cf. p. 229.
14 Ibid., p. 239.
15W. Wrede, Paulus, 21907 edition [ ‘Zur zweiten Auflage von Wrede’s “Paulus”’] ,
p. 8*.
Wrede regarded the messianic secret in the Gospel o f Mark

as an apologetic construction o f the Evangelist based pardy in
the community’s tradition with which he was working; he
classifies various material under the term ‘messianic secret’:
not only Jesus’ prohibition o f the disciples speaking about his
messiahship, but also the commands o f silence to those who
had been healed, to the demons who knew his true identity,
also the unbelief or incomprehension o f the disciples in
various situations, and finally, the Markan parable theory that
Jesus only spoke in parables in order that the hearts o f the
people might be hardened. To be sure, later investigations have
shown that this entire complex cannot without further ado be
traced back to the single motive o f masking the (viewed
historically) unmessianic character o f Jesus’ ministry, and
reading post-Easter christology solidly into his history.
Therefore, almost no one today regards the so-called messianic
secret as apologetic historization intended to hide an originally
unmessianic Jesus. Rather, this is seen as a paradoxical style
intended to allow the hidden ‘glory’ o f the Messiah, who goes
to the cross, to shine even brighter. Further, it seems that very
different motifs come together here. And we cannot agree that
everything which Mark reports in this connection is an
apologetic, unhistorical, construct. The ‘hardening o f Israel’
m otif may be secondary in order to explain the offence o f
unbelief and rejection ofjesus, but the incomprehension o f
the disciples or Jesus’ commands o f silence to those he healed
could very well also have historical roots, even though Mark
(how could it be otherwise with the euayyéÀiov ’Iqooü
Xpioroö?) has been thoroughly influenced by a ‘supra-
historical concept o f faith’ . Nonetheless, I would disagree that
‘ the gospel contains no historical view o f the actual life o f
Jesus’ .16 For, as Wellhausen already noticed, it is imbued with
far too much o f the language, spirit and life o f Palestinian
Judaism, that is, o f the milieu ofjesus. If, on the other hand,
instead o f the word ‘ no’, Wrede had written ‘a very broken’ or
16 So Wrede, Messiasgeheimnis, p. 131. Prof. Gerd Lüdemann told me that he has

in his archive about the ‘Religionsgeschichtliche Schule’ a later letter from Wrede
where he revokes his thesis about the unmessianic Jesus. I asked him to published
this important letter soon.
‘fragmentary’ [historical narrative], I could agree with him.

The problems lie in the historical detail and these are
overlooked by Wrede and his followers generously.
Despite a high appreciation for his acute analysis, leading
New Testament scholars o f the day more or less rejected
Wrede’s hypothesis at its decisive point, the unmessianic Jesus.
In a sympathetic review, H. J. Holtzmann, then the most
trenchant advocate o f a critical exegesis, admitted that he had
‘indeed been taught, but in no wise converted [ belehrt but
not bekehrt] \17At the same time he puts his finger on the two
decisive objections: first, the relationship between the
resurrection and messianic faith, and second, the reason for
Jesus’ crucifixion:
In passing, I wish to note further that if Jesus was not regarded as

Messiah by his disciples before his death, nor awakened hope for a
glorified restitution, then the emergence o f their faith in his
resurrection, the very rapid overcoming o f their fear, and the
assembly o f the disciples after their flight, become for me all the
more baffling.18
Further, he emphasizes,
that Jesus’ condemnation could only have been effected on the

grounds o f messianic claims, the suggestive political nuance o f
which will have been adroitly placed before the Roman governor.
Otherwise, the trial o f Jesus, and with it, the most certain given o f
all, his death on the cross, are incomprehensible. Were even the
decisive word before the Sanhédrin to fall with the (surely, still to
be proved) spuriousness o f the entire scene, already the
demonstrative entry o f Jesus into Jerusalem would have sufficed to
legitimate the charges.19
Nor did Bousset, Wrede’s critical comrade-in-arms, despite

his own warning o f the Markan ‘Messiah dogmatic’ ,20wish to
deny ‘that the Messiah question plays a role in the interroga-
17 Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen (1901), p. 948.
18 Ibid., p. 952.
19 Ibid., p. 953. Wrede, Messiasgeheimnis, p. 69, refers to this problem, but does
not discuss it further.
20W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos, third edition, pp. 34ff. (cf. Engl, trans. o f second
edition 1921, Abingdon, 1970).
Jesusf the Messiah of Israel 19
tion before the High Priest One can scarcely imagine this not
to have been the case’,21 for
that the Messiah question forced itself upon Jesus seems to me to
stand firm as a genuine tradition (the confession at Caesarea
Philippi, the request o f the sons o f Zebedee, Jesus’ entry into
Jerusalem, and perhaps also the Baptist’s question). What remains
uncertain is Jesus’ attitude to this.22
Wellhausen too, who describes the question, ‘whether and

in what sense [Jesus] believed and claimed himself to be the
Messiah’ as ‘the most important’ among ‘problems from the
life o f Jesus’ ,23 refuses to consider Peter’s confession ‘as
premature or unhistorical’ . For
notwithstanding thatJesus was first transformed into the Christian

Messiah as a result o f the crucifixion and resurrection, he can still
have been held to be theJewish Messiah by Peter and others during
his lifetime. And it is undeniable that this happened. I f Jesus had
not been crucified as Messiah, then the rising swell o f those who
had been laid low, the emergence o f faith, and ‘he is therefore the
Messiah’, would be completely baffling. John the Baptist was also
executed and had made no less an impression on his disciples, but
he was not for them the Messiah, nor did he die as Messiah . . . ;
therefore his career ended with his death.24
That Johannes Weiss also resolutely rejected W rede’s

hypothesis, I need not point out after the citation above. His
basic question to Wrede was:
How could the belief in his messiahship emerge as a completely

new phenomenon if he himself had not provided the impulse for
it? ... I believe there can be only one answer here: the appearances
could only be proof for his messiahship because just this was
previously already in question. Only because his death seemed to be a
proof against messiahship could his resurrection be a proof in
favour of itP
21 Ibid., p. 37.
22 Ibid., p. 18, n. 1.
23J. Wellhausen, Einleitung in die ersten drei Evangelien, (21911), p. 79.
24 Ibid., p. 82 (italics, Wellhausen).
251. Weiss, Das Problem der Entstehung des Christentums, A R W 16 (1918), 423-515
(468; 470).
It is fair to say that, directly after the appearance o f Wrede’s

book, almost all leading German New Testament scholars
passed an unfavourable judgement on his thesis o f the
unmessianic Jesus, although as a rule they clearly saw the
difficulty o f the problem, and were just as reluctant to agree
with Albert Schweitzer’s counterposition (almost novel-like in
its construction), which tried to make the messianic secret the
key to understanding Jesus.
The criticism focused above all on three points: first, Wrede’s
denial o f any historicity at all to Peter’s confession at Caesarea
Philippi, second, his completely unsatisfactory treatment o f
the Passion narrative, where the Messiah question stands at
the centre, not only before the Sanhédrin but also before
Pilate, and brings Jesus to the cross, third, and most telling
o f all, his disregard o f the religio-historical problem and
the question connected with it concerning how, through the
Easter visions alone, the disciples suddenly could have made
the unmessianic Jesus into the heavenly Son o f Man and
Messiah.
It must be said that these liberal theologians were not
particularly interested in Jesus’ messiahship. For their en
lightened humanistic picture ofjesus it was rather an embar
rassment. In 1904, three years after the appearance o f Wrede’s
book, W. Bousset referred to this problem:
Inadequate as the conceptions ‘kingdom o f God’ and ‘judgement’,

were when exposed to the light o f Jesus’ preaching, so inadequate
and dangerous also was the title ‘Messiah’ as an expression o f his
innermost being.26
This also explains his caution expressed in the question o f the

Markan messianic secret:
In the moment that Jesus openly accepted the title o f Messiah, he

turned the future into the present, and, as history has also shown,
forced the decision and the end. . . . An open confession to
messiahship by Jesus must have brought all the seething unrest
gathered in a yearning people’s soul to explosion, must have
unified all Jesus’ opponents against him in deadly emnity.
26 W. Bousset, Jesus, R V 1. Ser. 2/3 (1904), p. 86.

Here one might raise the objection, ‘Why then did Jesus make
use o f these messianic hopes at all, so alien to his innermost
being - why did he not reject this conception?’ Bousset, whose
knowledge o f Jewish religious history was much deeper than
Wrede’s gives this answer:
Because on the other hand it was absolutely necessary to him. As
the conceptions ‘kingdom o f God’ and ‘judgement’ were
indispensable for making himself intelligible to his people, so also
was the idea ‘Messiah’ indispensable for understanding himself.
For this shines out at us from the picture o f Jesus’ person as a
whole: Jesus wanted to be more than one in a series, even in the
series o f the Prophets. . . . But according to the popular
conception, this was unthinkable without the Messiah; here, his
proper place was provided. For the role o f the forerunner was
unsatisfactory. He felt himself to be standing in a nearness to God
such as no one before or after him had known. He spoke with
confidence the final, decisive, word, was convinced that he was the
perfecter - after him none other would come.27
Although Bousset’s language here has been influenced by

Carlyle’s28model o f heroic personality veneration, he is no less
an expert in Jewish apocalyptic and messianic expectations,
and a comparison with W rede’s acute, but abstract and
unhistorical, hypothesis shows him to have grasped more
accurately than his friend the actual historical basis for the
messianic secret in Mark, and thereby a decisive point in the
ministry o f Jesus.
In a psychologizing conclusion Bousset projects onto the
person o f Jesus his own reservations against the messiah con
ception:
ForJesus, therefore, the Messiah idea was the only possible form o f
his inner consciousness, and yet, an unsatisfactory form, a necessity
- but also a heavy burden under which he silently walked on almost
to the end o f his life, a conviction in which he never really
rejoiced.29
27 Ibid., p 87.
28 For Bousset and Carlyle, see A. F. Verheule, Wilhelm Bousset. Leben und, Werk
(Amsterdam, 1973), pp. 373-5. Cf. the critique by J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom
Räche Gottes (Göttingen, 31964), p. 56.
29 Bousset, Jesus, p. 88 (italicized by Bousset).
Would it not be simpler for a ‘progressive’ theology to cast this

ballast o f Jewish Religionsgeschichte - in which we can no longer
‘really rejoice’ - overboard, by means o f a tractable historical-
critical analysis?
Other contemporary scholars as well, although holding
fast to the messianic consciousness o f Jesus for the sake o f
historical truth, show this uneasiness with the Jewish messianic
hope. Thus, Paul Wernle on Mark 8:27ff. in his book on
Jesus:
Such a messianic confession, drawn forth by Jesus himself and

willingly accepted, has, for us, something very alienating about it.
The belief in God’s ruling in the future through a human king
from the house o f David strikes us as a Jewish antiquity; we sense a
certain limited Jewish patriotism in all messianism, that strives to
understand the glorious Jewish future kingdom in analogy to the
Davidic monarchy o f the past___ Many among us, out o f love and
reverence for Jesus, would be glad to ascribe this entire Jewish
messianism to Jesus’ disciples, within whose Jewish narrow
mindedness this national Jewish title would also fit.30
O f course, Wernle rejects this conclusion; for, however,

understandable such considerations may be:
they would, nevertheless, have the effect o f falsifying history were

one to yield to them blindly, without a strict examination o f the
gospel tradition and a respect for the hard facts. The danger of
modernization and reinterpretation o f the historical situation in
favour o f our contemporary ideological preferences must always
be present to the historian in such investigations, and guard him
against writing his wishes into history.31
Wernle declares, therefore, ‘ the strongest possible conviction

o f Jesus’ own messianic b e lie f. . . his Jewish national character
and his belief in the Bible1.32
Hermann von Soden as well, who resolutely defended ‘Jesus’
messianic self-consciousness’ against ‘Wrede’s hypothesis’ ,
emphasizes at the beginning o f his deliberations:
30 P. Wernle, Jesus (Tübingen, 1916), pp. 291f.

31 Ibid., p. 292.
32 Ibid., pp. 292f. (italics, Wernle).
The acceptance o f this occasions no religious loss. What Jesus is,

he remains, whether he himself or others first express his
uniqueness in the concept, Messiah.33
Shortly hereafter he remarks on the same topic:
The concept, in which the entire religious development o f this

people was concentrated as an extract, was so deeply rooted with
their distorted ideals that it proved impossible even for Jesus to
free it from this amalgamation. Because he was bent on being the
Messiah, yea, had to be, thus also was it inevitable that his work had
to miscarry, that he had to die.34
The treatment o f Jesus’ messiahship at the turn o f the

century frequently shows a deep, in part, unconscious, aversion
againstjewish apocalyptic and messianic hope, indeed in some
respects, even against Jewish piety. It is, therefore, under
standable that the new discovery o f the unmessianic Jesus also
found an enthusiastic reception. The Heidelberg scholar,
Adalbert Merx (1838-1909), based on his examination o f a
Syriac palimpsest manuscript from the Sinai monastery,
concluded that the First Gospel retains ‘ the historical faith
fulness o f the local colour in the life o f Jesus’ and combines
this with the ‘knowledge that Yeshua’s work was completely
universal, transcending Judaism’ . Merx resolutely affirms the
related question, whether Jesus’ own being is not thereby also
comprehended in the deepest sense:
Yeshua was not theJewish Messiah, he was the Saviour o f the world.
. . . The concept, Saviour o f the world, does not fit within the
Messiah concept, and it is a distortion o f his being when one
attempts to understand Yeshua within the category o f the Jewish
Messiah at all.35
In his exposition o f the Matthean version o f the Baptist’s

question and Jesus’ answer, Merx reconstructs an original text
form along the following lines:
33 H. v. Soden, Die wichtigsten Fragen im LebenJesu (Berlin, 1904), p. 70.

34 Ibid., p. 79. For the problem, see H. J. Holtzmann, Das messianische Bewußtsein
Jesu (Gottingen, 1907).
35 A. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, Bd. II/ 1, Das Evangelium des Matthaeus
(Berlin, 1902), p. ix.
John asks in the Jewish sense: Are you the King Messiah? Yeshua
refers to what John’s messengers see and hear him do - but his
allusions are symbolically intended, and he leaves the conclusion
to John and his followers. But to the people he explains John as his
forerunner, as the symbolic Elijah, who, however, as a member o f
the old world order, is less than the least in Yeshua’s new world
order. All this is unJewish, and surpasses the horizon o f his hearers
- only he who has ears will hear it.36
Peter’s confession (Mark 8:24ff., par.) is for him nothing less

than a proof that ‘Yeshua rejected messiahship’ .37From Jesus’
answer to Pilate (Matt. 27:11 = Luke 23:2), which is not to be
understood as a yes,
it is completely clear that Yeshua never claimed to be the Messiah,
that his prohibiting his disciples to declare him as Messiah was not
only temporary but absolute, and that consequently Yeshua’s true
being will remain misunderstood as long as Christians do not
resolve to erase this characteristic from his intellectual make-up
just as resolutely as the apocalyptic fanaticism, from which - due to
a completely erroneous interest - they are also unwilling to free
themselves.38
In a thoroughly positive evaluation o f the works o f Wrede

and Merx, W. Staerk concluded:
In my judgement, detailed critical investigations into the so-called
messianic consciousness o f Jesus are not actually necessary where
there is agreement concerning his person and its unique
importance for the history o f religion - and fortunately this
situation obtains much more than individual scholars are willing
to admit.39
Thus, he can declare a researcher such as Wernle to be

completely inconsistent for holding fast to the messianic self
36 Ibid., p. 191.
37 Ibid., Bd. 11/2: Das Evangelium des Markus und des Lukas (1905), p. 260, to Luke
9:19f.; cf. pp. 32-90 to Mark 8:24ff.; p. 133 to Mark 11:10; p. 169 to Mark 14:62;
p. 359 to Luke 18:31ff.
38 Ibid., Bd. II/2, p. 481. See also ibid., Bd. II/3, Das Evangelium des Johannes
(1911), p. 557, index, s.v. ‘Ablehnung des Messiastitels’. Cf. H. J. Holtzmann’s
critique, Messiasbewußtsein, pp. 9f.
39W. Staerk, ‘Jesu Stellung zum jüdischen MessiasbegrifF, P rM (1902), 291-309
(308).
consciousness o f Jesus on the one hand, while on the other

recognizing ‘ that Jesus and the messianic idea do not corres
pond internally’ .40Staerk concludes his study with a challenge:
Now let us also finally be done with speaking o f the messiahship o f
Jesus, pulling him down into the atmosphere o f ethnic religiosity .. .
Jesus, not the Messiah, but the turning o f time, because the Saviour
o f the world, through the liberation o f religion from its bonds o f
materialism, whether legal, cultic or chauvinistic - in hoc signo
vincemusl41
After the experiences o f the present waning century, at the
beginning o f which these high-sounding words were written,
it is especially fitting that we in Germany have become
justifiably critical o f such questionable pathos. That such
voices, however, were not alone is seen in a review - on a
somewhat lower level - by F. Kreyenbühl to the 1906 study o f
Jesus by Wilhelm Hess.42 Inter alia he criticizes the author’s
opinion ‘at a major point, the messianic self-consciousness o f
Jesus’ :
If at this point Jesus was such a shaken reed, his character cannot
impress us. ‘Messianism’ in our opinion is the foulest stain in the
picture o f Jesus’ character. One may attempt . . . to read into
(hineingehemmissen) the Messiah idea all kinds o f fine and
profound things in order to justify Jesus’ becoming involved with
this national magnus. But the messianic consciousness o f Jesus can
be established neither historically nor psychologically. . . . Jesus
came to serve and to suffer and to offer himself; the Messiah,
however, according to Jewish thinking, is a ruler in power and
judgement.43
This deep aversion to the concept ‘Messiah’, indeed even

against the adjective ‘messianic’ , is also active today, albeit
stemming from other motives. In 1973 a book appeared by
Floris Koppelmann, with the revealing title: Jesus nicht Christus,
40 P. Wernle, Die Anfänge unserer Religion (21904), p. 33. Staerk cites the first
edition (1901), p. 32. In the citations above, p. 22, Wernle takes such criticisms to
task.
41 Staerk, ‘Messiasbegriff, p. 309.
42 W. Hess, Jesus von Nazareth in seiner geschichlichen Lebensentwicklung (Tübingen,
1906); reviewed by F. Kreyenbühl, Protestantenblatt 39 (1906), 1085-91.
43 Kreyenbühl, ‘Review’, 1088.
doch Wunder und Gegenwart der Gotteswelt44 [Jesus: not Christ -

but Marvel and Presence o f G od’s W orld]. The book
prospectus, in which well-known scholars - in my opinion
correctly - announced that it offered an interesting con
tribution to the discussion on contemporary ‘life o f Jesus’
research, begins with the sentence:
The interpretation o f Jesus’ person as the ‘begotten Son o f God’
or as ‘Christ’ is alienating mythology for the unchurched o f today
and blocks the view o f Jesus’s greatness.
One is tempted to ask cum grano salis, ‘Was this not also true
for the “crucified Messiah” o f the primitive community and
Paul?’
Ernest Kasemann draws a very different conclusion in his
well-known essay, ‘The Problem o f the Historical Jesus’ ,
concerning Jesus’ eschatological authority expressed in the
antitheses o f the Sermon on the Mount:
The unheard-of implication o f the saying testifies to its
genuineness. It proves, secondly, that while Jesus may have made
his appearance in the first place in the character o f a rabbi or a
prophet, nevertheless his claim far surpasses that o f any rabbi or
prophet; and thirdly, that he cannot be integrated into the
background o f the Jewish piety o f his time. Certainly he was a Jew
and made the assumptions o f Jewish piety, but at the same time he
shatters this framework with his claim. The only category which
does justice to his claim (quite independendy o f whether he used
it himself and required it o f others) is that in which his disciples
themselves placed him - namely, that o f the Messiah.45
Here Kasemann is on the right track: Jesus ’ claim (a word that

K. uses three times) - his eschatological claim. Indeed: Is
another Messiah conceivable than the Messiah o f Israel sent by
44 F. Koppelmann, Jesus nicht Christus, doch Wunder und Gegenwart der Gotteswelt
(Berlin, 1973).
45 E. Käsemann, ‘Das Problem de historischen Jesus’, in ibid., Exegetische Versuche
und Besinnungen I I (Göttingen, 21960), p. 206; cf. on the same page, ‘For the Jew
who does what is done here has cut himself o ff from the Community o f Judaism -
or else he brings the Messianic Torah and is therefore the Messiah’ [Engl, trans.
taken from E. Kasemann, ‘The Problem o f the Historical Jesus’, in Essays on New
Testament Themes, trans. by W.J. Montague (London, 1964; Philadelphia, 1984),
pp. 37-8].
God to his people - which figure whenever is included in this

eschatological Messiah claim - and is this an un-Jewish
thought? One might reverse the question thus: What was there
about Jesus that was un-Jewish? It was just this elementary
power that broke the confines o f particularistic, contemporary
Judaism, which grew out o f the promises o f the Old Testament,
and thus in Jewish soil. We ought not to underestimate the
powers in contemporary Judaism which were seeking the
eschatological salvation o f all mankind for the glory o f God.
After all, the first o f the messengers sent out to the ‘Gentiles’
by the Messiah, Jesus, were also Jews.
In his exposition o f the Sermon on the Mount, G. Strecker
admitted that in the earliest form o f Jesus’ antithesis ‘a
prominent eschatological claim is expressed’. At the same time
he emphasizes that this is ‘not to be described as “messianic” ’.
We recognize here, nonetheless, ‘ the self-consciousness o f
an eschatological prophet. Jesus asserts his authority over
against that o f Moses.’46 This seems to me to reveal a certain
confusion o f concepts. Did Jesus consider himself to be one
eschatological prophet among others, such as John the
Baptist, Theudas, the Samaritan prophet (Ant. 18.85), the
Samaritan Dositheus, and other contemporary ‘seducers o f the
people’ reported by Josephus? Bousset (see above, p. 21) has
already said all that is necessary here. Moreover, did not all
these figures claim to be not one prophet among many,
but thefinal Prophet before the end, in the sense of, for example,
Deut. 18:15—18? However, a prophet ‘like Moses’ is just
what Jesus is not; rather, he stands at concrete points in anti
thesis to him who formerly had yielded to Israel’s hard
heartedness (Mark 10:5 = Matt. 19:8). In addition, Jesus no
more called himself a prophet than he called himself the
Messiah - in Mark 6:4 he quotes a proverb, and in Luke 13:33,
a maxim. Both descriptions, prophet and Messiah, were
applied to him by others. Here we meet the (doubtless com
plicated) religio-historical problem, treated much too lighdy
by Wrede in his study, and seldom taken seriously enough by
the very advocates themselves (!) o f the unmessianic Jesus.
46 G. Strecker, Die Bergpredigt (Göttingen, 1984), p. 67; cf. M. Hengel, ‘Zur

matthäischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund’, ThRb2 (1987), 376.
Ernst Fuchs as well - like Ernst Käsemann, a pupil o f Rudolf

Bultmann - attempts in his published lecture, ‘Jesus. Wort
und Tat’ ,47 to establish the unmessianic ministry o f Jesus
hermeneutically and theologically: When we ‘inquire into the
person o f Jesus’ we cannot get past the éycb ôè Aéyco ûpîv, for
‘Jesus, as proclaimer, must reject every self-description, not only
because the descriptions are inadequate, but also because he is
proclaimer’ :48
As proclaimer, Jesus had to disregard his person, if he expected his
word to be believed. It was necessary that he conducted himself
‘unmessianically’. The unmessianic is not merely to be understood
as a historical fact, but beforehand as a necessity inJesus’ conduct.49
For Fuchs, Jesus belongs to the ‘exceptions. . . , which, even

as exception, present a problem from the beginning, and ought
to remain a(n unsolved) problem until the present day’ . The
messianic secret, so Fuchs, demonstrates this:
This does not mean that one solves the problem by finding the
title which fits Jesus, but on the contrary, that one tolerates the
problem, and asks what it means that no title fits.50
Regarding the parables, on the other hand, Fuchs can

emphasize (correctly in my opinion) that ‘as proclaimer o f the
basileia. . . it is [Jesus] himself who is the giver o f the basileia\
that ‘if anyone wanted to accept his parable as God’s word’ , it
was necessary to decide ‘for Jesus as God’s special messenger’.51
Elsewhere Fuchs points out that
Jesus’ behaviour is neither that of a prophet nor a teacher of

wisdom, but the behaviour of a man who dares to act in the place
of God when he - and this must never be forgotten - calls sinners
to himself who, without him, must flee from the presence of God.52
47 E. Fuchs, Jesus, Wort und Tat (Vorlesungen zum Neuen Testament, 1,
Tübingen, 1971).
48 Ibid., pp. 104f.
48 Ibid., p. 107.
50 Ibid., pp. 132f. (all italics, Fuchs).
51 Ibid., pp. 106f. (italics, Fuchs).
52 E. Fuchs, Die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus (Tübingen, 21965), p. 156; cf. p.
154: ‘Jesus dares to assert God’s will as though he himself stands in the place of
God.’
But then was it not inevitable that the title o f Messiah be

applied to this proclaimer, who spoke o f the kingdom o f God as
a gift here and now, beginning with Peter and the disciples, to
Bartimaeus and the Galilean pilgrims at the Entry, and
eventually the High Priest and Pilate - albeit each in his own
way? Must we not then conclude that Jesus himself - again,
entirely in his own way - considered this question, for the very
reason that he at first answered it with éyco ôè Àéyco ûpïv and
only at the very end with éyco eijjii (Mark 14:62) - and on the
basis o f this confession, went to the cross?
N or can we avoid here the religio-historical question
(brushed aside almost contemptuously by Fuchs), whether at
that time the messianic title was at all so ‘dogmatically’
established that under no circumstances can it be applied to
Jesus, and whether he did not rather by his conduct -
extending even to his execution as ‘King o f the Jews’ - time
and again prove the title to be ‘fitting’? In other words, could
not Jesus’ authentic behaviour itself disclose how he intended
the tides (or ciphers) ‘Messiah’, Son o f Man, Son o f God, and
others, to be understood? Or were the disciples, after Easter,
the first ones in a position to do this? If the title is, in fact, not
‘fitting’ , then neither may we in good conscience use the titles
‘Christ’ , ‘Son o f God’ , and ‘Lord’ today.
Were not these same titles - in a similar manner as ßaoiAeia
t o u 08O Ü - necessary thought and speech forms o f the time,
which Jesus himself and his disciples (in contrast to the many
contemporary rabbis and prophets) could by no means avoid
if, in crucial situations, they wished to express (or reduce to a
concept) his eschatological authority? These are speech forms
that were already provided by the prophetic promises o f the
‘Scriptures’ , that is, God’s promises fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry
to Israel (Rom. 15:8; see above, pp. 4f.). And, it cannot be main
tained thatJesus’ person completely recedes behind his words
and deeds. It steps to the fore at critical moments in full
messianic authority. The concluding climax o f Jesus’ answer to
the Baptist’s question, ‘Are you he who is to come?’ , Kai
paKâpioç éoTiv oç êàv pq OKavôaÀioOj} êv époi, avoids the
éyco eijjii (which does not appear until his answer to the High
Priest’s question in Mark 14:62), but nevertheless contains an
explicit ‘christological’ confession in that the makarios refers to

eschatological salvation.
H. Conzelmann53emphasizes that ‘ the question concerning
Jesus' self-consciousness9 is too quickly attached to the concept
‘messianic consciousness’ and is ‘not [exhausted] in the
problem o f whether and how J[esus] applied the Jewish
christological title to him self.54 This is certainly correct.
However, in the investigation o f the titles he concludes that
they all - including the concept, ‘Son o f Man’, which is used
only by Jesus in the gospels - rest on ‘community theology’,55
so ‘thatJesus’ self-understanding is not accessible via the titles’ .
Nor can the words in which Jesus speaks o f his sending and
coming ‘be formulated from a retrospect on his completed
ministry’ . However, he admits that
the conceptions o f the prophets and rabbis [typify] only partial
aspects (!), yet nothing o f the centre. Jesus understands himself as
the final herald (der letzte Rufer). His position is unique, for after
him no one else ‘comes’ but God himself.56
Yet by his own interpretation - contra the statements o f the

primitive Christian texts - grave difficulties must ensue. The
final herald after whom ‘no one else “comes” but God himself
(or, what amounts to the same thing, the Son o f Man), is,
according to the unanimous witness o f the New Testament, not
Jesus, but John the Baptist: so Mark 1:3 with the citation o f
Isa. 40:4. ‘The voice o f one crying (die Stimme eines Rufers in
der Wüste) in the wilderness: Prepare the way o f the L o rd . . . ’ .
And according to John 1:22, when asked, ‘What do you say
about yourself?’ , the Baptist answers, ‘/ am the voice of one
crying. . .’ . I f Jesus were the ‘final cryer’ what then would
distinguish him from the Baptist? However, Jesus never
thought o f John as competitor, otherwise his judgement on
him would have been very different from what we actually
find in the long Q speech concerning the Baptist. Not until
the Gospel o f John, ca. a d 100, do we find a competition,
53H. Conzelmann, ‘Jesus Christus’, RGGS3 (1959), 619-53.

54Ibid., 629.
55Ibid., 631.
56Ibid., 633 (italics, Conzelmann).
originating with John’s disciples - presumably because o f

tensions between John’s and Jesus’ disciples at a significantly
later period. The synoptic accounts speak another language
here. For example, in Q:
The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good
news o f the kingdom o f God is preached . . . (Luke 16:16).
For the ensuing remark, the Matthean version (11:12) is
probably earlier: from that time ‘the kingdom o f heaven has
been coming violently and men o f violence take it by force’ .
The word would then be understood as a positive statement
regarding the influence o f Jesus’ proclamation. However,
where the kingdom o f God is breaking through, 'God is already
coming, that is, in Jesus’ activity itself. The treasure in the field,
the pearl o f great price, will be discovered now or not at all,
and appropriated by means o f a ‘violent’ decision! Jesus says
nothing expressis verbis o f a merely future ‘coming’ o f God. The
plea for the coming o f the kingdom o f God in the Lord’s Prayer
refers to present and future, just as all the other pleas. The
future reserves only the revelation o f the Son o f Man, what
ever Jesus may have meant by this (see below, pp. 61ff.), and
will make manifest the decision which is consummated now
regarding Jesus’ message. In contrast to the Baptist, the final
and greatest prophet, Jesus brings the eschatological fulfilment
o f the promise:
Blessed are the eyes which see what you see [and from Matt. 13:16,
we may supplement this with the parallelismus membrorum, lost in
Luke: ‘and the ears which hear what you hear’ ]! For I tell you
that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did
not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it (Luke
10:23; cf. Matt. 13:16f.).
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, ‘I thank
thee, Father, Lord o f heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden
these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them
to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will’ (Luke 10:21).
Is it not rather the ‘Fulfiller’ who speaks thus, the ‘Bringer
o f the Kingdom o f God’ , which must be apprehended in faith,
than only a ‘final cryer’ like John, and is it not so, given the
prophetic promise o f the Old Covenant, which Jesus knows
and in which he lives, that (again, in Käsemann’s words), ‘the

only category which does justice to his claim (quite in-
dependendy o f whether he used it himself and required it o f
others) is that in which his disciples themselves placed him -
namely, that o f the Messiah? I f this is so, we might ask further:
Is not the construction which has motivated, indeed ruled,
German Protestant research o f the past ninety years, the
completely unmessianic Jesus, a fundamental error (nurtured,
I am tempted to say, in ‘Marcionite’ soil), both historically and
theologically?
4, The Religio-Historical Problem
We have passed over an essential point that hitherto has been

too little noticed in the discussion. Earlier research assumed
almost as a matter o f course the existence o f an established,
traditional, Jewish Messiah conception, occasionally even
referring direcdy to a ‘Messiah dogmatic’. Wrede disputes, inter
aliayWellhausen’s view that Jesus ‘rejected the Jewish Messiah
conceptions’ and directed his hope and yearning towards
‘another ideal, a higher order’ , and that ‘only in this sense can
he have called himself the Messiah’ .57Against this, Wrede raises
the objection:
57 Wrede, Messiasgeheimnis, p. 220 citing J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und jüdische

Geschichte (first edition, 1894), p. 315. Wellhausen continues with the significant
statement: ‘H e was not the one they had hoped for, but he was the true one
whom they should have hoped for.’ In the fourth edition (Berlin, 1901, pp.
387f.), he adds: ‘If we allow the word to bear the meaning (as indeed, we
must) with which it was generally understood, then Jesus was not the Messiah
nor did he want to be. His kingdom was not o f this world; that is, he placed
something entirely different in the Messiah’s place. This is clearly expressed
in Mt. 11.’ In the eighth edition (reprint o f the seventh, 1914), p. 365, he
changes the text again and adds after ‘want to be’: ‘N o r would he be diminished
for us, even if we assume him not to have encouraged this view [that he was
the Messiah], but simply to have presented himself as the fulfiller o f the O ld
Testament in the sense o f Mt. 5. However, it is not conceivable that he tolerated
the name o f the Jewish ideal, while fully altering its content: not only the
name 4Messiah’, but also, by analogy, the expression *kingdom o f Heaven* (my
italics). A. Schlatter ( Zweifel an der Messianität Jesu, p. 150) charges Wellhausen
with ‘wavering reflections’; yet this very wavering (which for all that carries
much more weight than the critique o f Wrede and his followers, even to the
present day) is impressive as an indicator o f the struggle to get at the - historical
- truth.
I must confess my inability to form a plausible conception o f this.

A Jewish man living and working in the midst o f his people
substitutes for the firmly established 'Messiah* concept something that
abolishes all its actual characteristics, that is, he quietly changes a
theocratic-eschatological concept into a spiritual-religious concept,
unknown as such to anyJew.58
This counterargument to Wellhausen’s points, which to be sure
are very general and which the author (showing his un
certainty) continually refines, rests on a distortion that comes
nowhere near Wellhausen’s intention, to say nothing o f
‘ theocratic-eschatological’ and ‘spiritual-religious’ not
necessarily being opposite conceptions. How do we know that
there was only one ‘firmly established “Messiah” concept’ , or
that Jesus’ own understanding o f the Messiah could have
nothing in common with the ‘actual characteristics’ o f such a
concept (assuming that there really was o n e), and finally, that
this would have been ‘unknown to any Jew’ , that is, fully
incomprehensible? Again the double question arises: Why was
Jesus delivered up to Pilate by the leaders and executed on the
cross as a criminal against the Roman state, and why do Jesus’
disciples (who were, as Jesus himself, Galilean Jews) maintain
thisjesus-with his Messiah conception ‘unknown’ to the Jews
- to be the Messiah?
In fact, much later, if not to say modern aspects o f Christian
teaching are read into ancient Judaism under the rubric
‘Messiah dogmatic’ . A ‘firmly established “Messiah” concept’ ,
with ‘actual characteristics’ (characteristics with which Jesus
allegedly wanted nothing to do), such as Wrede imagines and
uses to account for an originally unmessianic Jesus, never
existed - not even in the later rabbinic period when the
rabbinate had rigidified, and certainly not before a d 70, when
Judaism was significantly more pluralistic. There were always
different, in part variable, Messiah pictures with numerous
descriptions and attributes, frequently supplementing one
another; often these do not rest on titles so much as express
functions. We ought, therefore, no longer to speak o f a
‘Messiah dogmatic’ or ‘Messiah idea’ , but o f Messiah concep
tions, or even better, o f messianic Haggada.
58 Wrede, Messiasgeheimnis, p. 220 (my italics).

Our knowledge here has been greatly increased by the

Qumran texts, o f which some important texts have been just
published, a wider availability o f the Pseudepigrapha, and the
messianic Haggada o f the rabbinic sources, including the
targums. The bewildering abundance o f the material
assembled by Billerbeck, unavailable to Wrede and his
contemporaries, shows that even in the rabbinic era Judaism
had no unified, predominantly political, Messiah picture, but
rather that the views here were, in part, extremely diverse.
Already the editors o f The Beginnings of Christianity had
made reference to this situation:
The more concrete traits with which homiletical midrash or popular

imagination clothed this vague expectation were varied and
inconstant, drawn miscellaneously from prophecy and poetry, from
the visions, from the circumstances o f the times.59
Drawing on our broader basis o f sources, O. Cullmann could

point out with even greater emphasis:
Just at the time o f Jesus there were in Judaism many varied

conceptions o f the coming Mediator o f the end time, some of
which differed radically from one another. We must not forget that
at this time Judaism had by no means a single fixed concept o f the
Messiah. We are accustomed to think o f the Jewish Messiah as if he
were an unambiguous, clearly defined figure. In general it is true
that the Jews expected a saviour with certain nationalistic and
Jewish characteristics. But this common form could not hold the
most widely varying content.60
Over against this F. Hahn, in his creditable book,

Christologische Hoheitstitel, sketches too unified a Messiah picture
which he only accomplishes by thoroughly separating the -
relatively narrow - Son o f Man tradition o f Dan. 7:13 from the
Messiah tradition. This, however, is impossible since already in
the (Ethiopie) Similitudes o f Enoch the ‘Son o f Man’ figure
(who moreover bears other names such as ‘The Chosen’ and
59 F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginning of Christianity, Part I, The
Ads of the Apostles (1920), p. 356.
60 O. Cullmann, Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen, 31963), p. I l l
(italics, Cullmann); ET, The Christology o f the New Testament, rev. ed., trans. by
S. G. Guthrie and C. A. M. Hall (Philadelphia, 1975), p. 111.
‘The Righteous O ne’ ) is twice described as God’s ‘Anointed’

(48:10; 52:4). In 4 Ezra 13:1, 12, as well, the ipse homo rising
from the sea and flying with the clouds is identical with the
Messiah. In particular, some rabbinic texts since the early
Tannaim understand Dan. 7:13 to refer to the Messiah. Also,
in the third and fifth o f the Sybilline Oracles the saviour
coming from Heaven is none other than the Messiah. We must
presuppose this identification already for the time ofjesus.
Against Hahn’s assumption ‘that the messianic expectation
o f Old Testament prophecy survived’ , it must be emphasized
that the messianic Old Testament texts as interpreted in
ancient Judaism were already extraordinarily variable, such
that ‘variability’ shows itself not only at given, but also at
numerous other, ‘points’ , a variability that continued into the
rabbinic period.61In addition, the contrast between an earthly,
political, ‘Messiah’ and a ‘heavenly, transcendent’ , Son o f Man
is questionable, for the ‘Son o f Man’ coming from Heaven in
Dan. 7 is also victorious against the godless ‘world powers’ , and
functions in an even greater capacity than the Messiah in Ps.
Sol. 17 as judge. He is hidden with God - but so are human
figures such as Enoch, Elijah and Moses (the Rabbis name
others) - indeed, 1 En. 71 identifies him with Enoch. On the
other hand, the Messiah cannot attain his God-given rule
without G od’s help: slaying the army o f nations gathered
against Jerusalem ‘with the rod o f his mouth and the breath o f
his lips’ (Isa. 11:4; cf. 4 Ezra 13:10), is no less a miracle than
flying along with the clouds. To the extent that it remained
uninfluenced by philosophy (such as that o f Philo), Jewish
eschatology knows no genuine ‘ transcendence’ , one might
also say, no clear distinction between ‘immanence’ and
‘ transcendence’ . The earthly and heavenly world formed one
61 Cf. F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel. Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum,

FRLANT 83 (21984) [ET, The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early
Christianity (London and New York, 1969)], pp. 156-8. Nor can I agree that ‘the
messianology o f the old style remained for a very long time uninfluenced by
apocalyptic expectation’ (158), although it is unclear to me what is meant here by
‘old style’. In fact, Palestinian Judaism was very deeply influenced by ‘apocalyptic-
messianic expectations’ (as is seen by the great influence o f the book of Daniel in
Qumran and among the Pharisees - includingjosephus) which became its undoing.
All post-exilic prophecy is strongly characterized by ‘apocalyptic’.
continuum, were bound together and continually influenced

one another.
The timing o f the eschaton is also highly variable. In the
zoomorphic apocalypse o f 1 Enoch the Messiah is not born
until after God himself has destroyed the power o f the
nations and passed judgement.62 The distinction between a
messianic interim and the ‘coming aeon’ is first found in the
great post-70 apocalypses. Rabbi Akiba can limit the messianic
age to forty years, and see in it a time o f war and tribulation;
this might explain his confession o f Bar Cochba as Messiah.63
The Babylonian Amorite, Shmuel (died 254), gave its duration
as 4,000 years and only distinguishes it from the normal
course o f history in that the alien rule o f the nations ceases.64
Ps. Sol. 17 already attests that the Messiah will be the Spirit-
filled teacher and judge o f his people after destroying all
enemies. This refutes the alleged contradiction - emphasized
chiefly by Vielhauer - between Messiah and rule by God.
Rather, God sets up his ß aoileia through the king from
David’s house (Ps. Sol. 17:1; 3f.; 21; 32; 34) who, taught by God
(v. 32: paoiÀeùç ôucaïoç ôiôccktôç unö öeoü) and armed with
gifts o f the Spirit mentioned in Isa. ll:2 ff., will lead and judge
his people in righteousness:
His words will be purer than the finest gold, the best___ His words
will be as the words o f the holy ones, among sanctified peoples.
Blessed are those born in those days to see the good fortune o f
Israel... .65
The high value placed on the singular words o f the
Messiah here is, in my judgement, the chief motive for the
collection o f the ca. 250 Jesus sayings in Q. The produc
tions o f early Christian prophets are certainly not the basis
for it - it would have been unnecessary to collect such
prophetic sayings since they were constantly and plentifully
available. And in the rabbinic tradition we repeatedly
621 En. 90:18ff.; 26f.; 37f.; cf. Strack-Billerbeck, IV,800.
68 Strack-Billerbeck, IV,817; 825.
64 Ibid., 818; 829f.
65 Ps. Sol. 17:43; cf. 18:6 and Luke 10:23f. = Matt. 13:16! Translation by J. H.
Charlesworth, in idem, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (London,
1983-5), 2,668-9.
encounter the Messiah as teacher and authoritative Torah

interpreter.
In Test. Jud. 24 we find, in the Jewish original form, a
non-warlike Messiah from Judah with a strongly ethical
orientation. Alongside this, Test. Lev. 18 speaks o f the
messianic high priest as saviour. The circumstances o f place
and time o f the Messiah’s appearance, o f his complete or
relative concealment before his public ministry, the
different forms o f his legitimation through God himself,
through a prophet like Elijah, or coram publico, and his
coming in humility or glory, remain astonishingly variable
in the later rabbinic messianic Haggada. Even the pre
existent Messiah, hidden by God, or the suffering and dying
Messiah, are not absent.
The frequently repeated thesis that there is no reference
whatever to a pre-Christian suffering Messiah appears
questionable in light o f the messianic features o f the LX X
translation o f Isa. 52:13 - 53:12, and a disputed Aramaic
text from Cave 4 (influenced by Isa. 53) concerning an
eschatological, suffering and atoning, ‘revelator’. In fact, we
have only rather few pre-Christian messianic texts, which
nonetheless already show an astonishing variety. Qumran has
significantly increased these. We now know o f the two Anointed
figures - the pre-eminent priesdy, and the Davidic - who were
expected. We also know something o f ‘messianic exegesis’
from the Testimonies, Florilegia, and certain pesharim. To this
may be added the eschatological role o f Michael (familiar from
Dan. 12:If.), for example, in the War Scroll, and the enigmatic
Melchizedek fragment, which portrays God’s plenipotentiary
as heavenly saviour. With such a widely arrayed background,
which continues in the rabbinic texts despite the
consolidations following a d 70 and 135, it may be presumed
that the messianic spectrum was even much broader. A case in
point are Josephus’s references to radical eschatological
groups, and the messianic ambitions o f individuals, although
he passes over in silence all messianic statements because o f
their political sensitivity. There can be no question here o f a
systematic configuration o f the Messiah Haggada, to say
nothing o f a Messiah dogmatic’ .
The word rPÜD refers already in the Old Testament

exclusively to God’s activity. He is the actor in the ‘anointing’
carried out in his name. Thus, rPE?Ö - xpioroc; is not simply a
‘tide o f majesty’ , which one can adopt, but presupposes God’s
acting on, and through, his eschatological messenger.
Therefore, the concept need not possess, a priori, a greater
theocratic-political, or even militant, content, than the
metaphor ‘kingdom o f God’ , behind which, to be sure, the
politically realized theocracy could also stand. Wellhausen (see
above, p. 32, n. 57) was correct in pointing out this analogy.
Already in the Old Testament, not only the king is
‘Anointed’ but also the (High) Priest, and, at last sporadically,
the prophet. Isa. 61:If. is especially fitting as an eschatological
text here:
The Spirit o f the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has
anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted (TOO
'’niK m m = ou eïv£K8v expioev pe); he has sent me to bind
up the brokenhearted OOrT^ttf 0^139 = euayyeAioaoGai
nT(ox°ïÇ ctnéoxaÀKSv pe).
I know no other Old Testament text that better describes the
ministry ofjesus in Galilee as portrayed by the Synoptics, above
all, by Mark. Jesus’ ‘service to Israel’ , which Paul refers to when
he speaks o f him as ôicckovoç . . . nepixopqç imèp àAqOeiaç
0eoû (Rom. 15:8; see above, pp. 4f.), becomes visible here;
Luke, with excellent historical-theological flair, puts this very
word on Jesus’ lips in his messianic-prophetic sermon at the
outset o f his public ministry in Nazareth (Luke 4:17-19). That
this text was essential for Jesus himself can be seen from his
answer to the Baptist’s question in Q (Luke 7:22 = Matt. 11:5),
and the Beatitudes (Luke 6:20f. = Matt. 5:1-3). The same motif,
however, appears in one o f the most influential texts o f those
referring to the ‘kingly’ Messiah, Isa. ll:lff.:
There shall come forth a shoot from the stump o f Jesse____ And the
Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit o f wisdom and
understanding, the spirit o f counsel and might, the spirit o f
knowledge and the fear o f the Lord___ He shall not judge by what
his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; but with righteousness
he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek o f the
earth.. . .
We know from the Qumran texts that the messianic prophet

o f Deut. 18 plays a role, not only in the Samaritan Eschatology
(where there could be no royal Davidic Messiah), and in
Christian texts, but also in Jewish ones. Moreover, there the
Old Testament prophets are sometimes described as
‘Anointed’, for example, 1QM 11:7, ‘your Anointed ones, seers
o f the testimonies’; elsewhere we find ‘Anointed o f the Holy
Spirit’ (CD 2:12, and a further D fragment from 4Q 267, 216 =
CD 6:1: ETTIpil HVi TTE?D), and ‘holy Anointed Ones’
(CD 6:1). In another text, Moses seems to be named ‘God’s
Anointed’ .66A fragment reads: ‘ [and] Holy Spi[ritw illre]ston
his Anointed’ .67In this text (taken from Isa. 11:2), it is unclear
which Messiah is referred to; reasoning from 4Q, we might
presume that the kingly Messiah is meant, although he
stands behind the priestly. At one point we read o f one
who is ‘anointed with the royal unguent’ (fQEO rP£7Q
r r D ’PD),68 and in 4Q Patriarchal ‘Blessings’ (4Q 252 V3-4:
T n rrD2 pTSPT rp e to ) the ‘Shoot o f David’ is the ‘Anointed
o f Righteousness’ . I also believe that the disputed Son o f
God text 4Q 246 refers to the Davidic Messiah.69 However,
for both Judaism and early Christianity, David was not only
the prototype o f the kingly Messiah, but, next to Isaiah, the
most important prophet as well. A David text in the Psalm
Scroll from Cave 11 emphasizes that he spoke 4,050 (!) songs,
‘all by the gift o f prophecy which was given him by the
Most H igh’ .70 What was true for the prophets o f Israel was
certainly valid for a figure bringing eschatological salvation, as
is seen by the appearance o f such a one in 11Q Melch. There
66 4Q377, 2 II 5 (Prel. Cone. SL 12) lm tfD rTtflD 'DD (unpublished).

67 4Q 287, 10, 13 (Prel. Cone. Bb), cf. J. T. Milik, 23 (1972), 134 with a
different reading. Garcia Martinez, JBTh 8 (1993), 207 gives a further
proposition: ‘On the Anointed ones o f the Spirit o f Holiness’.
68 4Q458, 2 II 6 (Prel. Cone. SL 90), cf. Wacholdery and Abegg, Preliminary
E d ition . . . , vol. II, p. 288 (not yet officially published).
69 As recently demonstrated by John J. Collins, ‘The Son o f God Text from
Qum ran’, pp. 65-82 in From Jesus to John. Essays on Jesus and New Testament
Christology in Honour o f Marinus de Jonge edited by Martinus C. de Boer, JS N T
84 (Sheffield, 1993) (cf. Bible Review, June 1993, 34-38, 54 from the same
author).
70J. A. Sanders, The Psalm Scroll o f Qumran, Cave 11, DJDJ IV (1965), 96 = Col.
XXVII, 9-11.
the messenger o f good tidings from Isa. 52:7, with a clear

reference to Isa. 61:1, is interpreted as the one ‘Anointed
with the Spirit’ (iT T H HPC^D) and is possibly related to
the màsîah nàgîd the anointed prince mentioned in Dan.
9:25. However, it remains a mystery who this enigmatic figure
is who ‘ [preaches] good news, proclaims [salvation], o f
whom it is written, [when] it says, “to comfort [all who
mourn in Zion], and to teach them in truth in all ages [o f
the w orld]”’. Originally, this figure may have been identified
with the Teacher o f Righteousness, and then later with the
eschatological Prophet who was awaited alongside the High-
priestly and Davidic Messiahs or even the messianic Highpriest
himself. Also Melchizedek is himself a priest and king and
identical with the most important Angel Michael, the heavenly
redeemer o f Israel.71
That already at this time priesthood, kingly rule, and the gift
o f prophecy, could have woven themselves into a munus triplex
is shown by the example o f John Hyrcanus, o f whom Josephus
reports that he was ‘accounted by God worthy o f three o f
the greatest privileges, the rule o f the nation, the office o f
high-priest, and the gift o f prophecy’ (Ant. 13.299; trans. by
R. Marcus, LC L ). His sons, Aristobulus and Alexander
Jannaeus, then became respectively High Priest and King o f
the Jews - to be sure in a very unspiritual manner.
This example influenced the most successful o f the
Hasmonean rulers. According to A. Schalit even Herod had
‘messianic’ ambitions, and Josephus (or his informant,
Nicolaus o f Damascus) reports that Pharisees brought messi
anic intrigues and expectations into the royal family, or more
precisely, into the circle o f the distinguished ladies o f Herod’s
court. However, what was possible with regard to the concrete
historical present, must also have been possible with regard to
the eschatological consummation: that different - but only
apparently contrasting - motifs combined in an eschatological
salvation figure, perhaps in a certain chronological sequence.
At all events it is clear that to speak o f a firmly established
Jewish ‘Messiah dogmatic’ is completely nonsensical - it never
71 IQ S 9:11; cf. 4Q Test 5-8.

existed. Whoever does this may be suspected o f reading his

own dogmatic wishes into a very complex historical situation.
The variability o f the rPEftD concept manifest in the pre-
Christian Qumran texts accords with the possibility o f des
cribing the heavenly ‘Son o f Man’ figure as Messiah since the
Similitudes o f Enoch (see above, p. 34). Here I must empha
size that we really know very little, only the tip o f the iceberg,
about the Jewish ‘Messiah Haggada’ during the time o f Jesus.
If, then, a prophetic teacher figure with the authority o f
God’s Spirit appeared with the outrageous claim that with his
proclamation and activity as miraculous healer God’s eternal
reign became reality, if, furthermore, he applied the apoca
lyptic cipher ‘ (Son o f) Man’ to himself, and also to the future
heavenlyjudge, if, finally, he was reputed to come from a family
o f the lineage o f David, then does it not appear completely
understandable, indeed probable, that such a figure was in
vested with the tide ‘Anointed’, and from a certain standpoint
necessarily took his position with regard to the title, given that
he was executed on the cross as a political criminal under the
charge o f being the long-awaited ‘Messiah’ and ‘King o f the
Jews’? In other words: the historical sounding o f the question,
Jesus and ‘Messiah’, must begin with the Passion story.
5. The Crucified Messiah

In his dispute with Wrede, H. J. Holtzmann said o f Jesus’ death
on the cross that it was ‘o f all things, the most certain’ .72 On
this single point, even in research today, there is still a
consensus: Jesus was executed as a result o f a ‘political decision’
by the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.73
But here the consensus ends. The widely published work
book by Conzelmann and Lindemann74 barely manages to
72 GGA (1901), 959.
73 See Fergus Millar, ‘Reflections on the Trial o f Jesus’, in P. R. Davies and R. T.
White (eds), A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and
HistoryyJSOT SS 100 (1990), pp. 355-81 (pp. 378f.): thejohannine report plays
the greater role here, but is in agreement with the Synoptics on this point.
74 H. Conzelmann and A. Lindemann, Interpreting the New Testament: An
Introduction to the Prindples and Methods of N .T . Exegesis, trans. from the eighth rev.
German ed. by S. Schatzmann (Peabody, Mass., 1988) [Arbeitsbuch Zum Neuen
Testament ( 91988), 53-60,000 copies o f the German ed. printed].
admit that, on this evidence, it must have been a ‘political

accusation that was levelled against Jesus’75 and ‘that a trial
before the representative o f the Roman government actually
did take place’ ;76 all else is alleged to be redactional,
secondarily ‘spun from ’ Old Testament material, or simply
legend.77 Thus is repeated, almost scholastically, the position
o f Rudolf Bultmann, who rejected the view o f his pupil,
Bornkamm, that ‘Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem’ was intended ‘to
confront the people . . . with the message o f the Kingdom o f
God’ , with the statement: ‘This is all speculation. All that is
certain is that he was crucified by the Romans, that is, he
suffered the death o f a political criminal.’ Simply, nothing
more may be known. Bultmann restricts this even further:
Jesus’ crucifixion was the result ‘o f a misunderstanding o f his
activity as political’ .78
But we must ask whether this radically sceptical decree is not
so much the judgement o f the reflective historian, as that o f
the ‘dogmatist’ , who, in principle, is no longer interested in
historical reality (or only marginally), and who, against the
unanimous judgement o f the sources, declares, ‘what may not
be, cannot be’ . All that he and his followers leave o f the Markan
Passion narrative - apart from the name o f Pilate, which we
know from Josephus, Philo, 1 Tim. 6:13 and Ignatius - is what
we can otherwise derive from the Pauline statement that Jesus
was executed by crucifixion; indeed, it even falls short o f the
75Ibid., p. 333.
76Ibid., p. 331.
77Ibid., pp. 327-35.
78R. Bultmann, ‘Das Verhältnis der urchristlichen Christusbotschaft zum
historischen Jesus’, SAH (1960), Heft 3 (41965), 12 = ibid.; Exegetica (1967), 453;
cf. M. Hengel, Nachfolge und Charisma,, B ZN W 34 (1968), pp. 42ff. Bultmann’s view
is taken over without significant alterations by Conzelmann and Lindemann,
Interpreting the New Testament, p. 328: ‘But it is very difficult to answer the question
o f what the real reason was for Jesus’ going to Jerusalem. Since the sources are
glossed heavily with Christian tradition, we are left to suppositions concerning
Jesus’ motives. Apparently Jesus wants to take his announcement o f the kingdom
o f God and his call to repentance to the Jewish people; on the occasion o f a major
feast, therefore he enters the capital because he is able to reach a particularly
large crowd there.
O f course, this notion, too, remains merely supposition. Only one thing is
established historically: For whatever reason, Jesus did, in fact, move to Jerusalem,
and he was crucified there.’
Pauline statement that Christ was crucified, and, in the night

before his death, took a meal with his disciples at which he
communicated to them what was both highly significant and
unparalleled.79
On the other hand, it seems that scholarship is widely agreed
that, as even Bultmann emphasizes, Mark ‘had already before
him a Passion story that was a continuous narrative’ in which
not the individual parts, but ‘the coherence was the primary
fact’.80 It may also be accepted that this was a written account,
presumably the earliest o f all the early Church’s connected
narratives about Jesus. To be sure, there is much disagreement
about the date and extent o f this pre-Markan ‘Passion story’. A
hint may be provided by 1 Cor. ll:23ff. (written ca. a d 55),
where Paul relates a small passage o f the Antiochean version o f
the Lord’s Supper, peculiar to him, to which Luke also had
later access. Against Bultmann’s view that this is an isolated
instance,81 the precise chronological datum, èv xrj v u k ti f[
napeôiôsTO, shows that unique night and the following day in
which the napaôiôooGai and its consequences took place, to
be an integral part o f the chronologically sequential narrative.
Thus, this account appears already to have existed in the 40s
when Paul was living in Syria and Cilicia. That ‘ the [Markan]
passion story does n o t. .. have a historical core’ is an assertion
that even Conzelmann and Lindemann are unwilling to make;
79 Cf. Conzelmann and Lindemann, ibid., p. 330: ‘Originally the narrative o f

the Lord’s Supper was a cult legend without temporal constraints and without
reference to the Passover festival. . . ’. Shortly hereafter we find a statement which,
on this premise, is incomprehensible: 'CertainlyJesus did have a common meal
with his disciples, but the account o f the Lord’s Supper does not contain the historical
reminiscence o f this last meal (ibid.; all italics, mine). Since the Gethsemane account
‘is legendary as well’ (ibid.), neither can we know anything about when and where
Jesus was arrested, nor whether he was accompanied by his disciples, nor whether
he had dined with them direcdy prior to this. In a workbook for students, such a
(in the truest sense o f the word, ‘thrown-together’ [ leicht-fertige] ) concatenation o f
assertions is irresponsible.
80 R. Bultmann, The History o f the Synoptic Tradition, rev. ed., trans. byjohn Marsh
(New York, 1963), p. 275. [Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition, FR LANT 29
( 21931)]. Close to the ancient kerygma o f the ‘Passion and Death o f Jesus, as the
analysis has shown, was a short narrative o f historical reminiscence about the
Arrest, Condemnation and Execution o f Jesus’ (loc. cit.; cf. p. 279; cf., ibid., Die
Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien, 51966, p. 45).
81 Bultmann, The History o f the Synoptic Tradition, p. 275.
they attempt to establish this core ‘by means o f a form-critical

analysis o f the Markan leitm otif. To be sure, very little o f this
analysis is visible to the reader, apart from the commonplace
that ‘Jesus did, in fact, move to Jerusalem, and he was crucified
there’ .82 Even ‘ that Jesus entered Jerusalem together with a
crowd o f pilgrims in anticipation o f the imminent breaking in
o f the kingdom o f God’ is no more than ‘conceivable’ and
‘nothing more than speculation’ .83 What a remarkable sense
for historical reality! As it is, if Jesus had not entered Jerusalem
he would not have been crucified there, and, according to all
that we know about him, he was no lone traveller; that he
anticipated ‘the imminent breaking in o f the kingdom o f God’
is also difficult to doubt. The inference is unavoidable: if the
oldest narrative account about Jesus, the Passion story,
represents a mere conglomerate o f ‘dogmatic’ and legendary
community formulations, as radical criticism postulates, then
nothing at all o f the Jesus tradition is remotely trustworthy, and
the entire tradition o f the gospels concerning Jesus must in
honesty be rejected en bloc, since the disciples were just as
interested, indeed, more so, in the end o f Jesus’ life - which
formed the basis for the beginning o f the Church and the
Kerygma - than in individual logia and parables; for the end o f
his life was the foundation for their certainty o f salvation.
Wellhausen, the great sceptic and historian, comments: ‘ the
reminiscences o f him are onesided and sketchy; only the last
days o f his life remained etched in memory’ .84 The early
Jerusalem church, under the leadership o f Peter and John, and
later James, the Lord’s brother, was for the next three decades
the ‘standard’ community, in which information about that
unique event could be assembled. I f they were not in a position
to do this, but instead, contrary to all memory, freely
constructed and historicized, then neither can we expect them
to have had any interest in sayings o f Jesus. Certainly, neither
R. Bultmann nor H. Conzelmann were prepared to accept this
consequence: the former wrote an engaging and thoroughly
informative book on Jesus, and the latter is able to tell us a
82 Conzelmann and Lindemann, Interpreting the New Testament, pp. 328-9.
83 Ibid., p. 329: ‘Abes mehr als eine Vermisting ist as nicht’.
84J. Wellhausen, Israelitisch-jüdische Geschichte (81921), p. 367.
good deal about Jesus in his article, ‘Jesus Christus’ in the

RGG.
With good reason. For how can the disciples have forgotten
the most convulsive day o f their lives, the day o f Jesus’ Passion?
The Gospel o f Mark was written ca. a d 70, Peter died ca. 64,
James, and probably Paul as well, ca. 62. We ourselves have
not completely forgotten the decisive events o f the early
fifties. I passed examinations in 1951 and in 1954 became
‘Stiftsrepetent’ in Tübingen. If, however, we take the view that
the disciples, Peter at their head, held this day in memory
above many others, and attempted to supplement their
knowledge o f their Master’s death through additional
information, in order to tell their tale meaningfully (which was
at once proclamation), then we cannot ignore that the Messiah
question runs through the Passion story of all the gospels like a red
thread. This is particularly prominent in the oldest account,
Mark’s, and is surely true for the pre-Markan story as well; here
also, we must not forget that Mark gives clear references to
witnesses (14:51; 15:21) who were still known in the community
in which he wrote (in my judgement, at Rome). Among the
fundamental questions that occupied the disciples was why
Jesus was condemned to the shameful death on the cross; that
they had an answer to this, which was founded both in theology
and the historical reality o f that unforgettable day (and the
preceding night, in which he was betrayed), is witnessed by the
oldest account, this very story ‘according to Mark’ . As N. A.
Dahl has already pointed out, with this account one can
neither stylistically nor substantially . . . find a clean distinction
between the historical, the legendary, and the dogmatic. They
are all interwoven; the historical is not only historical, the
theological is not dogmatic-rational. In its entirety and its details,
the Passion story is highly concentrated and pregnant with
symbol; in the manner of its presentation, the inner participation
o f the narrator and the hidden dimensions of the event are
expressed.85
In the same essay, Dahl points out the line o f connection
between the Pauline message o f ‘Christ crucified’ , and the
85 N. A. Dahl, ‘Der gekreuzigte Messias’, in H. Ristow and K. Matthiae (eds), Der
historischeJesus und der kerygmatische Christus (Berlin, *1961), p. 155.
confession-like formula, ‘Christ died for us’ (or variations),

and the unanimous statement o f the gospels that Jesus was
condemned and executed by Pilate as King of theJews. It follows
then that this itself was the decisive, capital charge against
Jesus, for ‘the formulation “King o f the Jews” derives neither
from a prophetic proof nor from the Church’s christology. The
title “king” is generally avoided in referring to Jesus.’86
Moreover, ‘King o f the Jews’ is nowhere found as a Jewish
description o f the Messiah. Thus, the High Priest and the
scribes mock the crucified Jesus not with the words o f the
charge formulated in the cross inscription, but with ‘Let the
Anointed, the King o f Israel, come down now from the cross,
that we may see and believe.’87
It is improbable in the extreme that the early Church, with
no reference to historical reality, introduced o f itself the
politically (highly) prejudicial expression, ‘King o f the Jews’ ,
as causa poenae, since this would have justified the Roman
proceedings against Jesus as a rebel against the ruling state
power. Moreover, the followers o f this criminal themselves
would have been open to the charge o f being a community o f
rebels. In Luke, and even more so in John, this charge is
particularly prominent: ‘everyone who makes himself a king
sets himself against Caesar’ (John 19:12; cf. Luke 23:2). Only
the powers in Rome could install a ‘King o f the Jews’ - as in the
case o f Herod, and later, o f Agrippa I. All those who even
stretched their hand towards the crown were rebels against
Rome: the last o f the Hasmoneans, Antigonus, whom Mark
Antony beheaded after having him flogged; the usurpers
following H erod’s death ( a d 4); the shepherd, Athronges;
the slave, Simon; Judas the Galilean, and son o f the bandit
chief, Hezekiah; the charismatic rebel leaders (after 66),
Menachem, the son (or grandson) o f Judas, and Simon bar
86 Ibid., p. 159.
87 Mark 15:32; Matt. 27:42 omits the xpicrtöq, but frames the statement with the
double reference to the tide Son o f God (27:40, cf. 4:3, 6; 27:43). Luke 23:35, 37f.
distinguishes between the Jewish leaders’ jeer, with its O ld Testament echo, ô
Xpioxoç toö 08OÖ ô ekàektôç, and that o f the pagan soldiers, ô ßaoiÄEix; xöv
’Iouôakov, referring then to the inscription. The Evangelists, too, sense how un-
Jewish, indeed, how un-biblical, is this ‘King o f the Jews’ as a description o f a
messianic pretender. Despite this it dominates the crucifixion account.
Giora; even the messianic king, Lucuas, who led the rebellion
in Cyrene and Egypt in 115-17; the pseudo-messiah, Bar
Cochba (132-5). Had the earliest Church applied the title,
‘King o f the Jews’ , to Jesus, it would itself have been responsible
for arraying him with the worst o f all possible company,
defaming both him and itself. But it was unnecessary to invent
this charge: it was, in fact, brought by the Jewish leaders against
Jesus before Pilate as the most certain means o f publicly
disavowing this dangerous agitator and seducer o f the people,
and bringing him to the cross.
Although Bultmann complains that scholarship ‘has
occupied itself too little with the reasons for the execution’ ,88
he nonetheless sees in all concrete references to this charge
‘secondary explanation’;89 this leads him to the vague,
completely unsatisfactory supposition cited above that Jesus’
execution ‘resulted from a misunderstanding o f his activity as
political’ .90 But Roman jurisprudence, although severe, was
accustomed to having iron-clad proof. Thus, Felix crucified two
sons o f the most dangerous rebel, Judas the Galilean, who
themselves had for years led bands successfully. In the years
just prior to the outbreak o f the Jewish War, Albinus, hardly
more scrupulous than Pilate, was nonetheless significantly
more lenient with a fanatic prophet o f doom, Jesus, Son o f
Ananias: after being beaten for punishment, Jesus was
delivered by the leaders o f Jerusalem to the procurator for
continuing to utter his doom prophecies which were causing
unrest in the city. Albinus had him scourged, but, although
‘flayed to the bone’ , he refused to answer any questions, and
steadfastly continued his prophesying; he was pronounced
insane and released. Why was not such a scourging sufficient
punishment for Jesus o f Nazareth? Probably because the
charge against him was significantly graver (Jos. Bell. 6,300ff.).
With good reason, Dahl refers here to the causa poena on
the cross (Mark 15:26): ßaoiÄei)<; xöv louôaicov.91 This in
formed everyone in Jerusalem o f the charge against Jesus.
88 Bultmann, Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien, p. 15.
89 Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 272.
90 See n. 78.
91 Dahl, Der gekreuzigte Messias, p. 159.
Therefore, this could not have been suppressed by those

unknown Christians in Jerusalem (chronology suggests that
members o f the Eleven, perhaps Peter himself, will have been
among them) who formed the earliest narradve. Conzelmann
and Lindemann, however, see even in this item, which dis
advantaged Christians in the eyes o f their opponents, 'a
christological [motive] without historical background’ ; for,
contrary to the assertion argued occasionally, there is no evidence
for affixing such inscriptions above the head of the one sentenced
to death as a Roman custom.92
But several false conclusions are connected together here:
First, Mark (whose account the authors follow) mentions only
an éniypa<|)fi xqç aixiaç and nothing about where it was
displayed; this is first specified in Matt. 27:37 (éndvco xfjç
K£<î>aÀf|ç), very possibly stemming from personal observation
o f Roman execution practice: everybody should see it. Luke
23:38 simply has en’ aux# - a notice o f this type could also be
hung around the condemned man’s neck. John 19:19 places
the tri-lingual inscription ém xou oxaupou.
It should be further noted that we find very few descriptions
o f crucifixion from antiquity. Mark 15:20-39 and the parallel
account o f the other three gospels are by far the most extensive
o f these. Ancient authors generally considered it far too
unsavoury a subject. I f it was mentioned at all, the mere indica
tion that someone had been crucified sufficed; for this reason
other details were not mentioned. No self-respecting author
wished to treat such things. The practice o f publicizing the causa
poenae on a placard for general deterrence at an execution is
attested in several texts:
At a public banquet in Rome [Caligula] immediately handed a
slave over to the executioners for stealing a strip of silver from the
couches, with orders that his hands be cut off and hung from his
neck upon his breast, and that he then be led about among the
guests, preceded by a placard giving the reason for his punishment
(praecedente titulo [cf. John 19:19 : xixÀoç] qui causam poenae
indicaret) .9S
92 Conzelmann and Lindemann, Interpreting the New Testament, p. 333.
93 Suetonius, Caligula 32.2 (trans. by Rolfe, LC L ). It would not be surprising if
this poor wretch subsequently suffered the punishment o f slaves, crucifixion.
. . . Caepio’s father freed one of the two slaves who had

accompanied his son . . . because this slave had wished to defend
his young master when he met his death, but... [led] the second
slave, who had deserted his son . . . through the midst of the
Forum with an inscription making known the reason why he was to
be put to death (aixia xfjç Gavaxcàoecoç), and afterwards crucified
him.94
It is pedantic in the extreme and a sign o f unrealistic
historical approach, arguing from the lack o f specific
mention, to deny the sheer probability that these deterrent
placards accompanied the unfortunates to the cross and
were left there with them. The case with Jesus will have
been similar. The purpose was public deterrence: the longer
it took the delinquent to die, and the more observers who
read the charge, the greater was the deterrent effect. The
note in John 19:20 illuminates this situation: ‘Many o f the
Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was
near the city.’ It must also be remembered that in the
inscription, ‘King o f the Jews’ , the anti-Jewish undertone
present in the mockery by the Jew-hating soldier rabble
may also have played a role. Such placards, inscribed with
the causa poenae, are attested for the reign o f Domitian,95 in
the Acts o f Paul and Thekla (c. 28) and for the Martyrs o f
Lyon,96 in each case, connected with public executions in
a theatre. An alternative consisted o f having the crime
publicly cried out before the execution, as in the case o f
Commodus’s murder.97That crucifixion for a political charge
was connected with a derisive and deterrent exhibition, is
attested by Tacitus, Hist. 4:3, 2. Here, a former slave, who had
betrayed Tarracina and for this had been elevated to
equestrian rank by Vitellius, is crucified by Vespasian together
with the equestrian insignia which he had received from
Vitellius for his treachery (patitulo adfixus in isdem anulis, quos
94 Dio Cassius, Rom. Hist. 54.3.7 (trans. by Cary, L C L ).

95 Suetonius, Domitian 10.1.
96 Eusebius, H E 5.1.44: outôç éoriv "Attcxàoç ô Xpioriavôç.
97 Dio Cassius, Rom. Hist. 73.16.5: ouxoç éoxiv ô Kôjijioôov ctnonviÇaç; cf. also
mSanh 11:4, ‘And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more
presumptuously’ (Deut. 17:13; cf. 13:12; 19:20; 21:21).
accepto a Vitellio gestabat). According to Tacitus, the Tarracines

derived solacium from this.98
There is no basis for dismissing as ‘dogmatic invention’ the
reference to the causapoenae, likely to be understood by ancient
readers as a defamation. A similar situation is the antijewish
mocking ofjesus by the soldiers (Mark 15:16-20), which has a
parallel in the jeering o f a local lunatic as king o f the Jews on
the occasion o f Agrippa I ’s visit to Alexandria.99That the entire
scene, with its parody o f a Hellenistic-oriental king, was
created by Mark, or the author o f the oldest Passion tradition,
I find inconceivable: ‘Among the insignia o f the Hellenistic
vassal kings were the purple chlamys, the sceptre, and the
golden crown o f leaves.’ 100
According to Bultmann, ‘ the mocking in w. 16-20a is a
secondary explanation o f v. 15b (<J)payy£À(ooaç) to which
some traditional military custom lent some colour’ .101 Such a
sweeping generalization misconstrues the text, for w. 16-20a
are not about the scourging at all, but the mocking ofjesus,
with its strong connection to the charge against him as King o f
the Jews. Presumably, the scene presupposes the scourging; the
Kai napéô(DK£v xöv ’Iqooöv (^payeÀÀcooaç ïva oxaupcoGf], on
the other hand, refers to Pilate’s order for crucifixion
preceded by flogging as accompanying punishment. Here,
the critics give too much credit to the novelistic creativity o f
the evangelist (or his predecessor). The - indignant - counter
question o f A. Schlatter has itsjustification: ‘I f the disciples are
to be the first to crown him with royal dignity, have they
invented the crown o f thorns as well?’102
98 See H. Heubner, P. Cornelius Tadtus, Die Historien, Kommentar I V { 1976), p. 20;

M. Hengel, Crucifixion (London, 1977), p. 60. It seems to me that the reference to
guilt was a regular practice.
99 Philo, Flacc., 36-42.
100J. Blinzler, Der Prozeß Jesu (41969), pp. 325f. Here (n. 22), Blinzler refers to
1 Macc. 10:20 = Josephus, Ant. 13.45: the usurper, Alexander Balas, who installed
Jonathan as High Priest o f theJewish ethnos, i.e. as its political leader, declared him
4>iAoc; ßaoiAscoq, and concluded a treaty with him, sent him as tokens o f his office,
‘ethnarch o f the Jews’, a gown o f purple, and a golden diadem. See also the essay
by the ancient historian, R. Delbrueck, ‘Antiquarisches zu den Verspottungen
Jesu’, Z N W 41 (1942), 124-45.
102A. Schlatter, ‘Der Zweifel an der Messianitätjesu’ (above, n. 4), 190.
Nor can the Barabbas episode, in which Pilate twice calls

Jesus the ‘King o f the Jews’ (Mark 15:9, 12), be dismissed with
a wave o f the hand as ‘a secondary insertion from a literary
standpoint’ ; for the skeleton that remains after this rigorous
process o f subtraction, the alleged Passion story, is a phantom.
Like any good narrative, the Passion story, too, consists o f
scenes which are connected to each other by the course o f
events. The additional judgement that this episode ‘is to be
regarded as legendary, for outside the Gospels nothing is
known o f a corresponding Passover custom’ 103 also bypasses
historical reality since nothing at all is known o f legal customs
in questions o f penal law between the Hasmoneans and the
procurators. This gap in our knowledge cannot, therefore, be
used as a historical argument.
The penal code in the Mishnah tractates, Sanhédrin and
Makkoth, broadly reflects an ideal, ahistorical law o f a later
period. In the Old Testament, as well as in Rabbinic Hebrew,
PTDD means ‘ to pass over’, ‘to protect’, ‘ to guard’ (cf. Exod.
12:13, 23, 27; Isa. 31:5; mPes 10:5). We can, therefore, neither
prove nor exclude the existence o f the custom o f Passover
privilege. That the crowd voiced its opinion for or against a
defendant at trials, and exerted pressure on the judge, is
sufficiently attested for the imperial era; this is also true for the
prerogative o f the imperial representative to condemn or
acquit defendants (cf. John 19:10). In simple cases, for
example, involving plain peregrini, unproblematic measures o f
coerdtio, or the maintenance o f peace and order, everything
was basically arbitrium iudicantis o f the Roman representative.
To be sure, it cannot be proved that the events proceeded as
reported by Mark. Here, we are left with a non liquet.
Further, I find improbable the view that 15:2, with Pilate’s
question, ‘Are you the King o f the Jews?’ , and Jesus’ positive
answer ‘You have said so’ , was secondarily interpolated into
the original unity o f 15:1 and 3. For it is incredible that the
original account o f Jesus’ delivery to Pilate, with regard to the
public trial, should have been no more specific than the banal
Kai Kaxqyopouv avxov oi àpxiepeïç noÀÀa o f 15:3. Is the

earliest Church supposed to have believed that Jesus was

executed on such indeterminate, unspecific grounds? In fact,
v. 3 underscores only the one main point o f the charge, to
which Jesus confesses in v. 2, and in which all four gospels
agree. All Pilate’s similar questions reduce to the common
denominator où eî ô ßaoiAeüq xöv ’Iouôaicov. Jesus’ con
firming answer seals his fate: confessus pro iudicato est. Jesus’
answer, où À é y e iç , is also unanimously reported.104 This rare
unanimity is an indication o f the importance which they all
laid on the clear question and the unequivocal answer, not least
because this exchange was firmly anchored in^the Passion
tradition. John, in whom Jesus’ kingship plays a special role,
considered it necessary to place Jesus’ answer within a larger
framework, at once interpreting it, and reducing the possibility
o f its being misunderstood.
In the dramatic scene, after the one, all-important point is
clarified, 15:3 follows with its ‘flood ’ o f charges by the leaders
(which Luke fills out with concrete political content
stemming from the main charge), and functions as a
bridge to Jesus’ silence. Jesus has given the one answer and
has nothing more to add. Here, it cannot be said that the
tradition o f Jesus’ silence, ‘seen historically’ , is more certain
than that o f Pilate’s question in 15:2.105 For if one is indulg
ing in a radically critical attitude anyway, then 15:5 can have
been ‘ spun from ’ (to use the customary jargon) Isa. 53:7
and other Old Testament texts (Ps. 38:14f.; 39:2f., 10; Lam.
3:26).
I myself do not believe this. The points o f contact with texts
from Isa. 53 and some Psalms (22; 39; 69; 118) surface because
certain events which were especially retained in the tradition
were later rediscovered in the Scriptures; here, fact and
scriptural p roof came together. Pilate’s astonishment is
plausible: as a rule, the accused attempted to ‘talk his way out
o f it’ .Jesus, however, had nothing more to say.
104 Luke 23:3; Matt. 27:11; John 18:33, 37; the last named develops a
christological dialogue from the question and answer.
105 Moreover, with an obstinately silent defendant, interrogation under torture
was customary (Valerius Maximus, 8:4, 2f.; cf. M. Hengel, Crucifixion,, p. 59). But
Jesus had already confessed.
Notwithstanding the tendency o f the evangelists to

exonerate Pilate, this trial scene, which was public, can in fact,
derive from eyewitness reports. As I have already said, the
disciples and the early Church must have had a burning
interest in this event. I f Jesus had not had a considerable
number o f sympathizers among the Galilean pilgrims, and
probably some among the citizens o f Jerusalem as well, these
rapid and tough proceedings by the leaders would have been
unnecessary. Some o f these may have been present, and, in
contrast to the crowd o f clients hauled together by the priestly
aristocracy, have remained silent. Thus couldit have happened,
and this assumption seems more plausible to me than the
assumption that it was a theologically composed fantasy o f
some later church member. How could the subjective
composition o f an individual have gained ascendancy across
the entire spectrum against all reminiscence?
Here, one thing leads to the next. Jesus was delivered to
Pilate with the capital charge, ‘King o f the Jews’, just as, later,
the prophet o f doom o f the same name to Albinus, and he did
not deny the charge. But how did the leaders arrive at this
charge, graver than any other? Through the previously
narrated interrogation at night before the highestJewish court,
the High Priest. Here, I need not go into the disputed question
concerning whether a formal judgement was pronounced
there, or whether only the most effective form o f the charge
was elicited, which Mark shares with Matthew, and Luke with
John. This is not decisive for the question whether Jesus was
executed as a messianic pretender.
That John does not tell o f the double interrogation before
Annas, the eminence grise in Jerusalem, and his son-in-law,
Caiphas in detail, need not surprise us: according to his report,
the dispute about the messiahship o f Jesus, which for him is
implicit in the Father’s sending him into the world, was already
publicly setded, at the latest, in the previous year at the Feast o f
Tabernacles. For John, Jesus’ messianic claim had been open
to scrutiny for a long time. Thus, Jesus’ answer (18:20)
emphasizes the openness o f his teaching. With this, the
Evangelist probably seeks to repel the later charges that
Christians were a dangerous secret society, and contradicts at
the same time, the Markan messianic secret theory. Much

more so than in Mark, Jesus is for John not only Son and
Messiah, but also, as such, the true ‘King o f Israel’ (1:49;
12:13). The tri-lingual titulusproclaims this in all international
languages to the whole world.
In favour o f the Markan account is the curious note
concerning the alleged Temple saying o f Jesus, unnecessary
for the narrative, and the reference to the contradictions in
the witness statements, which indicates a relatively orderly
procedure with strictly separate interrogation o f the witnesses.
The erection o f the new eschatological sanctuary was a
messianic task, and, apparently, the Passion story traditionists
already saw an inner connection between this alleged saying o f
Jesus, and the conspiratorial, provocative question o f the High
Priest concerning Jesus’ messianic dignity. I cannot explain this
thoroughlyjewish, complex, and at once, highly dramatic, text
in toto as a christological composition.
Certainly, Mark shaped this climax o f his gospel very
artistically, and in his own way, but this shaping was done on an
older Vorlage. We should free ourselves here from the dogma
that the reworking o f Vorlagen always proceeded from shorter
to longer. From Matthew’s adaption o f Mark we learn the
opposite. We do not, therefore, know whether the pre-Markan
Passion story was in every respect briefer than that o f the
Evangelist. Mark, too, could have abbreviated occasionally.
Is it not conceivable that, in this interrogation directed at
his eschatological-messianic claim, Jesus answered the
provocative question put by the High Priest conducting the
hearing, with a word o f judgement which, in its turn, provoked
the Sanhédrin, confirmed his God-given authority, and at once
referred the leaders to the exalted and coming Son o f Man
with whom he was inextricably bound? This would explain the
supremely indignant reaction o f the great lords, the charge o f
blasphemy, and the abuse and mocking he suffered as false
prophet and seducer o f the people. To be sure, when only one
account o f this type exists, from which all later depend, it
cannot be proved that it so happened, but that all o f this is
community composition (to use that very vague, favourite
expression) is still less provable. For when Jesus was delivered
up and crucified under the charge o f being aJewish messianic

pretender - that is, in the political language which only a
Roman understood, the ‘King o f the Jews’ - then the Messiah
question must already have been at the centre o f the
interrogation by the Jewish authorities. The precautions taken
at Jesus’ arrest, and the speed with which he was delivered to
Pilate, show that the Jewish authorities feared his influence
with the people, and thus wished to avoid direct, and public,
proceedings. It was his eschatologically based authority, or
more precisely, his messianic claim, which finally led, after
some wavering by Pilate, to their making short work o f him.
The Messiah question, according to Mark, was predominant
during the final, tense days in Jerusalem. In his dramatic style,
he prepares the way for it already with the healing o f
Bartimaeus in Jericho; this healing falls outside the topics o f
the customary miracle stories, and demonstrates its
Palestinian-Jewish origin with the unusual Greek-Aramaic
name "Q (Bill. 11,25), and the unique address ''D im ,
which as an intensive o f 'O T , could also be used as an
address form for God. In my judgement, this has its original
roots in an event. The address, ‘Son o f David’ , marks Jesus
as a messianic pretender. Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, riding
down from the Mount o f Olives into the Holy City - as
promised in Zech. 9:9 - accompanied by the acclamation o f
his fellow pilgrims, who greet him with Ps. 118:25f. while
praising the coming kingdom o f David, brings the Messiah
question distinctly to the fore. When Bultmann describes the
second part o f the narrative as ‘legendary or at least strongly
influenced by legend’ and grounds this judgement with the
reasoning that ‘there can be no doubt about the [messianic]106
character o f the animal’ , we may agree with the latter statement
while doubting the former. His ‘p ro o f for the unhistoricity,
‘the assumption that has to be made if we are to take the story
as history, the assumption namely, thatjesus intended to fulfill
106 Translator’s note: I have translated Bultmann’s original messianisch here; John
Marsh’s translation, which I have otherwise used throughout, has rendered
messianisch with ‘legendary’ (cf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 261). This
unfortunate oversight, apparently a dittography generated from the preceding
sentence, results in a material alteration o f the argument.
the prophecy in Zech. 9:9 and that the crowd recognized the
ass as the Messiah’s beast o f burden is absurd’,107presupposes
for the discussion a modern ‘Jesus psychology’ . How can we o f
the twentieth century, without further ado, evaluate via our
presuppositions the intentions and goals o f the Galilean, Jesus o f
Nazareth? Why should not the crowd o f predominantly
Galilean pilgrims, who knew only too well a prophetic word
such as Zech. 9:9, have seen in Jesus the messianic Prophet,
and have harboured the hope that he would be ‘the one to
redeem Israel’ (Luke 24:19,21 ) ? And Jesus himself, why should
he not have acted out a - messianic - symbolism, with the Holy
City and its shining Temple in view, by riding into Jerusalem
on an ass? The absence o f the scriptural reference to Zech. 9:9
in Mark is significant: it stands in the background, apparent to
all. Jesus’ action replaces an explicit scriptural reference. This
is first taken up by Matthew and John. In the latter, the ‘royal’
character o f the episode is heightened by means o f the
i)navTi]oiç motif: The pilgrims assembled in Jerusalem in
expectation o f passover go out to meet and hail him with palm
branches in their hands like a victorious king (John 12:12f.,
18). This is, o f course, a typical Johannine theologically
motivated exaggeration (see below, pp. 335f.) but already the
original event possessed a messianic stamp.
The Cleansing o f the Temple, at the next morning after
following the Entry (Mark 11:15-18), also presupposes - again,
without citation - a scriptural reference from Zechariah. It is
the last word in the prophetic book (14:21b): ‘And there
shall no longer be a trader in the house o f the Lord o f hosts on
that day’ . With this second messianic action, Jesus
cleanses the Temple for the kingdom o f God in his full
authority as Messiah designatus. It is no wonder that the
leaders - obligatorily - question him concerning his authority
(11:27-32). A messianic background is evident in other
episodes as well. The Parable o f the Wicked Husbandmen,
astonishingly familiar with Palestinian economic conditions,
threatens the leaders with the judgement o f God for rejecting
his messengers: Mark 12:35-37 points out a messianic aporia

that will be only resolved in the person o f the Son o f Man,

Jesus. Other anecdotes demonstrate his authority as a charis
matic teacher, ‘not as the scribes’. Among these, the question
concerning the payment o f taxes to Caesar, and the question
put to him by the Sadducees, occur in Jerusalem; for in Galilee
taxes were not paid to Caesar, but to the tetrarch, Herod
Antipas, and Sadducees did not live there. They were much
more at home in Jerusalem. The same is true o f the scribe who
inquired about the greatest o f the commandments: the
‘academy’ o f Torah scholars was located in Jerusalem and
nowhere else. The episode o f the poor widow before the
Temple treasury demonstrates expresslyjesus’ Spirit-inspired,
penetrating knowledge, as in Isa. 11:1-4: the Spirit-bearer par
excellence ‘shall not judge by what his eyes see . . . but with
righteousness he shall judge the poor’ (ll:3 f.). I f Mark has
invented all this material - historically appropriate in style to
an incredible degree - then he has done it with ingenious
empathy, intuition, and understanding. But in the opinion o f
many critics he was a simple anonymous Gentile Christian!108
How is this supposed to have come about?
With all these too brief reflections I have intended no more
than to point out that the Passion narrative can, and - in part,
at least - must, be viewed very differently than is customary in
the ‘vulgar criticism’ that dominates contemporary New
Testament study books. The issue is not about certain proofs
for the historicity o f the individual episodes in the Markan
passion. These can hardly be obtained, given the limited source
basis - as is also frequently the case elsewhere in Ancient
History. Often, one estimation (Ermessensurteil) opposes
another. It seems to me, however, that the historical-
philological argumentation among many representatives o f
radical criticism - due to their express disinterest in the
historical realities - is weaker than that among those who still
allow a certain credibility to the traditional texts. New
Testament exegesis is open to dangers not only from an
108 Conzelmann and Lindemann, Interpreting the New Testament, p. 218: ‘The only
thing we can state is that the author o f Mk is a Gentile Christian with whom we are
not otherwise acquainted.’ Cf., ibid.: ‘Mk has quite obviously not been written by a
Jew.’ An absurd supposition without any proof.
uncritical, sterile apologetic fundamentalism, but also from no

less sterile ‘critical ignorance’ , which, in my judgement, has
hardly more in common with sound historical-critical methods.
Whoever radically strikes the Messiah question from the
Passion story makes this not only completely incompre
hensible - for there remains then only a banal, vacuous torso -
but is also unable to explain the Easter events and the origin o f
post-Easter christology. This is a high price - much too high a
price - to pay for the postulate o f an unmessianic Jesus.
6. The Titles ‘Messiah’ and ‘Son o f Man’
I f Jesus was arrested, delivered to Pilate, and crucified in

Jerusalem as a messianic pretender, then this pretension must
also have been apparent in his activity prior to the final conflict
in Jerusalem. Might one not object here that in all four gospels
- apart from a very few, certainly secondary, exceptions - Jesus
never applies the appellation ‘Christ’ , Anointed, to himself,
but, on the contrary, this title (even in John with his ‘sending
o f the Son’ christology) is always applied to him by others:
Peter, Bartimaeus, the High Priest, Nathanael, the people, and
Martha? However, Jesus never rejects the title - neither in
the trial before the High Priest, nor before Peter and the
disciples. During the trial before Pilate (which without this
decisive point is completely baffling) he might yet have denied
this charge, and explained that he was only a simple rabbi or
prophet declaring the will o f God. But even as he refused a
hasty flight the night before to avoid arrest, so also he refuses
this option. In Mark 8:24ff. he merely forbids Peter and the
disciples to betray the secret. The ensuing repudiation o f
Peter as ‘Satan’ (is this also a product o f the earliest Church?)
results from Peter’s reaction to the revelation that Jesus ‘must
suffer many things’ . We do not know whether this account
was originally unified. According to Conzelmann and
Lindemann the pericope ‘has no historical core; instead it is
a theologoumenon. . . . Representatively, Peter voices for all
believers the confession that Jesus is the Christ’ .109But are the

details o f place ( ‘to the villages [in the environs] o f Caesarea

Philippi’ ), and the opinions o f the people concerning Jesus
‘no historical core’? And, ‘You are the Messiah’ was by Mark’s
time no longer the decisive confession: Xpioxoç had already
long since been the name ofjesus. That it was insufficient as
confession is shown by Matthew’s christological, and Luke’s
biblicistic, supplementing o f it.
I would put the question the other way round: Is it not an
indication o f the relative trustworthiness o f the gospel tradition
that the allegedly (so infinitely) creative ‘community’ never
produced an unambiguous scene in which Jesus announces
his claim coram publico with a clear éyco d p i ô xpioxoç, ô uioç
xoö 0eoî3? Even in John, who knows nothing o f a messianic
secret, the éyco d p i is used either absolutely, or together with a
metaphor supplied by the Old Testament. Could this not be
the result o f the ‘community’ (in truth, one must speak o f very
diverse communities) knowing that Jesus never proclaimed
himself to be the Messiah in this manner, or even that it was
simply impossible thus to proclaim oneself Messiah, for
example, because this word could unleash dangerous political
reactions (here lie the particula veri o f Schweitzer’s hypothesis),
or still more, because the revelation o f God’s Anointed in his
majesty could only be accomplished by God himself? It is
certain that the messianic secret cannot simply be traced to a
historicizing, or even theologizing, theory o f the Evangelist.
Here, too, much trust is placed in his imaginative power. In my
judgement, the messianic secret in the Second Gospel stems in
nuceirom the - eschatological - secret ofjesus himself, and his
conduct. In other words, the messianic ‘mystery’ originates in
the ‘mystery’ ofjesus.
This is shown by his use o f that so very disputed cipher,
NIZfaN ‘the man’ , incomprehensible in Greek as ô uloç
xot3 avGpconou. With one exception, this occurs only on the
lips ofjesus, and always in the four gospels. It is among those
imitations o f Jesus’ speech found in the gospels such as ‘ the
kingdom o f God’ , 'amen I say to you’ , the prayer address, ‘ Abba,
Father’ , and ‘this generation’ .
I am simply unable to believe that the so-called earliest
Palestinian community (that is, in reality, his closest disciples)
made him the resurrected Son o f Man after the appearances,

and then very quickly suppressed this cipher because it was
unsuitable for mission proclamation, while at the same time
being extremely careful to insure that in the gospel tradition
only Jesus speaks o f the Son o f Man, never his disciples, just
as the Messiah title was strictly held at a distance from him in
the production o f the dominical sayings. Radical critical
exegetes seem to me to be too ‘ trusting’ here. In a similar
context, A. Schlatter speaks o f the ‘conjecture that creates
“history”’ .110
Since in the following chapter I want to treat Jesus’
‘messianic’ conduct and teaching, and no longer the
‘messianic’ titles or ciphers, here I address this supremely
disputed problem, whose secret we can no longer fully unveil
with our limited knowledge, only briefly, indeed, all too
briefly. It sometimes seems as if New Testament scholarship,
having failed to solve this problem, has little new to say about
it. But there is no cause for complete scepticism. It is in any
case wrong to construct a thoroughgoing antithesis between
the ‘ (Son o f) Man’ , and the ‘Messiah’ : both the Jewish and the
early Christian sources forbid this. Jesus employs ‘ (Son o f)
Man’ , an expression characterized both by Dan. 7:13, and
ordinary, everyday use, precisely because it is a cipher, and not
explicitly messianic. It becomes then, paradoxically, the
expression for the eschatological mystery connected with his
mission and Passion. Mark, our oldest witness, appears already
to have understood it in this way, and thus for him it is not
included in the messianic secret. Despite their differences,
many outstanding studies on this topic have put me gready in
their debt. I mention here only the brief study by W. G.
Kümmel, Jesus der Menschensohn} ,111 the penetrating article
by C. Colpe,112 the older works o f J. Jeremias, L. Goppelt and
E. Sjöberg,113and the recent monograph by V. Hampel, which,
110 Schlatter, Der Zwäfel an der MessianitätJesu, p. 182.

1,1 SbWGFXX, 3 (Frankfurt a. M., 1984).
112 TD N T S , pp. 400-77.
113J. Jeremias, ‘Die älteste Schicht der Menschensohnlogien’, Z N W 58 (1967),
159-72; L. Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 1,226-37 (1975); E. Sjöberg, Der
verborgene Menschensohn in den Evangelien (Lund, 1955).
although somewhat too free in its constructions, is thorough

and comprehensive.114
The formulation, ô iriôç xov avGpconou, alien to Greek ears,
is found eighty-one times in the gospels, and with one
exception (John 12:34; cf. Acts 7:56; see below, p. 170), always
on the lips o f Jesus. The familiar uioç avOpconou from Dan.
7:13 appears once (in John 5:27; cf. Rev. 1:13; 14:14, and Heb.
2:6; see above, p. 10). It occurs fourteen times in Mark, twenty-
five in Luke, thirty in Matthew, and twelve in John.115 For the
most part, Luke and Matthew incorporate the fourteen texts
in Mark, an indication o f the importance which they saw in
them; seven texts occur in Q, and nine each in the materials
particular to Matthew and Luke.116 That all these texts were
secondarily inserted by the Community, I hold virtually
impossible. It would also be wrong to eliminate a limine as
‘community formulation’ any o f the three customary groups
o f sayings: 1. the contemporary (or ‘earthly’ ) Son o f Man
(Mark, 2x; Luke, 8x; Matt., 7x); 2. the suffering Son o f Man
(connected with the first group - Mark, 4x; Luke, 3x; Matt.,
6x;1173. the future exalted and coming Son o f Man (Mark, 3x;
Luke, lOx; Matt, 13x). Here, with the most disputed texts o f
all, we cannot get beyond very subjective judgements. We are
charged with continually weighing arguments for and against,
but after roughly one hundred years o f controversial discussion
we are hardly any further along. Since these disputed texts are
not the focus o f this study, I restrict myself to what seems to me
to be the most plausible solution. The earthly and suffering
Son o f Man are a cipher with which Jesus, in certain situations,
expresses both his authority as ‘eschatological proclaimer o f
salvation’ (indeed, we may say as ‘Messias designatus), and his
humility and tribulation, which ultimately lead him to suffering
and death. Too much emphasis should not be placed on the
absence o f suffering Son o f Man sayings in Q, since Q -
114V. Hampel, Menschensohn und historischerJesus. Ein Rätselwort als Schlüssel zum
messianischen SelbstverständnisJesu (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1990).
115 See F. Hahn, s.v. ‘inoç’, E W N T S (1914), p. 914.
116 Ibid., pp. 928f.
117Also included in this group is the suffering and resurrected Son o f Man:
Mark, 4x; Luke, 3x; Matt., 6x; here, post-Easter formulation is the clearest.
according to the predominant opinion o f researchers (I

am less certain, both here, and in the deliminations o f Q)
- contains neither Suffering kerygma, nor the Passion
story. Such logia - assuming the Q hypothesis to be correct -
would have been out o f place in this collection. Regarding
the coming Son o f Man, who appears as a mysterious heavenly
figure, I refer to the seminal study by Colpe. I think we
must proceed from his conclusions here: ‘The apocalyptic
Son o f Man is a symbol for Jesus’ certainty o f perfection.’ 118
Just as the Son o f Man may not be set in opposition to
Jesus, neither may he be set over against the kingdom o f
God. On the other hand, a precipitous identification in the
contemporary ministry o f Jesus was impossible. ‘I f an
identification were made here directly and expressly, the
dynamics in the relationship between the earthly and the
future person would be removed, and the preaching would
be deprived o f its prophetic character.’ 119 A text such as
Luke 12:8f. emphasizes the inextricable connection between
Jesus and the coming Son o f Man, but does not remove
the dialectical tension between the earthly preacher and
the coming witness (or judge). A. Schlatter, as well, emphasizes
that the eschatological dignity o f Jesus is indeed one o f his
‘goals’ ,120 therefore,
the ‘Messiah’ idea was flexible because it expressed a goal; it did

not derive its content from a realized state of affairs. The
procession of events had to show how the kingdom of the promised
king came into being, and what it accomplished. No promise
receives its concrete form until God’s government supplies it.121
This means, however, that Jesus himself, in obedience to

his God-given task o f announcing the eschatological fulfilment
o f the promise, and thereby introducing it, expounds, through
his conduct and his way, just whatvtas really fitting for the God-
elected ‘Anointed’ . It was not a given Jewish ‘messianology’
that determined his sevice with regard to the dawning kingdom
118 Colpe, W N T 8, p. 4431. 23f.

119Ibid., p. 442 1. 30ff.
120 Schlatter, ‘Der Zweifel an der Messianitätjesu’, 151 [=9].
121 Ibid., 162 [=22].
o f God, but rather his service established the standards

for what was, in the truest sense, legitimately ‘messianic’. His
God-given task, the fulfilment o f His will, stood before, and
above, the tides. They had mere functional significance, and
therefore could retreat - relatively - into the background
until the final conflict. To this messianic ministry to his own
people, o f which Paul speaks in Rom. 15:8, we now turn our
attention.
7. The Messianic Ministry o f Jesus
Despite the widespread aversion to attributing to Jesus’ a

‘messianic consciousness’, there is broad consensus that Jesus’
ministry and conduct either cannot, or only conditionally, be
brought into agreement with what we know o f Old Testament
and contemporaryjewish prophets and scribes. ‘And they were
astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had
authority, and not as the scribes’ (Mark 1:22; cf. v. 27: ‘a new
teaching, with authority’ ). For Mark, this is the teaching
authority o f the perfect Spirit-bearer (1:10; 13), which brings
the radically New (1:27; cf. 2:21ff.). With a fine touch, Matthew
places Mark 1:22 at the end o f the Sermon on the Mount,
where the new messianic teaching with authority partially
repeals the old Torah proclaimed to Moses on Sinai. This same
authority shows itself in Jesus’ behaviour and conduct. In
Mark 2:5 and Luke 7:47f. he promises to sinful men the
forgiveness o f their sin, that which is the prerogative o f God
alone; the scandalous fellowship with tax-collectors and
sinners has a similar intention. In Mark 2:17b, he justifies it
with the saying (certainly not invented later by the
‘community’ ): ‘I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.’
The Pauline justification o f the sinner derives from Jesus’
messianic activity. This saying would hardly have found place
in the later Palestinian community, and tax-collectors had
become meaningless for Gentile-Christian churches. They
disappear from early Christianity with the oldest Jesus
tradition.
His dismissive answer concerning the Pharisees and the
Baptist’s disciples, ‘Can the wedding guests fast while the
bridegroom is with them?’ , rests on this mission-consciousness

which exceeds the bounds o f the prophetic. This saying, even
as Jesus’ behaviour with the tax-collectors and sinners, is only
comprehensible if the promise is already present in Jesus’
ministry, if the kingdom o f God comes with him and is now
dawning. I have already made reference to this situation: ‘The
Law and the prophets were until John: since then the kingdom
o f God suffers violence. . . .’ (see above, p. 31). Because the
promises are now being fulfilled, those who witness with eye
and ear are counted blessed, they see that which the prophets
and kings o f old were not privileged to see. Thus the cry o f
acclamation that the eschatological revelation o f the Heavenly
Father’s salvation for the poor and disenfranchised is come;
thus also healings and exorcisms are the deeds o f him in whom
the fulfilment o f the promises becomes reality. Both in their
eschatological motivation, and their form, they distinguish
themselves fundamentally from the prayer healings o f the
Galilean miracle-worker, Chanina ben Dosa. ‘But if it is by the
finger o f God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom o f God
has come upon you’ (Luke 11:20). We hear o f no prophet who
speaks like this.
The kingdom o f God, overcoming the old aeon and the
kingdom o f Evil, is not only near, it is present in Jesus’ ministry.
When Jesus speaks o f the earthly Son o f Man on the one hand,
and the coming Son o f Man on the other, the tension between
the two corresponds to that between the presence o f the
kingdom in his ministry - which, though hidden, is being
tested and tried - and its coming in power. Jesus’ answer to
the charge o f being in league with the Devil tends in this
direction:
... no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods,
unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder
his house (Mark 3:27).
In the Lukan parallel Jesus himself appears as the

ioxupôxepoç who overcomes the strong man (Luke 11:22). I
believe that Luke has here correctly rendered the intention o f
Jesus’ words in Mark. Jesus is he who brings ‘liberty to the
captives’ (Isa. 61:2). Luke has Jesus himself, in his inaugural
sermon in Nazareth, reading out this text as a prophetic

word fulfilled as he begins his ministry (Luke 4:18). An
‘eschatological battle’ with the Enemy himself exceeds the
standards set by the Old Testament prophets. One is reminded
here rather o f the battle between Michael and the dragon (Rev.
12:7ff.). But he who can speak the words o f Mark 3:27 can also
call out to his disciples as they return full o f jo y
from their exorcisms: ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from
heaven’ (Luke 10:18). The framework o f the logion may stem
from Luke, but the first Christian historian has a finely honed
sense for the proper ‘context’ . What follows this is no less
astonishing:
Behold I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and
scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall
hurt you. Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are
subject to you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven
(Luke 10:19f.).
Who utters such an outrage is not only certain, in his
highflying, fierce enthusiasm, that the power o f the Enemy is
broken here and now, but he also dares to anticipate the
judgement o f God, as though, like Enoch, he had read the
names inscribed in the heavenly books. Thus, also in three
blessings (following Isa. 61:1), he can promise the poor, the
hungry, and the grieving, unconditional participation in the
kingdom o f God (Luke 6:20f.). The saying that the kingdom
o f God belongs to the children, and must be received as a child,
points in the same direction (Mark 10:13-16). As he already
now promises salvation with absolute certainty, so also he can
anticipate the word o f the last judgement; thus, we find the
woes pronounced against Chorazin and Bethsaida, where he
had done such ‘mighty works’ , and even more sharply, against
the centre o f his activity:
And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be
brought down to Hades--- 1tell you that it shall be more tolerable
on the day of judgement for the land of Sodom [and Gomorrah]
than for you (Matt. 11:20-21 = Luke 10:12-15 [Q]).
That we are not dealing here with secondary formulations by
the ‘community’ is seen in the lack o f interest in these
completely insignificant Galilean locations in the later period.

Moreover, the Midrash Qohelet describes Capernaum as a
Jewish-Christian village (Billerbeck I, 159f.).
We meet the same ‘eschatological’ - one could just as well
say, ‘messianic’ - self-claim in the answer to the Baptist to his
question whether he was ‘he who is to come’ (Matt. 11:2-6 =
Luke 7:18-23: ô épxopevoç; cf. Mark 11:9 and 1:7; Luke 13:32
= Matt. 23:39 [Q ]. Jesus refers to his healing and salvific
ministry in which the promises o f Isaiah are fulfilled (Isa.
29:10ff.; 35:5ff.), as well as his liberating good news to the poor
(Isa. 61:1). He emphasizes his eschatological authority and
majesty with the concluding, ‘blessed is he who takes no
offence at me’ (see above, pp. 29f.). I f already the Baptist, the
herald o f judgement, is ‘more than a prophet’ (nepioooxepov
npo(J)qxou Matt. 11:9 = Luke 7:26 [Q ] ), is this not all the more
true for Jesus himself, in whom salvation, for those who obey
him, becomes visible and palpable?
For this very reason, then, one cannot demand a sign o f him
- as from a prophet. Rather, Gentiles will rise up as witnesses
against this generation o f Jesus’ contemporaries: the Queen o f
the South, who came to hear the wisdom o f Solomon, the wisest
o f the wise, and the Ninevites, who repented at the preaching
o f Jonas, the most successful o f the prophets; for ‘behold, a
greater than Solomon is here’ , and ‘behold, a greater than
Jonah is here’ (Luke 11:29-32 = Matt. 12:38-42 [Q ]). How are
we to understand this iôoù nÀeïov . . . coôe, if not in the sense
o f the end o f the old ‘salvation history’ , and the dawning
o f the kingdom o f God in the work o f Jesus himself? Because
he is ‘more than a prophet’ he does not begin his authori
tative words with the Old Testament’s ‘Thus says the Lord’ , or,
as the Christian prophets, with ‘Thus says the Holy Spirit’ (Acts
21:10; cf. 11:18; 10:10; Rev. 14:13), but with the unique ‘Amen,
I say to you’ ; this is from the original language o f Jesus, and
therefore (like the cipher ô uioç xoö àvOpconou) was later
sometimes also secondarily placed on the lips o f Jesus by the
evangelists.
That all, or even the majority, o f these sayings stem from
early Christian prophets, or ‘wandering charismatics’ , speaking
them in the name o f the Lord, I hold to be a fable bearing little
testimony to the critical sense o f those who believe it. For

the early Christian prophets spoke, as 1 Cor. 14 shows, in
every worship service; thus, it was unnecessary to ‘pass on’
their words - these were continually offered anew. Nor in the
letters do we find a single reference to this; there was no
difference between words o f the Exalted and words o f the
Spirit. With the exception o f the literary work, Revelation,
words o f the Lord directed to the community at large
practically never occur. The word in 2 Cor. 12:9 is directed
to Paul alone. The innumerable contemporary revelations
o f early Christian prophets were not collected. This first
occurred among the Montanists. The unique words o f the
‘Messiah, Jesus’ , however, had to be retained and passed on.
The really effective ‘revelation’ o f the Spirit did not manifest
themselves in individual sayings placed on the lips o f Jesus,
but in entire theological schemata: thus already in the letters
o f Paul, and later in the Johannine work, which - because the
Spirit continually guided ‘into all truth’ - is a relatively self-
contained theological production, rather than a collection o f
individual Jesus logia.
O f course, this or that saying is open to discussion. Several
logia bear clear secondary characteristics. One such is Matt.
18:20, the content o f which reveals its post-Easter origin, since
here Jesus assumes the position o f the words o f Torah. But I
consider this to be an exception. Most o f these sayings are easy
to recognize. With others, such as the revelation saying o f
Matt. 11:27 = Luke 10:22 (Q ), I am not so certain that they do
not derive from an authentic saying o f Jesus, although this is
denied by the majority o f researchers. In my judgement, the
real Jesus was more enthusiastic, more ecstatic, more
passionate, and that means also, more alien to us, than we
enlightened Central Europeans care to admit today. We all
tend to interpret and adapt him in ways appropriate to
ourselves, to shape him theologically ‘in our own image’ , and
in this point we are not far from the psychologizing ‘Life o f
Jesus’ research o f the latter part o f the nineteenth century. The
enthusiastic, messianic Jesus is further from us than the ‘rabbi
and prophet’ who has become dear to us, or even the ‘herald
before the end’ . According to the newest ‘fashion’ Jesus is
painted as a totally unapocalyptic Jewish Socrates or wise Cynic

teacher. Here New Testament scholarship is confused with
some sort o f historical science fiction.
Jesus’ ‘ethical’ preaching, as well, stands under his
‘messianic authority’ , which can sometimes anticipate God’s
judgement: whoever judges, will himself be judged, only he
who hears and obeys builds upon the rock, whoever is anxious
makes mammon his idol. This very saying, ‘Do not be
anxious’ (Matt. 6:25ff. = Luke 12:22ff. [Q ]), contradicting all
wisdom, experience, and prudence, presupposes that
limitless care o f God, which is part o f his kingdom present in
Jesus. This means that the curse o f Gen. 3 is hereby lifted and
man freed from fear and anxiety. Where Satan is overcome,
the consequences o f the Fall also disappear. With the seeking
o f the kingdom o f God as a present power, anxiety and fear
fall by the wayside. This command, ‘Do not be anxious’, is
just as much a part o f his divine ‘messianic’ certainty as the
saying about faith that moves mountains, and the certainty
o f answer to prayer (Mark ll:2 3 f. = Matt. 24:21f.; cf. Luke
11:5-13,14:13f.).The fact that he expounds the Kingdom o f
God by parables shows that he alone knows its present and
future mystery. His knowledge about the Kingdom o f God is
a messianic knowledge.
The trial ofjesus, which ends with his execution as messianic
pretender, and the unique authority, which determines his
preaching, his ministry, and his conduct, illuminate each other.
Therefore, it seems to me also probable that he goes to
Jerusalem in this very authority, with his way to the cross before
his eyes - at least as a pressing possibility, indeed, probably even
as the way that the Father has determined for him. The double
saying in Luke 12:49f., ‘I came to cast fire upon the earth; and
would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be
baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is
accomplished!’ , alludes to his going the way o f death for the
sake o f his eschatological mission. This is difficult to fit into a
post-Easter situation. The same is true o f the answer to the
question by the sons o f Zebedee, the debated ransom saying o f
Mark 10:45, which, as Luke 22:24-27 shows, was probably
originally within the context o f the Last Supper, and above all,
the words spoken at this Supper. Jesus goes to his death for the
sake o f his messianic ministry to Israel.
That he intended to address not only the Galilean
population, but all Israel, is seen by his call and appointment
o f the Twelve as constant companions, and his occasionally
sending them out among the people. He calls them to follow
him as God once called the prophets. Even so shocking a word
as the promise that the disciples would be the future judges o f
Israel (Luke 22:30; cf. Matt. 19:28) would fit into this
enthusiastic, messianic context.
Just as the Son o f Man and the Messiah cannot be funda
mentally separated, neither may one a priori completely tear
the ‘prophetic’ from the ‘ kingly’ Messiah. Each is ‘Spirit-
bearer’ in a unique way, and this connects the two. Also, the
‘kingly’ , and the ‘prophetic’ , Messiah can be teacher and
proclaimer o f God’s will, and even more so, o f course, judge.
The m otif o f the political Messiah can recede - at least, at
first - into the background: the overcoming o f the worldly
powers at enmity with God, who were embodied in the ruling
political kingdoms, but above all in Satan as their true lord
(Luke 4:5ff.; Rev. 13-18), can be accomplished ‘inpowetf (cf.
Mark 9:1) by God’s miracle (cf. Dan. 2 and 7; 4 Ezra 13) with
the definite coming o f the kingdom o f God. Here, the That
alone was decisive, not the How. Otherwise, as well, concepts
and motifs were fluid, simply because there was no hard and
fast Jewish ‘Messiah dogmatic’ .
About Jesus, one may say that he made his appearance in
Galilee as ‘Anointed o f the Spirit’ , in the manner o f Isa. 61:lff.,
and was executed in Jerusalem as ‘King o f the Jews’ . That his
family was reported to be descended from David, that he
addressed the entire ‘twelve tribes’ , that he entered Jerusalem
accompanied by a crowd greeting him as a messianic figure,
and that he did all o f this with eschatological authority, may
have played a role here. With regard to the charges at his trial,
he did not renounce the messianic claim. How he himself
viewed the eschatological accomplishment o f his work, we may
only presume. During his final meal, as he consciously went to
his death - perhaps with a view toward Isa. 53 - he directed his
vision to the coming - real - banquet prepared in the kingdom
o f God (Mark 14:25). The halkl, the reading o f which at the

end o f the Supper is expressly highlighted by Mark (14:26),
concludes with the messianic Ps. 118. Towards the end o f this
psalm we find not only the stone rejected by the builders who
has now become the cornerstone (118:22), but following this,
and resounding with the fcO STEhrï, the blessing at the
greeting o f the Messiah: ‘Blessed be he who enters in the name
o f the Lord!’ (118:26, cf. Mark 11:9, par.; 13:35; Matt. 23:39).
Jesus may have connected this coming in the sudden,
surprising revelation o f the Son o f Man (Luke 17:24, 30), with
his ‘coming in the clouds’ (Mark 13:26; cf. Dan. 7:13), in which
all those who have confessed him will become known (Luke
12:8f.; cf. Mark 8:38). The early Christian prayer formula
stemming from the Jerusalem church, p D , which
expresses the bond between the community with their now
exalted Lord, who only recently had been personally present
with his disciples, is to be traced to this rD ~ Q in connection
with Dan. 7:13.
With our fragmentary references to Jesus’ expectation o f the
end, we can no longer definitely reconstruct a clear picture. In
our lack o f knowledge, however, we should not forget that
Jesus’ disciples, and his wider circles o f followers, knew
infinitely more about Jesus and his words and deeds, and that
this knowledge also flowed into the earliest christology which
began directly with, and after, the Easter appearances.
How could this have been otherwise! Easter did not alter
everything, in the sense that it completely erased the direct
remembrance o f Jesus: on the contrary, this was burned into the
hearts o f the disciples. It is curious that the memory
connection between Jesus’ messianic ministry and death, and
the beginnings o f earlier christology a few months or even a
few weeks later after the resurrection, is so little perceived by
contemporary criticism with its scholastic inclination. It is also
understandable that, after Easter, the disciples, remembering
their failure and often selfish expectations, recognized that
they had misunderstood Jesus’ way and work at many decisive
points. Here is the ultimate reason for the disciples’ lack o f
understanding, not in the historicizing suppositions o f Wrede.
The experience o f his resurrection and the atoning power o f
his death gave them the certainty o f forgiveness and o f a radical

new beginning. It was the Spirit, together with the
remembrance ofjesus and this new overthrowing experience
that brought about the blooming o f christology in all its variety.
With our extant sources we can sketch only a very frag

mentary ‘picture’ o f Jesus’ work, will, and suffering. To be
sure, this is true o f many great figures from antiquity. I am
reminded o f the debate over the ‘historical Socrates’ . Many
features are obscure, indeed, uncertain, and therefore remain
disputed. However, we ought not therefore to make o f necessity
a virtue, and, with radical critical scepticism, reject a limine
information which, by any normal standard, is probable,
indeed in certain circumstances, relatively certain. There is a
critical attitude that wants little to do with historical science,
particularly since this attitude often occurs together with a
tendency to free conjecture. Thatjesus neither intended to be
a mere ‘rabbi and prophet’, nor one ‘eschatological prophet’
among many, ought no longer to be disputed. Just as one-sided
is the picture, so popular today, o f the benevolent teacher o f
brotherly love and humane principles, who died in the end
as a martyr for his good cause. Here, aspects that appeal to
the modern mind are emphasized in a one-sided manner.
Orthodox-fundamental biblicism has its counterpart in critical
biblicism. Both are naïve and in danger o f doing violence to
historical reality - the one, because o f its ahistorical biblical
literalism, and the other, because it selects and interprets in
accordance with its modern world-view, and theological
interests. Against the view, since Wrede, o f the unmessianic
Jesus, it must be admitted thatjesus conducted himself with
‘messianic’ authority, and was executed as a messianic
pretender. Only thus are the development o f post-Easter
christology, the accounts o f his Passion, and his efficacy,
historically comprehensible. With his messianic claim Jesus
may appear alien, indeed vexing, since his ‘mythical’
characteristics obscure our ethically determined, de
mythologized picture o f him. With his conception o f himself,
woven through as it was with apocalyptic-dualistic aspects, and
his consciousness o f his authority, with which he maintained
his right to proclaim the eschatological presence o f God

among his people, indeed for all men, and demanded faith,
seems to us incomprehensible, and psychologically in
apprehensible. This ‘Jesus psychology’ is still heartily at work
in the critical, demythologized, ‘Jesus conceptions’ (despite
their hope to have surpassed the ‘Jesus conceptions’ ), purified
o f all messianic pretensions. His Sadducean opponents as well
may have considered Jesus’ claim to apocalyptic authority, and
the specific mission-consciousness attached to it, to have been
annoying, or even scandalous.
But the real Jesus o f Nazareth comes before us neither as
the man on the street, nor as an enlightened advocate o f a
timeless ‘God is love’, and o f a humane ethic, as, for example,
so popularly depicted by Franz Alt. This Jesus was very
different. He lived in the language and imagery o f the Old
Testament and his Jewish-Galilean environment, and he
conducted himself with the - in the truest sense o f the word -
‘apocalyptic’ right to usher in God’s reign over Israel (and all
nations), and, as the ‘Anointed o f God’ , to fulfil the promises
made to the fathers and the prophets. His death - which he
consciously affirmed - placed the seal o f confirmation on this
right.
That Jesus conducted himself in this manner, I hold to be
proved by the methods o f historical-critical research. From this
flow consequences for theological reflection as well; for, as the
messianic bringer o f salvation, he is the fundament o f our faith,
who fulfilled the Old Covenant, and breathed the breath o f
life into the New. His person and work charge us with the task
o f a ‘whole’ biblical theology that above all fully realizes itsJewish
heritage, a biblical theology that does not eradicate the lines
between the Old and New, but properly defines them. I could
also express this in the words o f Paul with which I began: The
Jew, Jesus o f Nazareth, became the Messiah o f Israel in order
to fulfil the promises made to the fathers, and he became for
us, who have come afterwards from all nations o f the earth,
‘the author o f our salvation’ , because we experience in him
what the love o f God is, that we might, for the sake o f such
grace, praise as our Father, the God o f Israel and Father o f Jesus
Christ.
2
Jesus as Messianic Teacher of Wisdom

and the Beginnings of Christology
1. The Problem
In the portals o f certain Gothic cathedrals we meet Christ the

teacher. Perhaps the finest example o f this is the ‘Beau Dieu’
in Chartres. Above this, by contrast, Christ asjudge appears in
the tympanum o f the doorway arch, this representation being
even more frequent. The two belong together: the gift o f the
divine Wisdom binds the teacher with the judge; they are its
exponents, indeed, its embodiments. In other words, in Jesus
as teacher, and in the Son o f Man as judge, God’s wisdom
becomes manifest.
Thus, one might assume that the concept ‘sophia’ or other
Wisdom concepts appear in the gospels with extraordinary
frequency. Strangely enough, however, this is not the case.
In John the word ‘wisdom’ is completely absent. Mark, the
oldest evangelist, names Jesus ôiôâoKaÀoç twelve times, is
particularly fond o f the verb ôiôâoKeiv, but uses aocjna only
once and the adjective oo(j>ôç not at all. Matthew, the scribe
among the evangelists, uses the word three times. Only the
Greek Luke is more generous with the term, using it six times,
two o f which occur in the material exclusive to his infancy
narrative. Only the concept 4>povipoç occurs somewhat more
frequently in various parables. Seen as a whole, Wisdom
concepts in the Synoptics, and thus also in the Jesus tradition,
are relatively rare. The Jesus tradition it seems does not
73
arise from intellectual, scribal milieu. By comparison the

pauline corpus contains oo<$)ia twenty-eight times, sixteen o f
which occur in the sharply polemical first three chapters o f
1 Corinthians - probably an indication that ‘wisdom’ in early
Christianity was a word that could produce conflicts.
Today as well ‘sophia’ is once again a disputed concept.
Indeed, very recently the question concerning its meaning in
early Christian texts - that is, particularly its role in the
development o f christology - has kept scholarly discussion in
animation. Thus French Catholic scholarship (perhaps
stimulated by the cosmic dimensions o f Teilhard de Chardin’s
theology) has emphasized the direct influence o f Jewish
wisdom speculation on the Son o f Man figure, the self-
understanding o f Jesus, and the development o f post-Easter
christology and ecclesiology. I refer here only to the numerous
works o f A. Feuillet, including his lengthy book Le Christ,
sagesse de dieu après les épîtres pauliniennes. German scholarship
on the other hand has for decades been under the spell o f the
history o f religions school o f Bousset, Reitzenstein and Rudolf
Bultmann. Bultmann saw in the myth o f the descent and ascent
o f Wisdom, which he regarded as a special form o f the
Anthropos myth, one o f the oriental roots o f pre-Christian
Gnosticism. With this foundation U. Wilckens could maintain
in his 1959 monograph Weisheit und Torhät that, ‘the figure o f
Wisdom, in Judaism as in Gnosticism, [was] clearly originally
dependent on the same figure, an oriental mother divinity’,
but that, ‘at first both streams o f tradition remained
independent o f one another’ . Later, so Wilckens, ‘in the
Hellenistic period the gnostic stream decisively influenced the
theology o f the Jewish diaspora’ , whereas ‘the gnostic Sophia
myth, was not dependent for its formulation on late Jewish
Wisdom speculation’ (p. 197). The gnostic influences on early
Christianity were thus all the more visible. Wilckens has
retreated considerably from his earlier theses, but the
postulates from the history o f religions school and Bultmann
have developed a broad and long-lived influence that has only
begun to fade in recent years. Even so careful and thoughtful a
scholar as G. Fohrer presumes in his 7DATarticle, ‘oocjua’ that
‘a Gnostic myth’ may lay behind the hypostatization o f Wisdom
Beginnings of Christology 75
in Job 28.1In synoptic studies the Wisdom question was long

overshadowed by the Son o f Man problem. Where it found any
interest the solution to the puzzle was generally sought in
‘J ewish-Hellenistic’ Wisdom speculation, which in some
respects replaced the gnostic Redeemer myth. Not until the
most recent monograph by Felix Christ, Jesus Sophia (1970),
from the O. Cullmann school, has the question concerning
Wisdom in the Palestinian Q tradition and in the proclamation
ofjesus been energetically revived.
Rather than pluck more fruit from the tree o f an all-
encompassing, purely hypothetical, ‘Gnosis’ , particularly since
this fruit has not agreed with scholarship, we will concentrate
on certain texts o f the gospels. The examples are only intended
to show how disputed is the ground on which we meet when
we attempt, with the help o f the Jewish Wisdom traditions, to
illuminate the path beginning at the carpenter from Nazareth
and ending at the divine figure whom Paul proclaimed in
Philippi, Corinth, or Ephesus twenty years later. There is
uncertainty above all in that while the Wisdom tradition allows
us (with all due caution) to build a bridge in the development
o f theological thinking between the messianic teacher and
crucified righteous man from Galilee on the one hand, and
the pre-existent agent o f creation and coming judge o f the
Pauline churches on the other, Wisdom itself, expressis
verbis, appears only in traces and fragments. PIDDIT indicates
possible lines o f connection, but itself remains mostly in the
background. Thus the concept o f oo(j)ia is mentioned only
rarely in the gospels. Moreover, this reserve extends from the
broad road o f early Christian thinking all the way to the high
point o f christology in the prologue to John’s gospel.
2. The Wisdom Sayings in the Logia Source

The oldest witnesses for the proclamation ofjesus are found in
the Logia source used - somewhat variously - by Luke and
Matthew and containing traditions that Paul must already have
known. Its antiquity is established in that (among other things)
1 G. Fohrer ‘ocxjna, k t à ’, in TDNT, ed. by G. Friedrich, trans. and ed. by G. W.

Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1971), 7, p. 490.
it contains neither the titles used most frequently by the later

Church, ‘ Christos’ and ‘ Kyrios\ nor a clear, unambiguous
reference to the early Christian kerygma o f the death and
resurrection o f Jesus. Here as well the coming Son o f Man is
still distinguished from the contemporary teacher Jesus. In my
judgement all this clearly indicates that, for the most part,
this source reflects sayings o f Jesus. For Jesus’ original pro
clamation claims neither the tides - [YIN m O - Kupioç and
rr tfD - xpioxoc; for himself, nor does it contain clear
indications o f the later kerygma o f the Church. The Markan
tradition first supplies this lack with the suffering Son o f Man
sayings, and even there the messiah title is still applied to Jesus
by others and is not a part o f his proclamation. The motive for
the relatively early collection o f these Jesus logia in Qwas the
post-Easter desire to preserve the unique Wisdom sayings o f
the Messiah Jesus for the purpose o f proclaiming them further.
This presupposes already the beginnings for the dissemination
o f Jesus sayings. Indeed, Jesus had already sent his disciples out
to herald the dawning kingdom o f God in order that they
themselves might preach his message. The foundations for this
collection could, therefore, already partially derive from the
pre-Easter period. Their basic content was probably originally
Aramaic, but was translated already very early and skilfully into
Greek in Jerusalem - perhaps by the Greek-speaking Jewish
Christians o f Stephen’s circle. The first missionary preaching
outside Palestine was hardly conceivable without such a
collection, since it was necessary here to demonstrate who this
Jesus really was. Less probable is the much favoured thesis
today that the sayings ascribed to Jesus are in reality the Spirit-
inspired sayings o f later early Christian prophets who spoke
these names o f the exalted Son o f Man or Lord before the
congregation. For in the first place, Q nowhere speaks expressis
verbis o f this Lord o f the Church, exalted to the right hand o f
God. Moreover, in the later period, an ever-flowing fount o f
prophetic revelation was available to the Church in its worship
through the presence o f the prophetic-eschatological Spirit,
independent o f the earthly Jesus; this made a formation o f
tradition by these Spirit-inspired prophets unnecessary since
the Spirit gave its own appropriate answer in every new
situation. The hypothesis that the Logia source arose from

prophetic utterances remains an historically unprovable
supposition. Rather, the preservation as tradition o f the unique
Wisdom sayings o f the Messiah Jesus, who was no longer with
the community, was necessary if they were not to be lost. The
Logia source presupposes a post-Easter situation only very
rarely.
Given the importance o f ‘Wisdom’ in the Jewish Proverbs
tradition, it would be extremely unusual were the Wisdom
motif completely absent in the sayings o f the messianic teacher.
To be sure, it is relatively rare in the Logia source. It will be
necessary first o f all to examine these few Wisdom texts in Q.
O f the three occurrences o f the word oo<J)ia in Matthew, two
are in Q, and o f the six in Luke, three. To diese must be added
certain others where Wisdom conceptuality is unmistakeable,
but without the rubric ‘Wisdom’ . To be sure, these bits o f text
are anything but unambiguous - they invariably present the
exegete with a number o f problems.
The first logion is a two-partjudgement saying (Luke 11:31f.
= Matt. 12:41f.):
The queen of the South will arise at the judgement with the men
of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends
of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something
greater than Solomon is here.2
The second part o f the logion summons the inhabitants o f

Nineveh asjudge against this generation since they, in contrast
to Jesus’ contemporaries, repented at the preaching o f the
prophet Jonah. Here also, at the end, there is the almost
refrain-like stock phrase: ‘And behold, something greater than
Jonah is here.’ This double-logion, interspersed with semitisms,
is no more a formulation o f the community than the related
woes against Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, against
whom the godless pagan cities o f Tyre, Sidon and Sodom are
favourably compared (Matt. 11:21-24 = Luke 10:13-15). These
completely insignificant Galilean villages held no more interest
for the later Church; moreover, a church prophet would have
defined the vague, ‘behold, something greater than . . . ’, with
2 Biblical texts, with a few minor exceptions, are cited from the RSV [trans.].
more christological exactness. There is a hint here o f the

original messianic secret, the question concerning the unique
authority o f Jesus. All these woes have in common the
preference o f Gentiles over the Jewish hearers ofjesus, the last
generation before the end. Whereas the woes against the
Galilean villages refer to Jesus’ healing miracles, our double-
logion speaks ofjesus as teacher, indeed in two ways, as teacher
o f Wisdom and as prophetic preacher o f repentance. These
two ways o f teaching are not in conflict, but rather form a
necessary whole. By the time Jewish apocalyptic has emerged
at the latest, Wisdom and Prophecy fuse into an inseparable
unity. ‘The wise men acquired prophetic features, and the
prophets became inspired wise men.’3According to this logion,
Jesus surpasses as teacher o f Wisdom even the greatest
universal wise man o f Israel, indeed in the entire world, King
Solomon. As a preacher o f repentance on the other hand, he
surpasses even the most successful prophetic preacher, Jonah,
who successfully called to repentance the great city Nineveh.
Moreover, with this double-logion a claim is raised to the
concluding, final Wisdom, the final revelation, the last call,
whose authority surpasses that o f the Old Testament
prophets, indeed even that o f the Old Testament wise men
‘k o x ’ éôxqv’. That is, with this, ‘something greater than . . . is
here’, some o f that claim which Matthew emphasizes in the
antitheses o f the Sermon on the Mount becomes discernible:
‘You have heard that it was said to the men o f old . . . But I say
to you . . . ’ , an authoritative plenipotentiary that traces the
permitting o f divorce, based on a(n unauthorized) concession
by Moses, back to the hard-heartedness o f the people, and
appeals instead to the original will o f God at the Creation
(Mark 10:5f.). Here the incipient New is expressed in
eschatological and salvation-historical terms by a further Q
logion, Luke 16:16: ‘The law and the prophets were un tilJohn;
since then the good news o f the kingdom o f God is preached,
and every one enters it violently.’ This saying shows that the
basis o f that claim is not grounded in a personal consciousness
o f unique worth, but in the unique content o f the message o f
3 M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, trans. by John Bowden (London, 1974), 1,
p. 206.
the dawning kingdom o f God. The message thatJesus proclaims

is ‘greater than’ Solomon’s wisdom and Jonah’s preaching: it
brings the radically New over against the Law and the Prophets.
In other words, the message carries the ‘self-consciousness’ o f
Jesus and not vice versa.
This also means, however, that Jesus’ claim as ‘teacher o f
wisdom’ and prophetic preacher cannot be understood
without recognizing the eschatologically motivated break with
the traditional, firmly institutionalized wisdom o f con-
temporaryjudaism and its acknowledged representatives. The
spontaneous outburst o f praise, also found in the Logia source,
expresses this (Matt. 11:25 = Luke 10:21):
I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth that thou hast
hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed
them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will.
Felix Christ correctly points out that traditional Wisdom

also addresses the simple and fools as a ‘target group’ (Prov.
1:22; 8:5), indeed the apocryphal Psalm 11Q, Ps. 154 (col.
18:3-6), says that ‘wisdom [o f God] is given . . . to manifest his
might to fools, and his greatness to those who have no
understanding, those who are far from their gates and
driven from their portals’ . However, this still does not state
that revelation is exclusively limited to ‘babes’ ; moreover,
nowhere in contemporary Judaism - so far as I am aware
- are the ‘wise and understanding’ , the and the
□^31113, excluded from the revelation o f God for the
sake o f fools. This would fly directly in the face o f the
traditional foundations o f the Wisdom tradition. Bar. 3:23
merely denies that Arab merchants, famous for their aphoristic
wisdom, could truly find G od’s wisdom, since pagans and
idolators per definitionem could not be wise. We must resort to
the brusque attacks o f Jeremiah on the ‘wise’ and the ‘false
pen o f the scribes’ (8:8), or o f Isaiah on the iniquitous
lawmakers (10:1), but then these presuppose an entirely
different situation. Above all, it cannot be overlooked that at
the time o f Jesus D^DDIT had become the proud self
designation o f the spiritual leaders o f the people, (he Pharisee
scribes. The reigning Wisdom tradition is here being broken
with in the name o f the true wisdom o f God - for this very
reason Jesus gives particular emphasis to the event with his cry
o f praise to the Father. Behind the naxep stands the prayer
address form Abba, which expresses his very special
relationship to God in the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:2). We have
here a reversal o f the reigning religious values which we might
well call revolutionary. Connected with this is an indirect
polemic against the official administrators o f the divine
Wisdom, unfolded in its full harshness in the woes against the
4>apioaïoi and vopiKoi (Luke ll:3 9 ff.).
On what is this certainty (in the ears o f his contemporaries
certainly presumptuous sounding) concerning the exclusion
o f the wise and the understanding from God’s revelation based,
and who are those vqmoi, those babes, who receive it?
We find an answer in the second Sophia saying that Matthew
and Luke both preserve from the Logia source (Matt. 11:16-
19 = Luke 7:31-35):
To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and
what are they like? They are like children sitting in the market
place and calling to one another,
‘We piped to you and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not weep.’
For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking
no wine; and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of man has come
eating and drinking; and you say, ‘Behold, a glutton
and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet
wisdom is justified by all her children [so Luke; Matthew has ‘her
deeds’].
Jesus compares his contemporaries with capricious children
who scold others as spoil-sports because they don’t want to
dance to the tune. Both John the Baptist and he himself are
harshly rejected by the leading representatives o f ‘ this
generation’ , although they conduct themselves in completely
different ways. The Baptist is thought to be possessed, while
Jesus is defamed as a bon vivant and companion o f ‘ tax-
collectors and sinners’, that is, the ‘scum o f humanity’ . He
refers obliquely to his person with the enigmatic NEfaK *111,
which in its original meaning, ‘man’ or ‘someone’ , need
have no titular sense at all, rather obscuring his claim than
revealing it. The accusation against him is reminiscent o f the

charge against the disobedient son o f Deut. 21:20 as ‘a glutton
and a drunkard’, and one is also reminded o f the note at Mark
3:21f. that Jesus’ family ‘went out to seize him’ convinced that
he was ‘beside himself. Moreover, the glutton and drunkard is
the example o f fools in the older Wisdom. In other words, with
these attacks both the Baptist and Jesus are disqualified as
‘fools’ and godless. The answer thatjesus returns to these
accusations, according to the Logia source, presents a number
o f problems: ‘Yet [the Kai is to be translated adversatively]
wisdom is justified by all her children.’ The aorist passive
éôiKaicoOi] should probably be translated as a gnomic aorist in
the present tense. The Lukan use o f xeKva is to be preferred
over the Matthean spya, which alludes to the ëpya xov
Xpiorou in 11:2, and fits all too well with the Matthean ‘works’
theology. For Matthew, Jesus himself is Wisdom, who through
her works, manifest to all, isjustified. But how is the statement
to be understood in its original sense? First, we notice that the
logion - in complete contrast to the later tendency to lift and
separate Jesus from the competing Baptist movement and its
hero - connects both figures in the closest manner, although
they conduct themselves so completely differently. The
justification o f Wisdom refers to them both. Obviously they
were still regarded together here as representatives o f the one
divine Wisdom. The absence o f any clear christological
distinction between Jesus and the Baptist and any reference to
their violent deaths makes it probable that the second part o f
pericope (Matt. 11:18 = Luke 7:33) also is a genuine Jesus
logion, that was connected with the word picture o f the playing
children with which it is strongly affined in content. The
expression ‘children o f wisdom’, however, is unusual for the
New Testament, and elsewhere for that matter. We find in the
rTODH tradition the admonitory address, ‘her sons’ ; the
individual wise man can sometimes be called ‘God’s son’, and
Israel collectively is referred to as ‘God’s sons’. Sir. 4:11 refers
to the ‘sons o f wisdom’ in the statement, ‘Wisdom teaches her
sons’; but, that the children o f Wisdom justify her is a very
unusual statement. Who is meant by the children o f Wisdom?
The statement can hardly be referred to the Baptist and Jesus.
How are they supposed to justify Wisdom? It is also unlikely

that here all Israel is intended. Only those who obey Wisdom
and thus become wise can be children o f Wisdom. We are
helped here by the logion immediately preceding this at Luke
7:29: it is said that ‘all the people and the tax collectors justified
God’ (éôiKaicooav Geôv), after they heard the Baptist and were
baptized by him, whereas ‘the Pharisees and the lawyers
rejected the purpose o f G od’ (qOexrjoav xqv ßoöArjv xoC
08OÖ). In a related text, Matthew states that ‘the tax collectors
and the harlots’ - in contrast to the leaders o f the people-
re liev e d ’ John and thereby gained access to the kingdom o f
God (Matt. 21:31f.). With regard to Luke 7:35, this means:
the children o f wisdom, the ‘true wise ones’ , are the ’'DP
, the tax collectors and sinners who accept the message
o f the Baptist and Jesus; the ‘justification’ occurs in that they
recognize and acknowledge God’s counsel o f salvation made
manifest therein. We find this understanding o f ôiKaïoûv in
the sense o f ‘acknowledge’ not only in Paul but also relatively
frequently in the pharisaic Psalms o f Solomon.
As an illustration o f the offence that Jesus caused as teacher
o f wisdom, we may take Mark 6:1-6, his appearance in
Nazareth, where we find the only occurrence o f the word
‘sophia’ in Mark. The citizens o f his home town are beside
themselves as a result o f his teaching and ask, ‘Where did this
man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him’ (Kai xiç q
oo(|)ia q ôoGeîoa xouxcp)? To be sure, this consternation leads
not to acceptance but to harsh rejection: ‘and they took
offence at him’ (m i éoicavôaÀiÇovxo év auxcp). The proverb
that follows on this, ‘a prophet is not without honour, except
in his own country, and among his own kin’ , underscores the
fact that teacher o f wisdom and prophet can in no wise be
separated, but must be regarded as a unity. Since oo<|)ia as
well as Jesus’ self-designation with a proverbial sentence,
npO(J)r}xqç, occur only here in Mark, it is unlikely that the
evangelist himself formulated this pericope.
It is further important for Mark and the tradition that he
reworked thatJesus proclaimed ‘a new teaching with authority’
(Katvq ô iô a x q Kax éôu oiav), and therein distinguished
himself from the institutionalized wise men and scribes, thus
causing offence (1:22, 27). Matthew intentionally placed this

characteristic at the conclusion o f the Sermon on the Mount
(7:28f.).
A further polemical occurrence o f oo<jria in the Logia source
is found in the woes against the vojjukoi, who, as keepers o f the
‘key o f knowledge’, claim to be the official, legitimate bearers
and expositors o f the wisdom o f God, which is one with the
Torah (Luke 11:52). Following the woe against those who build
tombs for thé prophets, who themselves are no more than sons
o f the prophets’ murderers we find the threat in which,
according to Luke 11:49, the wisdom o f God itself speaks (q
oo^na xov 080x3 d n e v ). Matthew - in accordance with his
tendency to identify wisdom with Jesus - has made o f this an T
saying o f Jesus, but with the insertion o f oo(J)oi in the place o f
ànôoTOÀoi he indicates the chokhmatic origin o f the saying
(23:34). The Lukan, more original, version is cited here:
Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets
and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute’, that the
blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world,
may be required of this generation, from the blood of Abel to the
blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the
sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it shall be required of this generation.
In this saying, where she almost assumes the function o f
judge, we notice that Wisdom appears in hypostatized form,
that is, she speaks as subject in the first person and acts as
plenipotentiary for Israel’s salvation-history, or rather the
history o f Israel’s downfall.4 The presumption that here an
unknown Jewish Wisdom writing is being cited is
unconvincing; the same is true for the hypothesis that this
peculiar text piece, originating from Jewish-hasidic tradition,
was first introduced by the Q redactor. Its very sharpness points
to the earliest Church, indeed, perhaps to Jesus himself.
Although it takes up the deuteronomistic tradition o f the
violent fate o f the prophets, at the same time we notice that
the radical universality o f the threat surpasses the Old
Testament model. The entire Old Testament history, from the
4 Translator’s note: the German word-play here is ‘Heils- oder besser

Unheilsgeschichte Israels’.
fourth chapter o f Genesis to the last book o f the ‘Scriptures’, 2

Chr. 24:20ff., is seen from the standpoint o f the murder
o f the prophets and messengers o f God, and for all shed
blood a reckoning will be required o f the last generation.
Again, it must be observed that all references to Jesus’ fate and
majesty as well as to the later Church, are absent. Nothing
indicates that the npO(J)qxai and anöoxoÄoi sent by Wisdom
are Christian apostles. In that case - as in the Matthean version
- one would expect a sending by the exalted Lord, not by
Wisdom. The phrase ‘prophets and apostles’ is to be
understood here as a hendiadys; the later ranking o f the
apostles over the prophets (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20) is not yet
discernible. Elsewhere, on the other hand, the synoptic
tradition is very well able to connect Jesus’ death with the fate
o f the prophets (Mark 12:1-11, passim).
This same history-tradition critical attitude is found in
another closely related judgement saying from Q where,
although the rubric oo(|)ia is absent, the form clearly proves it
to be a Wisdom logion (Luke 13:34f. = Matt. 23:34-39):
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those
who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your
children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and
you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you
will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name
of the Lord!’
As in Luke 11:49, the speaker in this saying (in the words o f
R. Bultmann) is ‘a supra-historical entity namely, [the pre
existent] Wisdom’ ,5 who sends the prophets and messengers
o f God, and who, in Sir. 24, receives from God himself the
Temple in Jerusalem as her dwelling place. According to Sir.
1:15, Wisdom builds her nest among the God-fearers, while in
Sir. 14:26 the wise man builds his nest in the branches o f
Wisdom, which thereby becomes the Tree o f Life. The LX X o f
Prov. 16:16 understands the ilDp or HIDp o f the M T as
‘ nest’ , ÎÎ?, and translates it with voooia oo(j)iaç or voooia
(J)povqo8coc;, an indication that the motif o f Wisdom as mother
r>R. Bultmann, History o f the Synoptic Tradition, trans. from the second edition by
John Marsh; rev. ed. (New York 1968), p. 114.
bird and refuge, following older models where this picture

is applied to God (Job 39:26f.; Deut. 32:11; Ps. 84:3, and
often), was not unusual. The verdict on the Holy City is thus
as unconditional and absolute as that on ‘this generation’ in
Luke 11:49. H er inhabitants have continually slain the
messengers o f God and rejected the offer o f salvation by the
Wisdom o f God, who hovers about them like an anxious
mother bird. Here again, there is not a word about the sending
or the fate o f Jesus. By the continual rejection o f the offer o f
salvation, the disobedience o f the city o f God leads to a
catastrophic end. The passivum divinum annexai with the
dativus incommodi ûpïv announces that the presence o f
Wisdom on Zion (Sir. 24:10ff.), that God’s presence in the
Temple has an end. Analogous to this is the later rabbinic
concept that the Shekinah, or the Holy Spirit, dwelt in the
Tabernacle and later on Zion, but then forsook Israel because
she had despised G od’s prophets. A similar thought is
expressed in Mark 15:38 by the tearing o f the curtain to the
Holy o f Holies in the Temple. The wisdom o f God withdraws
from Jerusalem just as, according to Ezek. 10:18ff. and
Josephus, War 6.300 (cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.13), God forsakes the
Temple. The ‘you will not see me until’ refers to the wisdom,
who, having been rejected on earth, returns to Heaven. Not
until the coming o f the Kingdom o f God will its inhabitants -
whether they wish it or not - greet the ‘One Who Comes’ for
the Judgement in the figure o f the Son o f Man, with the words
o f the Hallel Psalm 118:26, the same cry with which the
Galileans accompanying Jesus acclaimed him at his entry in
Jerusalem (Mark 11:9). Indeed, the unstated relationship
between the wisdom o f God as the representative o f the now
closed, failed salvation-history o f Israel, and the coming Son o f
Man-Judge indicates the antiquity o f the logion, not yet
‘christologically alienated’ from its origin.
It is idle then, in my judgement, to dispute whether this text
can originate with Jesus himself or whether we must see it - as
is often expressed so vaguely - as a ‘community formulation’ .
The absence o f any clear christological reference (there is not
a word about the killing o f Jesus in the Holy City, nor his
resurrection and exaltation; even the coming o f the Son o f
Man for the judgement is encoded) remains puzzling, at all

events, for a post-Easter, Christian production. I f we seek its
origin in Judaism, then the group expressing such radical
criticism must be more closely defined. There are no limits
here to the imagination. It seems probable to me that, due to
its harsh judgement pronouncement, it stems in any case
from the earliest community, indeed, perhaps even from the
pre-Easter revival movement surrounding the Baptist and
Jesus. Even its origin from Jesus himself cannot be dismissed
a limine. He would speak then as the plenipotentiary o f the
wisdom o f God, as in Luke 7:35. In itself the logion is no
more unusual than Luke 10:8; 11:20, or even the saying about
the tearing down o f the Temple in three days in Mark 14:58.
As such it belongs to the early Christian eschatological-
enthusiastic certainty o f the imminent end, but then this
goes back to Jesus himself. Militating against a late origin is
that, from the time o f the first missionary expansion outside
Palestine after the expulsion o f the Hellenists, the fate o f the
Temple and Jerusalem was no longer a central point o f
interest; it is also hardly possible that no mention at all would
have been made o f the chief crime, the execution o f Jesus (cf.
Rev. 11:8). The later fate o f the city and the Temple in the year
70 are likewise not mentioned.
The above cited Wisdom logia from Q by no means
allow us to speak o f a fully developed Wisdom christology in Q,
indeed the striking thing is that Jesus himself is not
directly identified with Wisdom, but rather at most - in part,
together with the Baptist - appears as its eschatological
representative. We might ask whether Wisdom here is at
bottom a circumlocution for the Father revealing himself, who,
through Jesus, confronts Israel with the decision, and calls
the ‘lost sheep o f Israel’ into his kingdom. Those who accept
Jesus’ message are those same children of -wisdom who thereby
justify the activity o f the Father in his wisdom. At the same
time this call meets with the bitter resistance o f the official
representatives o f wisdom and expositors o f Torah, who walk
in the footsteps o f their fathers, and is thereby trans
formed into a threat o f judgement. The Wisdom logia in Q
have a clearly fragmentary character, long since overtaken
christologically. They are certainly no independent creation o f

the alleged ‘Q community’; whether such a community ever
existed strictly speaking seems to me extremely improbable.
The possibility cannot be excluded that these ancient Wisdom
text fragments, at least in part, go back to the preaching o f
Jesus himself or perhaps the circle around him. ‘ Verba ipsissima
o f Jesus and logia that express the direct impact o f Jesus’
message can often hardly be separated. Continuing to speak
with absolute confidence merely o f ‘community productions’ ,
thereby ignoring the triggering element in early Christianity,
the message o f Jesus itself, betrays an unsound historical
sense. For in the later communities, that the pre-existent
Wisdom as independent eminence appeared beside, indeed
behind, the Son o f Man and Messiah Jesus, would be difficult
to fit into the post-Easter development o f christology, which
had to see in the Son o f Man and Lord, resurrected and
exalted to the right hand o f God, the unique mediator o f
revelation and salvation between God and men at the end o f
time. Therefore, only a few fragments o f this earliest Wisdom
message as well have survived.
3. ‘Come Unto Me’ (Matt. 11:28-30)
Matthew overcomes this difficulty by consistently identifying

the divine Wisdom with Jesus himself. The ‘works o f Wisdom’
that justify her are identical with the messianic deeds ofjesus
(11:19 and 11:1). Indeed, he is come ‘to fulfill all righteous
ness’ (3:15). He sends the prophets and - Christian - wise men
and scribes (23:24), among whom the author o f the gospel
counts himself (13:52); he is not only the teacher o f the true
will o f God in the Sermon on the Mount (5-7), but also the
wise judge o f the world who knows what the acquitted and
condemned themselves do not recall (25:34ff.). The teaching
and judging Christ o f the Gothic cathedral is the Christ o f the
First Gospel, which became in a special way the gospel o f the
Church.
Jesus’ call to the ‘heavy-laden’ , which concludes the second
major discourse with his commissioning o f the Twelve and
his witness concerning John the Baptist, is formulated
entirely in the style o f a personal invitation from Wisdom.

This is preceded by Jesus’ polemical thanksgiving to the
Father concerning his revelation to babes (11:25), which we
have already discussed. It is followed by the particularly
controversial Johannine-sounding revelation saying con
cerning Jesus’ receiving his revelation from the Father and
the close bond between Father and Son; this text is from
Q and Wisdom characteristics may also be observed here
(ll:2 6 f. = Luke 10:22). J. Jeremias may be correct that this
logion arose from a (father-son) word picture: 'Just as only
a father (really) knows his son, so only a son (really) knows
his father.’6 Here we meet one o f the roots o f Johannine
christology in the message o f Jesus. Jeremias’ exposition o f
this word picture cannot be improved upon:
Matthew 11:27 is a central statement about the mission of

Jesus. His Father has granted him the revelation of himself, as
completely as only a father can disclose himself to his son.
Therefore, only Jesus can pass on to others the real knowledge of
God.7
Thus, he speaks both at the behest and in the authority o f the

Wisdom o f God.
This he does in the following two verses, which are part o f
the material peculiar to Matthew, and in which, for Matthew,
Jesus’ and God’s wisdom become one (11:28-30):
Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for
I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your
souls [Jer. 6:16]. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
The entire text is a piece o f Wisdom poetry that finds

examples above all in Sirach. However, there is no literary
dependency; it is definitely originally formulated with regard
to the person and activity o f Jesus. Those addressed are
the y'lKPT ''DP, the tax collectors and sinners, the ‘lost
6J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation o f Jesus, trans. by John
Bowden (NewYork, 1971), p. 59.
7 Ibid., p. 61.
sheep o f the house o f Israel’ (Matt. 10:6; 15:24). The easy

yoke o f Jesus stands in contrast to those ‘heavy burdens’ laid
on by the scribes which they themselves ‘do not touch . . .
with one o f [their] fingers’ (Luke 11:46, Q ), a polemical
statement that is surely unjust to the earnestness o f the
Pharisaic obedience to the Law. In certain respects the ‘Come
unto me’ saying from Matthew’s special source is the positive
reverse side o f the Wisdom threat saying from Q. The
KonuôvT£ç Kai neôpxiopevoi are invited by Jesus just as
Wisdom invites to her feast (Prov. 9:3ff.), and Sirach to his
school (51:23). Indeed, they are to learn from the behaviour
o f Jesus himself. This is the only place in the entire synoptic
tradition where Jesus invites to paOdvsiv at his own feet;
besides this there are only two insignificant synoptic
occurrences for this concept, which comes from the operation
o f the Jewish school, and whose meaning is demonstrated
in the Aramaic rhyme attributed to Hillel:
a T T K'Püp, ‘he that learns not, deserves death’ (Ab. 1.13,
trans. by Danby). The low profile o f ‘learning’ in the
synoptic tradition illustrates again the contrast between the
proclamation o f Jesus and the prevailing scriptural ‘learned
ness’ . Where the rule o f God stands before the door there
is no longer any need for the learned school in which
knowledge is gathered. On the contrary, our logion addresses
not the acquisition o f science, not knowledge o f Torah, but
the existential comprehension o f Jesus’ behaviour. The
imperative paOexe an époü addresses primarily those follow
ing Jesus. The ‘gentle’ and ‘lowly’ reminds us o f Zech. 9:9,
cited in the Entry pericope (Matt. 21:5). It is possible
that this is an expansion. Those who follow Jesus’ call are
the children of Wisdom,. Matthew has hardly created these
verses himself since the ‘easy yoke’ and ‘light burden’ are
difficult to bring into agreement with the rigorous perfection
demands in 5:48 and 19:21 that are based on the evangelist’s
redaction. It is o f course hardly possible to prove that the
saying goes back to Jesus in a briefer version, but likewise
difficult to disprove. It accords in any case with the basic tenor
o f Jesus’ ministry, and with great probability belongs to the
early Wisdom-coloured Jesus tradition.
4. The Wisdom Rudiments in the Preaching of Jesus

That the proclamation ofjesus, in its form (even apart from
the use o f Goriot, ao<j)ôç and other wisdom concepts, or even
the appearance o f Wisdom as hypostatized figure) bears
wisdom characteristics has long since been proved by form
criticism. We are justified in seeing in Jesus the most impressive
creator o f in ancient Judaism. Besides numerous
parables and word pictures, there are ‘makarisms’ , pregnantly
formulated aphorisms, as well as artistic proverbial
compositions. The method o f always, at all costs, regarding
only the ‘smallest unit’ as original can sometimes lead to a
larger genuine sense unit being destroyed, leaving only
fragments. Jesus is as much master o f the laws o f Semitic poetry
as Sirach or other Wisdom poets. In him we find the
parallelismus membrorum, rhythm, all types o f word play and
rhyme. Above all, he is master o f the sharply formulated logion
with antithetic parallelism. According to J. Jeremias we find
these thirty times in Mark, in the (Q ) tradition common to
Matthew and Luke, thirty-four times, in Matthew’s special
source forty-four times, and that o f Luke, thirty times.8 This
preference for the (sometimes paradoxically) sharpened
antithesis shows, however, that Jesus is not discussing
enlightened empirical wisdom for the purpose o f better life
management, but, rather, often enough intends to provoke:
Be wise as serpents
and innocent as doves (Matt. 10:16).
The sabbath was made for man,
not man for the sabbath (Mark 2:27a).
In the following saying two antitheses are joined to make a
synthetic parallelism:
Those who are well have no need of a physician,
but those who are sick;
I came not to call the righteous,
but sinners (Mark 2:17).
It is in these antithetic logia - the listing o f which could easily

be continued - that that polemical, and at the same time
8 Theology, pp. 24ff.
completely new, tendency against the reigning official Torah

exposition o f traditional Wisdom teaching slowly but surely
becomes discernible.
This claim can even be demonstrated where Jesus adopts, in
the form o f a didactic poem, the argumentation o f the old
empirical wisdom with its orientation on G od’s order o f
creation. Thus, as Prov. 6:6ff. holds up the industrious ant as
an example to the sluggard,
She prepares her food in summer,
and gathers her sustenance in harvest,
Jesus refers - one might almost say in polemical reversal o f this

well-known picture - to the ravens (Luke 12:24; in Matt. 6:26
generalized as ‘the birds o f the air’ ) , who neither sow nor reap
nor gather into barns (so Matt.) and whom God nonetheless
feeds. How much more is this true o f men who, in the order o f
creation, stand far above the birds? Worry is basically idolatry,
in the manner o f pagans who do not know God. The Father
knows what you need: ‘Seek his kingdom, and these things
[which you are concerned about] will be yours as well’ (Luke
12:22-31 = Matt. 6:25-33). Not until the end o f the poem does
the extremely vulnerable argumentation (based on everyday
experience) o f the ravens and the flowers, without whose aid
God feeds and clothes, lead to its actual eschatological goal
through the reference to the kingdom o f the Father, already
present in Jesus’ ministry. We might say that where God’s
kingdom is present, the ancient curse from Gen. 3:17f.,
cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life,
is lifted. Our familiarity with such sayings o f Jesus’ must not
distort our view o f their boldness shattering traditional
patterns o f behaviour.
Even when Jesus speaks o f his own person, he is able to use
Wisdom language while giving it a completely individual stamp.
The wretched lot o f the homeless exile is a favourite Wisdom
theme:
Like a bird that strays from its nest,
is a man who strays from his home (Prov. 27:8).
Was not Cain, the ‘fugitive and wanderer on the earth’ , the
first homeless person? N o one trusted such a person:
For who will trust a horde of soldiers,

that hurries from city to city?
Even so the man who has no nest [ t£?],
who seeks rest wherever night overtakes him
(Sir. 36:31 [26]; cf. 29:21-28).
This very fate was that o f the Son o f Man:
Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests;

but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head
(Matt. 8:20 = Luke 9:58, Q).
In contrast to the jackals who inhabit the earth, and the birds
who inhabit the heavens, the Son o f Man lives as an exile and
homeless wanderer. Here we must recall that he had broken
with his family and that, according to the rabbinic view, public
teaching on the street was frowned upon - in complete contrast
to the public invitation o f Wisdom in Prov. l:20ff. For the
Rabbis, the teacher belonged in the school or in the
synagogue. Both institutions were connected in the closest way
with the Torah wisdom entrusted to Israel, and were its proper
home. Thus, we know nothing o f itinerant rabbinic teachers
o f no fixed abode. The opinion o f P. Vielhauer (following
R. Bultmann), that here an original Wisdom saying with the
‘ topos o f the homeless man who is the weakest o f creatures’,
has been placed on Jesus’ lips by the Church,9reinterprets the
Wisdom concreteness o f this logion existentially. Against this,
it is entirely possible that behind this saying o f Jesus is an
allusion - actually drawn from the reality o f Jesus’ life - to the
m otif o f Wisdom homeless upon the earth as we find it in 1 En.
42:2:
Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children of
men,
and found no dwelling place10(cf. Sir. 24:7).
9 P. Vielhauer, Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament, p. 125.
10Translation o f pseudepigraphical works here and elsewhere taken from
R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha o f the Old Testament, 2 vols.
(Oxford, 1913), vol. 2, The Pseudepigrapha.
It is striking that in the only two logia in Q speaking o f the

‘present’ Son o f Man there is such a Wisdom reference and
the Son o f Man is a figure beset and humiliated (Matt. 8:20f.
and 11:19). Might we even say that the fate o f the Wisdom o f
God, rejected by the people o f God, is itself reflected in the
fate o f her representative?
5. Wisdom and the Spirit o f God
How then does the Wisdom form o f the greatest part o f the
proclamation o f Jesus, wherein he himself appears in a few
texts as representative o f the Wisdom o f God, fit into the larger
framework o f his ministry? The relationships o f his message to
Wisdom, both in form and content, stand by no means in
conflict with the eschatological orientation o f his preaching
on the kingdom o f God - particularly since this is no longer a
purely future significance, but indeed has already begun. Even
less so do we find any conflict with the Son o f Man concept
(see below, pp. 104ff.). Rather, we must view the three essential
elements God’s Wisdom, God’s kingdom and the Son o f Man
as closely bound together. Basically they are already related to
each other in the apocalyptic o f Daniel and the Similitudes o f
Enoch. Bultmann’s famous formulation, ‘rabbi and prophet’ ,
is therefore also insufficient, since the teacher o f Wisdom,
Jesus, stood in sharp conflict to the ‘Rabbis’ as representatives
o f the official scripture learning, and he appears with a claim
that surpasses that o f the Old Testament prophets and teachers
o f wisdom: ‘Behold, something greater than Jonah is here’ ,
and, ‘behold, something greater than Solomon is here’ .
Moreover, this division suggests the misunderstanding that it
might somehow be possible to distinguish between the ‘rabbi’
and the ‘prophet’ Jesus. The existentialist-sounding category,
‘final herald’ before the end, introduced by Conzelmann,11
would fit John the Baptist better, for jLaUS announces not so
much the coming end, but the New, which already in his
ministry - to be sure, still in a hidden way - itself is becoming
Present. He is not the ‘final herald’ for the aeon o f the validity
11 H. Conzelmann, ‘Jesus Christus’, in ÆGG3, 3, 633.

o f the Law and Prophets (Luke 16:16), but rather the

pioneer o f the New. It cannot be objected that the concept o f
Wisdom in the Synoptics is extremely rare. I f the Wisdom
concepts themselves are absent, the matter itself, in form
and content, appears more often than we think. To clarify
this I would like to refer to a second, related concept that in
the gospels appears with regard to Jesus not much more
frequently than ‘Wisdom’ and yet has fundamental importance
for the understanding o f Jesus and all o f early Christianity: the
Spirit of God.
Apart from the descent o f the Spirit upon Jesus in the
Baptism narrative and the introduction to the Temptation
pericope, it is conspicuous that Jesus is only infrequently
portrayed as Spirit-bearer. The few occurrences - as, for
example, the citation from Isa. 61:lff. in his inaugural sermon
at Nazareth (Luke 4:18), or the references to the exorcisms
worked by God’s Spirit (Matt. 12:28; cf. the foregoing Servant
o f God text, a citation from Isa. 42: If. in 12:18) - are as a rule
secondary. Nonetheless, it is difficult to doubt that Jesus, in a
manner characteristic o f him, understood himself to be the
eschatological bearer o f the Spirit. More frequent is the
promise o f the Spirit to the disciples - for example, with a view
towards the coming persecution; typically, Luke could
paraphrase this promise with the words, ôcooco üpïv crcöpa Kai
oo(}>iav, ‘I will give you a mouth and wisdom’ , which none o f
the adversaries would be able to contradict (Luke 21:15). For
Luke, or the early Christian tradition that lay before him,
Wisdom is clearly to be understood as an effect o f the Spirit
(cf. Acts 6:3, 10). In what follows we will first o f all examine
the connections between Wisdom and Spirit in Judaism, paying
particular attention to the messianic tradition o f the Spirit-
bearing teacher o f Wisdom.
The extremely close relationship between Wisdom and
Spirit comes to light already in the Jewish teaching on creation
where, according to the P strand, God’s Spirit moves across the
waters o f the deep (Gen. 1:2), whereas in Prov. 3:19, God
creates the world through his Wisdom:
The Lord by wisdom founded the earth;
by understanding he established the heavens.
The Rabbis’ later interpretation o f the ITH in

Gen. 1:2 as a mighty wind and their denial, for the most part,
o f an operation o f the Spirit at the Creation may stem from
anti-heretical motives. That the role o f the Spirit at the
Creation was not unknown is shown by texts such as Judith
16:14, Syr. Bar. 21:4 and 23:5. An Amoraic tradition concluded
from the combination o f Exod. 35:31 - God filled Bezalel ‘with
the Spirit o f God, wisdom, understanding and knowledge’ -
with the Creation statement at Prov. 3:19 cited above that
Bezalel was able ‘to join the letters with which heaven and earth
were created’ (Ber. 55a). Individual rabbinic teachers con
nected the Spirit moving over the waters with Adam or - by
appealing to Isa. 11:2 - the Messiah.12
God’s Spirit and Wisdom are inseparably bound in a
prophetic text from the Old Testament that is probably the
most important scriptural proof for Jewish messianic
expectation, and which also made its effect felt in the New
Testament:
There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch shall grow out of his roots.
And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,
the spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the spirit of counsel and might,
the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.
And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord.
He shall not judge by what his eyes see,
or decide by what his ears hear;
but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
(Isa. 11:1-4).
The eschatological ruler from the house o f David laid low
becomes the bearer o f Wisdom par excellence through the gift o f
the Spirit o f the Lord. In certain respects the unique wisdom
o f the king-judge Solomon (1 Kgs. 3:12, 28; 5:9ff.) unites in
him with the Spirit inspiration o f the king-poet-prophet David
(2 Sam. 2 3:lf.). God’s Spirit makes him the true eschatological
judge, the miracle working, superhuman enforcer o f God’s law.
12 E. Sjöberg, ‘nveûua, k t à \ in T D N T 6 , p. 348; see also ibid., Bieder, 370ff.; cf.
Gen. Rab. 2:4
This messianic vision has influenced not only the Branch o f

David texts (Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12), but probably also
the Servant o f God song:
Behold my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon him,
he will bring forth justice to the nations (Isa. 42:1).
But the tradition o f the kingly Spirit-bearer and wise judge
has also influenced the Wisdom didactic poem. Thus we have
the portrait o f Wisdom as ‘kingmaker’ in Prov. 8:12-14, where
we meet the same concepts found in Isa. ll:2f.:
I, wisdom, dwell in prudence,
and I find knowledge and discretion.
The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil.
I have counsel and sound wisdom,

I have insight, I have strength.
By me kings reign,
and rulers decree what is just,
by me princes rule,
and all righteousjudges are honoured.13
Here we do not have Wisdom assuming messianic charac
teristics and functions, as is supposed, but rather a warning
reminder, based on the older Isaiah tradition, that the true
king and judge owes everything to the Wisdom o f the Lord.
A necessary consequence o f this is that the messianic ruler
and eschatological judge, as Spirit-bearer par excellence, must at
the same time also appear as exponent o f the divine Wisdom.
With the help o f the history o f interpretation o f Isa. l l : l f f . we
will attempt to trace this motif in the Jewish Messiah tradition.
The prayer for the imminent coming o f the Messiah in Ps.
Sol. 17 is directly dependent upon Isa. 11:1-10. Here, above
all, the function o f the wise and righteous judge is continually
being placed in the foreground with new approaches.
Wisely, righteously he shall thrust out sinners from (the) inheritance
(I7:25c-26a; [17:23]).
13 Translator’s note: In the last line I have departed from the RSV and translated
the author’s German text.
He shall judge people and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness

(17:31b [17:29]).
For he will smite the earth with the word of his mouth for ever.
He will bless the people of the Lord with wisdom and gladness
(17:39-40 [17:35]).
And (relying) on his God, throughout his days he will not stumble;
for God [has made] him mighty by means of (His) holy spirit,
And wise by means of the spirit of understanding with strength and
righteousness ( 17:42 [ 17:37] ).
The allusion to Isa. 11:2 is even more obvious in Ps. Sol.
18:7f. (18:6f.):
Blessed shall they be that shall be in those days,
In that they shall see the goodness of the Lord which He shall
perform for the generation that is to come
Under the rod of chastening of the Lord’s anointed in the fear of
his God,
In the spirit of wisdom and righteousness and strength.
Wisdom, might and righteousness o f the Messiah are here
shown to be effects o f the Holy Spirit. The bearer o f the
Spirit o f God, however, is not only righteous judge and sinless
ruler, but also, as the custodian o f God’s law, the teacher o î his
people, whose administration o f justice attains independent
significance as teaching:
His words (shall be) more refined than cosdy gold, the choicest;
In the assemblies he will judge the peoples, the tribes of the
sanctified,
His words (shall be) like the words of the holy ones in the midst of
sanctified peoples (17:48-49 [17:43]).
I f the words o f the Messiah as the bearer o f God’s Spirit and
exponent o f Wisdom possessed such unique quality that they
could be compared with the words o f the angels before God’s
throne in the circle o f the heavenly hosts, then this was reason
enough to collect these Wisdom sayings assiduously and pass
them on. Here we meet the actual motive for collecting the
Jesus tradition and the origin o f the Logia source. These words
o f the Messiah are very clearly distinguished by their dignity
from other utterances o f the Spirit in the Church.
The emphasis o f the Messiah as teacher at the conclusion o f

Ps. Sol. 17 must not obscure that in this text it is not the Spirit-
effected wisdom o f the Messiah, but (in a certain contrast
to Isa. 11:1 f .) his warlike and juridical authority in power
against the gentiles and sinners that stand in the fore
ground (Ps. Sol. I7:24f., 39); wisdom and teaching are merely
ancillary motifs. The promise was no longer taken from 11:2
but from 11:4, ‘ . . . he shall smite the earth with the rod o f
his mouth’ , where is used in the sense o f yf\ (L X X )
and is interpreted universally as the earth, that is, all
gentiles. This shift in scope can be observed in practically all
messianic interpretation o f Isa. 11:1 ff. whether Essene,
Pharisaic, or Christian texts. In the benediction for the prince
o f the congregation, that is, the davidic Messiah, in IQS 5:24ff.,
the Isaiah text is turned upside down. The wisdom and
understanding motif withdraws in favour o f the warlike tones;
the same is true o f the pesher to Isa. 11 (4QIs (A ) 161 fr.,
8-10), where the Wisdom m otif is likewise suppressed and
whereas deeds o f war are attributed to the Messiah, the capacity
to judge independently is denied. Thus Isa. 11:3 is so
interpreted that he will dispense justice according to the
teaching and order o f the priests. Following Isa. 11:4, the
man from heaven in 4 Ezra 13:4, 9f. destroys the enemies o f
Israel, with a fiery stream from his mouth. The same motif
appears in Wis. Sol. 18:22,1 En. 62:2, but also in Christian texts
such as 2 Thess. 2:8 and Rev. 19:11, 15. Only in Eph. 6:17 is
the weapon o f the judge interpreted spiritually as the ‘sword o f
the Spirit’ , that is, the ‘word o f God’ in the Christian’s spiritual
warfare.
To be sure, there are a few other messianic texts in
which the m otif o f the Spirit and Wisdom dominates that
o f the violent demonstration o f power and judgement o f
destruction. O f these, primacy o f place belongs to the
description o f the eschatological High Priest in Test. Lev.
18:lff.:
Then shall the Lord raise up a new priest.
And to him all the words of the Lord shall be revealed;
And he shall execute a righteousjudgement upon the earth ... He
shall shine forth as the sun on the earth,
And shall remove all darkness from under heaven,

And there shall be peace in all the earth [Isa. ll:6 ff.]...
And the knowledge of the Lord shall be poured forth upon the
earth, as the water of the seas [Isa. 9:11] ...
And the glory of the Most High shall be uttered over him,
and the spirit ofunderstandingand sanctification shall rest upon him
In Test. Jud. 24, with reference to Isa. ll:lff., the davidic

Messiah as well is described as Spirit-bearer who, at the same
time, mediates the gift o f the Spirit o f Israel. The Wisdom and
illumination m otif surfaces again - in connection with atone
ment and suffering - in a long-time unpublished messianic-
priestly fragment from 4Q whose text Abbé Starcky has kindly
shared with me. Unfortunately it has been preserved in a very
fragmentary state (see below, pp. 365f., n. 67).
Indeed, in rabbinic texts, in part by appealing to Isa. 11:2,
the Holy Spirit, or the spirit o f prophecy, is attributed relatively
frequently to the Messiah, whereas his portrayal as represen
tative o f Wisdom and as teacher is rare. This portrayal finds
clear expression only in Tg. Isa. 53:5,11:
And through his teaching his peace will be abundantly upon us,
and when we gather about his words our sins will be forgiven.
By his wisdom he justifies the righteous, that he might bring
many to obey the Law, and he will pray for (the forgiveness of) their
sins.
This portrayal o f the Messiah as teacher o f Torah was not

the rule. Several rabbis, with reference to Israel, completely
denied his function as teacher, wishing to limit it to the nations
o f the world - presumably in dispute with the christology o f
the Church.
R. Hanina said: in the future Israel will no longer need to be taught

by the King Messiah, for it says [Isa. 11:10]: ‘the nations
[D ^3] will turn to him [for teaching]’ but not Israel (Gen. Rab.
98:9 to Gen. 49:11).
Isa. 11:1-10 is basically reversed here. Using Isa. 54:3 and Isa.
11:10 as his proof-texts, the famous haggadist, R. Tanhuma,
gives the reason for this:
The King Messiah will come merely that he might give the nations
six commandments... But the whole of Israel will be taught by the
Holy One himself, blessed be he, in the Torah (Midr. Teh. to Ps.
21:1).
The gift o f the supernatural wisdom and the prophetic
inspiration interchangeable with it, however, are not limited to
the Messiah alone. There are two texts from Qumran where it
is possible to ask whether messianic conceptions still stand in
the background here. The first text is the praise o f David from
the apocryphal Psalm scroll 11Q, where David is described as
□DH, a ‘light as a light o f the sun, as scribe, finisher and
perfecter in all his ways before God and men’ , whom God had
given ‘an understanding and enlightened spirit’ . Thus he was
able to compose 4,050 songs, ‘All these he spoke by the gift o f
prophecy [i!3*Q3] which had been granted him by the Most
H igh’ (llQ P s a 27:2-11).
The Messianic ‘Branch o f David’ should have had no less a
measure o f the Spirit and Wisdom than his progenitor, yet, as
we have seen (above, p. 98), he fell significantly short o f David
in Essene messianology.
A further paradigm is that mysterious Aramaic fragment
from 4Q in which an ‘Elect One o f God’ is described. Abbé
Starcky considered this to be a messianic horoscope, whereas
later researchers such as Carmignac and Fitzmyer supposed it
to be a description o f the birth o f Noah, a judgement
confirmed by Milik, but which, to me, does not appear to be
completely certain: this ‘Elect O ne’ o f God is, in his youth, a
fool, who ‘becomes understanding and gains insight’ through
knowledge o f the three books - perhaps heavenly writings such
as those revealed to Enoch. He is given visions and moreover
he receives ‘counsel and understanding, able to discern the
secrets o f men. His wisdom will also extend to all people and
he will discern the secrets o f all creatures; all attacks against
him will be destroyed’ .14
Starcky presumed this to be an allusion to the universal
wisdom o f Solomon as a type o f the Messiah King. Fitzymer,
too, acknowledges Solomon to be the model here, but denies
14 See now J. A. Fitzmyer, in Essays on the Semitic Background o f the New Testament
(1971), pp. 126-60 = 4Q590/91.
a messianic typology. One is reminded, for example, o f

Solomon’s statement, ‘I learned both what is secret and what is
manifest, for wisdom, the fashioner o f all things, taught me’
(Wis. Sol. 7:21-22).
Although Noah as well may be described here as a salvation-
bringing figure o f ancient days, the majority o f characteristics
depicted can, without further ado, be applied to the Messiah,
making Starcky’s interpretation understandable. We should
perhaps also not forget that, according to Luke 17:27f. (= Matt.
24:37f.), the days o f Noah could be a type for the day o f the
Son o f Man.
The complete unity of Wisdom and Spirit is found last o f all in
Wis. Sol. 7:22-27:
For in [Wisdom] there is a spirit [nveöpa] that is intelligent
[vospov], holy, unique [povoyeveç], manifold, subtle, mobile,
clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, . . . all-powerful,
overseeing all, and penetrating through all spirits . . . ,
For she is a breath [aTpiç] of the power of God,
and a pure emanation [ànoppoia] of the glory of Almighty ...
Though she is but one, she can do all things,
and while remaining in herself, she renews all things;
in every generation she passes into holy souls
and makes them friends of God, and prophets ...
Here Wisdom has taken on all functions o f the Spirit o f God
becoming completely one with him. This may be connected
in part with these sentences having been formulated in
Hellenistic conceptuality, however, that does not explain this
last step. The decisive factor rather is that here Wisdom’s
function as mediator o f revelation is brought to the consistent
perfection already prepared in Palestinian Judaism by its
identification with God’s Law in Prov. 1-10, Sir. 1 and 24, or
Bar. 3-4. In that Wisdom assumes the function o f the Spirit o f
God, it can also be sent out by God (cf. Ps. 104:30; Judith 16:14)
that it might dwell within the Pious. Solomon himself prays to
this end:
With thee is wisdom, who knows thy works
and was present when thou didst make the world,
and who understands what is pleasing in thy sight
and what is right according to thy commandments.
Send herforth from the holy heavens,

and from the throne of thy glory send her;
that she may be with me and toil,
and that I may learn what is pleasing to thee.
For she knows and understands all things,
and she will guide me wisely in my actions
and guard me in her glory (Wis. Sol. 9:9-11).
The identification with the Spirit is perfectly clear at the end
o f the prayer:
Who has learned thy counsel, unless thou hast given wisdom
and sent thy holy Spirit from on high?
And thus the paths of those on earth were set right,
and men were taught what pleases thee,
and were saved by Wisdom (Wis. Sol. 9:17-18).15
Here, on the one hand, Wisdom has the mission that in early
Christianity belongs to the Spirit, while on the other, she has
herself become a mediator o f salvation, entering into the work
o f salvation - as the throne companion o f God - a role reserved
in the New Testament for Christ himself. Following the older
Palestinian Wisdom tradition, however, she remains at the
same time the mediator o f Creation in tandem with the creative
Word o f God. Solomon begins his prayer with the words:
O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy,
who hast made all things by thy word,
and by thy wisdom hast formed man,...
give me the wisdom that sits by thy throne,
and do not reject me from among thy servants (Wis. Sol. 9:1-4).
I f we seek a pre-Christian-Jewish key to understanding the
development o f post-Easter christology we will most probably
find it in the Wisdom o f Solomon, where Palestinian traditions
o f apocalyptic and Wisdom provenance have combined in
unique fashion with typically Hellenistic vocabulary. However,
the preconditions for this influence o f Wisdom and Spirit
teaching on christology are not to be found first in the post-
Easter early Church with its exaltation christology, but go back
rather - as I attempted to show in the first part - to Jesus’
activity itself as messianic teacher and Spirit-bearer.
15 Cf. also Susanna 44, LXX, and Theodotion.

A few questions still remain concerning the identification o f

the Spirit and Wisdom. We find an analogy in the extremely
close relationship between Christ and the Spirit in Paul, as is
obvious in, for example, 2 Cor. 3:17; 1 Cor. 6:17 and 15:47, or
in the so-called ‘mystical’ sayings such as Gal. 2:20 (cf. Rom.
8:9). We must presuppose, however (above all in Palestinian
Judaism), a certain functional distinction between Wisdom and
spirit, although a very close relationship was provided already
from Old Testament texts.16 The Spirit appeared more as
dynamic power granted by God and as conveyor o f divine gifts,
whether through inspiration or in the form o f miraculous deeds
o f power, whereas Wisdom possessed a double character, in
which, according to the circumstances, she was connected
more strongly either with God, as her origin, or with the person
who received her. On the one hand Wisdom could paraphrase
God’s ordering will and salvific decree in Creation and history,
revelation o f salvation, demands o f obedience and judgement,
and this, in part, in personified form, while on the other, she
comprised the knowledge o f God’s order, activity and will in
the individual and the resulting consequences for his own
behaviour, knowledge that could at the same time be passed
on as teaching and instruction for the good life. Thus, as God’s
Wisdom, she was never a purely theoretical, self-sufficient
knowledge that remained without practical consequences.
The Spirit, therefore, is determined more by powerful
creative movement, Wisdom however by careful observation
and reflection and the practical action based on these.
The distinction from the older pragmatic empirical knowledge
is unmistakeable here. The divine HQDrT - oo(J)ia, in
certain respects readable in the orderings o f the world, stands
no longer at the disposal o f the individual, nor is it dependent
upon external success, but rather has become the free gift o f
God which he grants to the godly man o f his choosing.
However, the boundary need not by any means always be
sharply drawn here between experience, continually open to
the rational, and the hidden, God-revealed ‘ supernatural’
knowledge, although in contemporary Judaism a particularly
16 Cf. besides Isa. ll:2f. also Exod. 29:3; 31:3, 6; 35:31-35; 36:lf.; Deut. 34:9;Job
32:8f.; Prov. 1:23.
sharp accentuation had been placed on the contrast between

the visible, ‘evident’ things o f this world and the secrets o f God.
The divine Wisdom was no longer accessible to the individual
as a matter o f course. Whereas human understanding as a rule
saw only that which was in the foreground, Wisdom acquired
the character o f salvation mediator and in Palestine, as in
Alexandria, was identified with the Torah, or the cosmic vopoç.
This was possible because God’s Wisdom was identical with
G od’s order and counsel, and the Torah contained all o f this:
the story o f Creation, the commandments and salvation
history. However, as the Torah at the same time always retained
the wider meaning, ‘ teaching’, so also the content o f Wisdom
could not be strictly determined. Thus also it comprehended
more than the related concept, ‘mystery’ . This can be clearly
seen in the special form o f Jesus’ proclamation. The maker o f
parables and proverbs himself had to possess the gift o f
employing everyday things as metaphors for the depiction o f
God’s eschatological mystery, as does Jesus in a masterly way in
his parables o f the kingdom o f God. G. von Rad correctly
points out that, ‘the kingdom o f God parables deal with that
which enters into the realm o f experience, and for which
certain rules are valid and familiar to the rational mind. Jesus’
preaching is teeming with rational conclusions and the truths
o f experience’ .17 Part o f the gift o f divine Wisdom is that it
teaches, by means o f what is in the ‘foreground’ , how to
understand the all-determining background o f God’s hidden,
yet real, activity; to the fool, however, all remains banal, and, in
its banality, puzzling (Mark 4:11). Jesus, as the master o f the
kingdom o f God parables, proves himself, by his very use o f
this parable form, to be the unique representative o f Wisdom,
and that means at once, o f the Spirit o f God.
6. Wisdom, Son o f Man and Messiah
It ought no longer to be doubted thatJesus spoke o f the Son o f

Man coming as judge and that he brought the behaviour over
against him into connection with the behaviour o f the coming
17 G. von Rad, EvTh 31 (1971), 173.

judge (Luke 12:8f., and par. Q; cf. Mark 8:38, and par.). The
development o f post-Easter christology would otherwise be
an incomprehensible mystery. The obscure description Son
o f Man - apart from one exception, Acts 7:56 - occurring only
in the gospels and only on the lips o f Jesus can be explained
reasonably in no other way, except that Jesus himself
announced this figure; however, the question concerning
how he understood it can for the moment remain open.
German research has here been led astray in recent decades
by pseudo-radical theses. It has given far too little thought
to the fact that ‘ (son of) man’ , or in Aramaic, NEfaK ~Q,
was by no means a common messianic title. It first becomes
a title for a relatively clearly drawn eschatological figure in
the mouth o f Jesus. Moreover, the early Church neither
employed this term in a kerygmatic sense, nor took it up in
confessional formulas. It remained restricted to the self-witness
o f Jesus.
Besides in the gospels, this highly controversial and puzzling
Son o f Man appears as a (relatively) clearly stamped, and
frequently mentioned eminence only in the so-called
Similtudes o f Enoch (1 En. 37-71). This work, while showing
no strict literary unity (after chapter 60, for example, several
very different pieces are worked together), manages to achieve
a certain cohesiveness by means o f the epilogue, chapters
70-71. Against the supposition o fj. T. Milik, aJewish-Christian
origin o f this work in the late Roman period is improbable.
Christian characteristics cannot be found in it, and the
identification o f the Son o f Man with Enoch (chapter 71)
would have been unthinkable in a Christian writing. The actual
Similitudes (37-59) originated presumably in the period
between the Parthian invasion o f 40 bce (56) and the
destruction o f Jerusalem in 70 ce, that is, in direct temporal
proximity to Jesus and early Christianity.
In the Similitudes we find an astonishingly close and
pronounced connection between the Son o f Man and the
Wisdom tradition. Above all in chapters 48-51 the unique
wisdom o f the Elect One is described, who, in 48:10 and 52:4 is
also called ‘the Anointed (o f the Lord o f Spirits) \ We find clear
echoes o f Isa. ll:2 ff. in chapter 49:lff.:
For wisdomis poured out like water [cf. Isa. 11:9; Test. Lev. 18],
And glory faileth not before him for evermore.
For he is mighty in all the secrets of righteousness,
and unrighteousness shall disappear as a shadow,
And have no continuance;...
And in him dwells the spirit of wisdom,
and the spirit which gives it insight,
And the spirit of understanding and of might [Isa. ll:2f.],
And the spirit of those who have fallen asleep in righteousness.
And he shall judge the secret things,
And none shall be able to utter a lying word before him;...
The concept o f judgement is further development in 51:3:
And the Elect One shall in those days sit on My throne,
And his mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdomand counsel,
For the Lord of Spirits hath given (them) to him and hath glorified
him [cf. 69:7].
God himself, who in chapter 63 is praised in a hymn as ‘Lord
o f Wisdom’, before whom every secret is open, has bestowed
throne companionship with himself upon the Elect One, and
thereby allowed him to participate in his full power and
wisdom. Once again the reference to Isa. ll:2 f. is palpable. For
the ‘Son o f Man’, in his role asjudge sitting on God’s throne, is
according to 62:2, the Spirit-bearer:
And the spirit of righteousness was poured out upon him,

And the word of his mouth slays all the sinners,
And all the unrighteous are destroyed from before his face [cf.
69:71].
But not even this suffices: with a clear allusion to the pre
existent Wisdom o f Prov. 8:22ff., pre-existence itself is attributed
to the elect Son o f Man and Messiah (48:3, 6-7):
Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,

Before the stars of the heaven were made,
His name was named before the Lord of the Spirit.
And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him,
Before the creation of the world and for evermore,
And the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits hath revealed him to the
holy and righteous;
For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous,...

For in his name they are saved,
And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to their
life.
The old conflict over whether an ideal or real pre-existence

is described here is idle, for this would read categories into the
text that are foreign to its original intent. In that the Son o f
Man was ‘chosen and hidden’ by God before the creation o f
the world, he acquires reality, but there is certainly no deeper
reflection on the form and manner o f this pre-existence.
Further, it can be seen that not only Isa. l l : l f f . and Prov.
8:22 influenced the picture o f the Son o f Man, but also the
Servant of God from Deutero-Isaiah. The title, ‘chosen one’ (Isa.
41:8-9; 42:Iff.) already makes reference to this, moreover, it
occurs in 1 Enoch between the two ‘pre-existence’ statements,
48:3 and 6, in 48:4 as a ‘light o f the Gentiles [cf. Isa. 42:6; 49:6]
and the hope o f those who are troubled at heart’ [cf. Isa. 61:1].
Michael promises to Enoch, transformed into the Son o f Man:
And all shall walk in [your]18 ways since righteousness never
forsaketh [you],
With [you] will be their dwelling-places and with [you] their
heritage,
And they shall not be separated from [you] for ever and ever
(1 En. 71:16).
For them Wisdom is at once - as throughout in Jewish

apocalyptic - an eschatological gift:
And in that place [by the throne of God] I saw the fountain of
righteousness
Which was inexhaustible:
And around it were many fountains of wisdom:
And all the thirsty drank of them,
And were filled with wisdom (1 En. 48:1).
Wisdom can become an eschatological gift because it was from
the beginning a celestial figure o f eminence: in the inter
polated myth (origin unknown) o f her descent to earth, where
18 Charles’s translation emends the second person singular pronouns to third

person singular [trans.].
she found no dwelling place (cf. 1 En. 94:5), Wisdom returns

to Heaven and takes up her permanent abode among the
angels, while Unrighteousness is all too eagerly received by
men, ‘as rain in a desert and dew on a thirsty land’ (1 En. 42).
Unfortunately we know nothing certain concerning
whether, and to what extent, concepts o f the heavenly Son
o f Man similar to those in the Similitudes influenced Jesus and
the early Church. A direct relationship is not very probable.
The recent study by J. Theison,19 presumes that a direct
influence is first provable in Matthew, but that the Similitudes
indicate a process o f manifold tradition mixing in which, on
the one hand, the tradition o f the ‘royal messianic’ judge from
Isa. 1l:lff., the Servant o f God tradition from Ps. 110:1 and the
Wisdom tradition from Prov. 8 have been treated. The question
is whether we must also reckon with analogous ‘ tradition
mixing’ in the christology o f the earliest Church.
7. Wisdom and the Beginnings o f Christology
Here we arrive at the actual goal o f our investigation, although,

to be sure, we will not be able to develop it fully. Given the
close connection between Spirit and Wisdom, and given the
Old Testament-Jewish portrayal o f the Messiah (-Son o f Man)
as teacher possessing divine Wisdom, can conclusions be drawn
about the development o f christology in the two obscure
decades between the ministry o f Jesus and the letters o f Paul,
the oldest Christian literary witnesses? Can the tradition o f
Jesus as the representative o f the divine Wisdom help to bridge
the gulf between the popular preacher from Galilee and the
pre-existent Kyrios, Son o f God and mediator o f Creation?
We have already said that the category, ‘rabbi and prophet’ ,
as a description o f the revelatory claims made by Jesus, is
insufficient. The Passion narrative, at the end o f which is his
crucifixion as ‘King o f the Jews’ , is only comprehensible if one
presupposes his messianic authority, and the same is also true
for large parts o f his preaching and ministry. At the
same time it must be emphasized that a public self
19Der auserwählte Richter (1974).

proclamation as Messiah, such as we find in the Fourth Gospel,

was impossible, both from the standpoint o f Jesus’ self-
understanding as well as the religious and political conditions
o f his day: not he himself, but the Father had to reveal him as
Messiah. However, according to Rom. l:3f. this first occurs,
once and for all, at the Resurrection. Thus, Jesus’ proclamation
and ministry carry within themselves the messianic secret,
which is certainly no apologetic or kerygmatic invention o f
Mark or the later community, but ultimately derives from Jesus’
message and activity. The announcement o f the coming Son o f
Man is a part o f this ‘messianic secret’ ofjesus. Here we do not
have - as C. Colpe has shown - a static identification - rather,
‘the apocalyptic Son o f Man is a symbol o f Jesus’ assurance o f
perfecting’ . Colpe interprets this assurance still further as
‘dynamic and functional equating ofjesus and the coming Son
o f Man with the future perfecting ofjesus in view’ . After Easter,
‘the primitive community then made o f it a static personal
identification accomplished already in the presence ofjesus’ .20
From this it also follows that the ‘messianic claim’ was not
determined by some fixed, traditional Jewish ‘Messiah
dogmatics’ . Indeed, it must be doubted whether messianic
expectation in Judaism at the beginning o f the first century c e
was already so distinctly formed that one can speak o f ‘Messiah
dogmatics’ at all. This misleading concept was a favourite o f
the earlier German history o f religions school. In reality, we
find - as our selection o f texts has shown - in Judaism itself at
the beginning o f the Christian era many - in part, very
different - messianic sketches, which, on the one hand, were
dependent in turn on various Old Testament models, and on
the other, could interpret the same Old Testament texts, such
as Isa. l l : l f f . in very different ways. Here we meet on every
hand the problem o f ‘ tradition mixing’ mentioned above.
In seeking an Old Testament ‘messianic’ text that makes the
claim o f Jesus comprehensible, we must orient ourselves
neither on Ps. 2 or 110, so important for the development o f
later christology, nor on Isa. 11, nor even on the actual Servant
o f God hymns o f Deutero-Isaiah, but rather on such a text as
20 C. Colpe, ‘ô ùioç toö ctv0p<onoi)’, in T D N T 8, p. 441 (trans. by G. W.

Bromiley).
Isa. 61:1-3, which presupposes and continues the Servant

tradition:
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to bring good tidings to the afflicted,
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour,
and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all who möurn;...
to give them a garland instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
the mande of praise instead of a faint spirit;
that they may be called oaks of righteousness,
the planting of the Lord, that he may be glorified.
It is testimony to Luke’s deep theological insight that he
places this prophetic word on the lips o f Jesus at his inaugural
sermon at the synagogue in Nazareth (4:18ff.); and it is cer
tainly not accidental that he excludes ‘the day o f vengeance o f
our G od’ . Allusions to this saying are found again in the
Beatitudes (Luke 6:20ff. = Matt. 5:3ff.) and in the answer given
to John the Baptist’s question (Matt. l l :5f. = Luke 7:22) in the
Logia source. This authoritative word o f comfort from an
unknown prophet o f the post-exilic period, however, at bottom
characterizes the entire ministry o f Jesus, both his pro
clamation o f the liberating love o f the Father for the lost and
the outsiders in Israel, as well as his healings and exorcisms.
From this prophetic word, one might - with proper reser
vations - describe Jesus as prophetic Messiah, as Spirit-anointed,
and based on this unique, eschatological charisma o f the Spirit
he is therefore also teacher with messianic authority and
eschatological representative o f Wisdom, that is, o f the mystery
o f the divine Will in salvation. This probably also explains why
Isa. l l : l f f . found no tangible, clear expression in the synoptic
tradition (except perhaps for Matt. 2:23). Jewish inter
pretation’s preference for the m otif o f the powerful Judge-
King suppressed the motif o f Spirit-effected Wisdom. But no
path leads from this interpretation to an understanding o f
Jesus’ ministry during his lifetime.
We have now an eschatological text that combines various

texts and motifs important for Jesus and primitive Christianity,
is fundamentally different from New Testament christology, yet
provides an example o f the intensity o f eschatological thinking
and the great variety o f messianic concepts in Judaism, an
example that helps us to understand how, from traditional
building blocks, Christianity developed its own conception.
In the Qumran fragment 11Q Melchizedek we find, in
connection with Isa. 61:Iff., the description ‘Anointed o f
the Spirit’ [ r m i l rPE?Q ], and within a dramatic portrayal
o f the eschatological liberation. According to Milik, this
text derives from a greater Essene apocalyptic historical
work, ‘Exposition Concerning the Times’ (
□ ^ p i l ) . 21 (M ichael-) Melchizedek, Prince o f Light and
adversary o f Belial and all the powers o f Darkness appears
in it as protagonist and ‘heavenly saviour’ . The entire text
is basically an exposition o f Isa. 61:1-3 combined with the
traditions o f the Jubilee year taken from Lev. 25:8ff. and
the year o f remission from debts from Deut. 15:lff. Towards
the end, we find a further, more significant text, an exposi
tion o f the ‘ messenger o f peace’ from Isa. 52:7: ‘How
beautiful upon the mountains are the feet o f him who
brings good tidings O fcO Q ; LXX, euayyeÀiÇopevoç), who
publishes peace, who brings good tidings . . . who says to
Zion, “Your God reigns”.’ The conclusion o f the citation,
7 ^ 0 , is applied not to God himself, but to the
agent o f redemption and ‘heavenly saviour’ , (M ichael-)
Melchizedek, who redeems God’s people from the power o f
Belial. The ‘ifcQD and messenger o f good tidings is
defined more precisely as nYVT rPIZJD, ‘Anointed o f the
Spirit’ , and, according to a bold conjecture by Milik,
is to be identified with the priestly ‘Anointed one’ and ‘prince’
o f Dan. 9:25 whose appearance occurs at the conclusion o f
the seven years o f weeks. His mission is ‘to comfort all who
mourn’ (Isa. 61:2), that is, to teach them concerning all times
of the world (DÎSTT ), that is, to
reveal to them God’s eschatological plan o f salvation. Milik
21 4Q180; cf.J. T. Milik, j/S 23 (1972), 95-144.

prefers to see in this ‘Spirit-anointed one’ the ‘Teacher o f

Righteousness’ and adds, ‘ the principal role o f the Anointed
One will be didactic’ .22
In this Essene apocalyptic text the ‘messenger o f good
tidings’ and ‘Anointed o f the Spirit’ , the eschatological teacher
o f the mysteries o f God, is clearly distinguished from the
heavenly redeemer, Michael-Melchizedek. His function is the
instruction o f ‘ those who mourn’ , that is, the pious and
penitent, in G od’s eschatological mysteries. According to
Milik’s interpretation, Melchizedek, on the other hand,
becomes, ‘ the Angel o f God . . . God himself as efficacious ad
extra' ,23 that is, a hypostasis o f God himself that is more than a
mere angel.
In the christological thinking o f the first post-Easter com
munity this very separation between the earthly messianic
teacher and prophet and the heavenly redeemer and agent o f
God is overcome and ultimately done away with: Jesus and the
heavenly Son o f Man are one and the same person. This was
then given further precision by ‘ tradition mixing’ with the help
o f Old Testament texts. Jesus’ resurrection was interpreted very
quickly in primitive Christianity through Ps. 110:1 as exaltation
to the right hand o f God, and, with the help o f 2 Sam. 7:14 and
Ps. 2:7, as investiture in his Sonship in heavenly glory. An early
witness for this is the old confession cited by Paul in Rom. 1:3f.
The popular preacher and miracle worker from Galilee was
now not only identified with the self-proclaimed heavenly Son
o f Man and coming Judge, but was confessed as God’s son, and
in the prayer, KflK p D , ‘Our Lord, com e!’ , was entreated
to return quickly.
The stormy development o f christology after Easter, which
must have already occurred in the oldest Palestinian com
munity, was however only a first step. In the earliest written
witnesses o f primitive Christianity, the letters o f Paul, o f which
the first was written some twenty years after the crucifixion o f
Jesus, we find still other, completely different, further-reaching
statements. There, the one who has been exalted to the right
hand o f God is at once the pre-existent Son sent by God ‘in the
22 Ibid., 126.
23 Ibid., 122.
fullness o f time’ into the world and placed under its Law (Gal.
4:4; cf. Rom. 8:3). Although o f divine being, indeed o f God
likeness, he took the form o f a slave and became man. His
obedience to the will o f the Father is perfected in the shameful
slave’s death on the cross (Phil. 2:6-11; cf. 2 Cor. 8:9). But not
even this sufficed: the crucified also participated in the opus
proprium Dei, the Creation itself:
Yet for us there is one God, the Father,

from whom are all things and for whom we exist,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things and through whom we exist (1 Cor. 8:6).
The language o f the hymn in the Colossian letter (whose

Pauline authorship is disputed) is even clearer:
He is the image of the invisible God,

the first-born of all creation;
for in [or through] him all things were created,
in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible
all things were created through him and for him (Col. l:15f.).
In the second strophe it is then emphasized that the pre

existent agent o f Creation reconciled all things to himself and
made peace through his death on the cross.
The path from the carpenter o f Nazareth to the pre-existent
Son, bound to God in the closest way, can no longer be
illuminated without further ado from the traditional motifs o f
Jewish messianism. At best we might arrive at the ‘Son’ title or
the ‘Exaltation’ conception, but hardly further than this. Nor
does the gnostic Redeemer myth, long considered the single
key, lead us any further here; for a pre-Christian, gnostic,
heavenly redeemer, who becomes man and returns to the
heavenly world after completing his redemptive work, cannot
be established. On the contrary, the very redeemer concept
itself in the gnostic myth has very likely sprung from Christian
origins.
The bold development o f christology within a period o f
less than twenty years, that is, within one generation, becomes
more comprehensible rather with recourse to Jewish wisdom,,

which - albeit mostly in the background - continually accom
panied christological development, from the Galilean popular
preacher to the ‘protological’ and eschatological pleni
potentiary o f God.
In the foregoing reflections we have concerned ourselves
above all with the beginnings o f this development, as we
find it in the Logia source in a fragmentary way, and with
the m otif o f Wisdom and the Spirit in contemporary
Jewish messianism. In conclusion, I will attempt, in a few
steps, to reiterate the chief points o f this development o f
early christology. This task would itself be an extensive
investigation in monograph form, which I hope to publish at a
later date.
The popular preacher Jesus o f Nazareth was a master o f
Wisdom poetry in its various forms. As messianic teacher and
prophet he was the Spirit-bearer par excellence and as such,
representative o f the divine Wisdom, that is, o f the divine will
in salvation; this is comparable to the ‘Anointed o f the Spirit’
who, according to Isa. 61:1, proclaims to the lost and outsiders
in Israel their acceptance into God’s kingdom through his love.
His claim placed him in conscious opposition to the official,
institutionalized teachers o f wisdom and Torah expositors in
Palestinian Judaism and, based on the Sanhedrin’s charge
against him o f being a messianic pretender, led ultimately to
his condemnation by Pilate and his death on the cross as a
political criminal.
The heavenly Son of Man and Judge announced by Jesus also
appears in the - non-Christian - Similitudes o f Enoch as
representative, indeed as personification, o f the Wisdom o f
God. As the Elect (following Deutero-Isaiah), who also bears
the tide Messiah, he is exalted to God’s throne companion and,
corresponding to Isa. l l : l f f . , is installed as judge. At
the same time - similar to Wisdom in Prov. 8:22ff. - pre
existence, hidden in the presence o f God, is attributed to
him. Pre-existence is by no means a specific, Hellenistic
theologoumenon, but the Jewish apocalyptic salvation-
historical expression o f unsurpassable revelatiory dignity. Since
Jesus himself had already made his own ministry and person
inseparable from the coming Son o f Man and Judge, the post-
Easter community legitimately identified him with this
redeemer figure. Thus, also the Wisdom characteristics o f the
Son o f Man and Judge were transferred to the exalted Jesus.
The Passion o f Jesus could also be interpreted against a
Wisdom background. Thus the suffering accounts in the
gospels are certainly influenced by the motif o f the Suffering
Righteous, not least o f all the oldest account in the Gospel o f
Mark. The m otif o f the Suffering Righteous is emphasized
primarily in Deutero-Isaiah, Proverbs, Job and in various
Psalms; its full development is found in Wis. Sol. 1:1-6, 21,
where the influence o f Isa. 53 is unmistakeable. To be sure,
post-Easter, early Christian exaltation christology surpassed this
m otif from the very beginning, for whereas the ‘Suffering
Righteous’ could be applied as a firm type to every martyr who
suffered for his obedience to God’s commands, Jesus’ death
and resurrection acquired a unique, unrepeatable revelatory
character. Here God himself had acted, once and for all time,
finally for the salvation o f Israel, indeed for all mankind.
The final, decisive step in the development o f christology is
very closely connected with the uniqueness and inscrutability
o f this eschatological revelation o f God in Jesus o f Nazareth.
There were many martyred prophets who received G od’s
reward in the history o f Israel; the last o f these was John the
Baptist in whom probably already Jesus himself, and certainly
the earliest Church, had seen Elijah redivivus. Both Enoch and
Elijah were exalted into G od’s presence, and, in a contro
versial opinion, even Moses; at the end o f the Similitudes
Enoch could even be identified with the Son o f Man. As a
heavenly scribe and mediator figure, who received all the
wisdom o f God, Enoch lived on in later Jewish mysticism as
Metatron, and the martyr and high priest, Ishmael ben Elisha,
wrapped in legend, is moved very close to him. In the rich
Jewish angelology Michael could acquire characteristics o f a
heavenly redeemer already in Dan. 12:1 and the animal symbol
apocalypse, and even more so among the Essenes in 11Q
Melch., or 1QM 17:6f. The actual agent o f revelation was Moses,
or better, the Torah entrusted to him, in which God had
ultimately declared his will, and which, already in Ps. 119, Sir.
24 and Bar. 3f., had been identified with the divine Wisdom
itself.
Over against these pre-formed, very manifold and variable
conceptions, early Christian thought was faced with the task o f
expressing the unique and surpassing worth o f the revelation
o f God in his Christ, Jesus o f Nazareth, in such a way that all
previous Jewish exaltation and mediator conceptions o f men
o f God, teachers, prophets and angels paled beside it. The
linguistic means to express this worth was supplied out o f hand
by Jewish Wisdom teaching alone. To paraphrase Ernst
Käsemann, one might describe it as the ‘mother o f high
christology’ . Before and during the Creation, according to
Prov. 8:22ff., the personified Wisdom was as a child playing
beside his father, a notion which reappears in John 1:18. In
Prov. 30:4 the description ‘son o f God’ could be interpreted as
Wisdom. In the Wisdom hymn o f Sir. 24, God sends Wisdom to
Mount Zion in Jerusalem that she might take up her dwelling
among his people, and at the same time she is identified with
the covenant book o f the Highest, the Torah. According to a
widespread rabbinic tradition Wisdom-Torah is the tool with
which God created the world (Ab. 3.14), and all the more she
is the agent o f Creation and revelation in the Wisdom o f
Solomon and Philo. Moreover, in Wis. Sol. she is identical with
God’s Spirit whom God sends to the prophets and the pious,
and who inspires and instructs them. All her functions, pre
existence, mediation o f Creation, mission into the world and
means o f revelation, were now consistently applied to the Son
and Christ exalted to the right hand o f God, him who had
become man in the Galilean, Jesus himself, who had come as
teacher o f messianic Wisdom, and who suffered the uttermost
shame, the accursed death o f hanging on a tree. Thus the
Christian confession acquired its offensive, paradoxical form,
which to this day holds the history o f theology in suspense.
That Wisdom here supplied significant impulses from the
very beginning - that is, since the ministry o f Jesus - yet, with
few exceptions (such as Paul’s strife with the Corinthians),
remained in the background, may be connected with its being
a feminine figure abandoned to mythological pagan
reinterpretation. Valentinian gnosticism can even speak about
the Fall o f the Sophia in the chaotic world o f matter.

Nevertheless it influenced the beginnings o f christology itself
- above all, in the earliest period - in a decisive way. Its ultimate
assertion first came with its transformation into the Logos,
God’s creative Word, that is, in the Prologue o f John’s gospel.
This then forms the basis for christological development in the
ancient Church. In other words: When we put the fundamental
christological question concerning the continuity between
Jesus and the Son o f God and Logos o f early church
christology, we are driven - in myjudgement, irresistibly - back
to the problem o f the messianic Wisdom o f Jesus and the
influence o f Wisdom motifs on the earliest exaltation
christology as thé decisive link.
3
‘Sit at My Right Hand!’

The Enthronement of Christ at the
Right Hand of God and Psalm 110:1*
Psalmus 110, est vertex et caput totius scripturae. Regnum et
sacerdotium Christi excellentissime describit dicens Christum esse,
qui omnes regat et interpellet pro omnibus und habs gar in seiner
hand.
(Martin Luther WA TR 2, 471, 4f Nr. 2462: 1532)
1. The Formula in the‘Apostolic Creed’

and its Peculiar Problems1
The Symbolum Apostolicum, that is well-known to Protestants

and Catholics as it stands at the beginning o f the ‘Kon-
kordienbuch’ and as it is present ‘in the Catechismus Romanus
and in the Rituale Romanum’ ,2 contains in the christological
middle section, which is the central part o f the entire creed, a
dramatic movement in two opposite directions. This movement
is at first downward:
* Günther Zuntz in memoriam, d. 3 April 1992. This work was originally
dedicated to Günther Zuntz on the occasion o f his ninetieth birthday on 28
January 1992. He read it with interest: Wis. 3:1.
11 thank Dr C. Markschies for valuable suggestions relating to the first section,

and my colleague Gert Jeremias for a critical reading and helpful notes. Dr Anna
Maria Schwemer made several useful suggestions; I want to thank her
particularly. My colleague Oswald Bayer made me aware o f the quotation from
Luther.
2BSKL I6, p. 21.
119
crucifixus,
mortuus et sepultus,
descendit ad inferna
Who was crucified,
dead, and buried.
He descended into hell.
and then upward:
tertia die resurrexit a mortuis

ascendit ad coelos
sedet ad dexteram Dei, patris omnipotentis
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
The theological reasons that - relatively late - the descensus

ad infernos was added after the ‘he died and was buried’ are,
as is well-known, difficult to understand and consequently
controversial.3 A significant reason - aside from any theo
logical rationale - that this unusual theologumenon was
eventually included in the ‘Apostolic Creed’ is probably
that through its addition the dramatic development o f the
salvific event was heightened. The way o f the Son o f God -
crucified, dead and buried - leads at first into the deepest
‘depth’ , that is, the realm o f the dead, which he broke
open. The conqueror o f death (1 Cor. 15:54f.) must open
the realm o f the dead and free its prisoners (cf. Rev.
3 See H.-J. Vogels, Christi Abstieg in das Totenreich und das Läuterungsgericht
an den Toten, FThSt 102 (Freiburg/Br., 1976), pp. 183ff.; J. N. D. Kelly,
Altchristliche Glaubensbekenntnisse (Göttingen, 1972), pp. 371-7; A. Grillmeier,
M it ihm und in ihm (Freiburg, etc., 21976), pp. 76-174: O n the Son o f God in
the realm o f the dead; E. Koch, Art. ‘Höllenfahrt Christi’, TB E 15 (1986),
pp. 456-61; F. Kattenbusch, Das Apostolische Symbol (Leipzig, 1900; repr.
Hildesheim, 1962) II, pp. 895-915. The earliest example o f a congregational
creed is from Aquileia around ad 400 quoted by Rufinus, see A. Hahn,
Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der Alten Kirche ( 31897), §36 (pp. 42-3),
cf. the fourth homoean formula o f Sirmium ad 359 in A. Hahn §163, p. 204
(see H. Lietzmann, KIT 17/18,41935, p. 12) and the formula o f Nike from the
same year, A. Hahn §164, p. 206. The formula o f Sirmium quotes Job 38:17b.
For the origin o f both formulae, see H. C. Brennecke, Studien zur Geschichte der
Homöer, BHTh 73 (Tübingen, 1988), pp. 5-40: For the motif o f the descensus
H.-J. Vogels, op. cit., pp. 223ff.
*Sit at My Right Hand!9 121
1:18).4Although this idea was widespread probably in the first

but in any case in the second century, it does not appear in the
usual kerygmatic formulas. With its help the inseparable
connection between the deepest degradation, the triumph o f
Christ over the power o f death and darkness, and his ascent to
the ‘highest height’ is impressively portrayed,5 whereby all o f
the believers will participate in the victory and ascent By means
o f this secondary and not uncontroversial addition inside o f
the christological centre o f the creed in its later form, the
chasm between the negative (anti) climax o f the death o f Jesus
on the cross and the positive climax o f the exaltation to the
right hand o f God was - at least ‘spatially’ or as seen from
outside - increased. A greater contrast could not be expressed.
The descensus to the realm o f the dead precedes the ascensus to
the heavenly communion with God.
The addition ‘Dei (patris) . . . omnipotentis’ , which was
added to the simple ad dexteram patris o f the oldest version
o f the Roman creed and which repeated the formulation
‘Deum (patrem) . .. omnipotentem' from the first part, unifies both
parts, underscoring the weight o f this climax. Next to the
brief introductory ‘filium ejus unigeniturri only the ‘sedet ad
dexteram Dei patris omnipotentis' expresses the unique relation
o f the Son to the Father. Therefore, I would not claim - as
does Kelly - that this addition does not have ‘any deeper
4 In the New Testament this is preceded by texts such as Rom. 10:7 xtç
Kaxaßi]ö£Tai eiç xrjv äßoooov; Eph. 4:8f.; Matt. 12:4; 27:52f.; 1 Pet. 3:19; 4:6;
cf. Ignatius, Magn. 9:2; cf. 8:2; Ev. Petr. 41 (cf. Matt. 27:52); Ep. Apost. 27(38)
Eth. text (N T Apoc 5I, p. 220); Justin, dial. 72:4; Melito, fr. 13 1. 22f. (ed. S. G.
Hall, pp. 80f.); Od. Sal. 4 2 :llf. cf. 15:9, 29:4; Irenaeus, adv. haer. 1.27.2
(Marcion); 4.27.2; 5.31.1; 5.33.1; Tertullian, de anima 55.2f. cf. the commentary
by J. H. Waszink, Q.S.F. Tertulliani De anima, ed. with Introd. and Comm.
(Amsterdam, 1947), pp. 553-9. For the New Testament: H. J. Holtzmann,
‘Höllenfahrt im N T ’, A R W 11 (1908), 285-97; W. Bauer, Das LebenJesu im Zeitalter
der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (1909; repr. 1967), pp. 246-51; J. Jeremias,
‘Zwischen Karfreitag und Ostern’, ZNW42, (1949), 194-201 = Abba (1966), pp.
323-31: Jeremias emphasizes correctly that ‘the . . . images o f the descensus are
primarily statements about the nveüpa o f Jesus that was separated from the body
in death’ (201/330). W. Bieder, Die Vorstellung von der Höllenfahrt Jesu Christi,
A ThA N T 19 (1949).
5Cf. Eph. 4:10: o Kaxaßcxc; aôxôç éoxiv Kai ô àvapàç ùnepavco nàvxouv xöv
oûpavôôv. Cf.J. N. D. Kelly, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 377: ‘The doctrine o f the descent to
hell (o f Christ was) interpreted more and more as a sign o f his victory over
death and the devil and thus o f humanity as a whole.’
meaning’.6The way for the addition ‘Dei’ was prepared by the

New Testament texts which usually speak o f sitting at the right
hand o f God and not o f the Father;7 the ‘ omnipotentii builds
the bridge to the first section and connects the section dealing
with God with the ‘high-point’ o f the section dealing with the
Son.8
One other observation is interesting. It relates to the New
Testament roots o f these statements: Whereas the formulation
(filium . . .) unicum at the beginning o f the christological
section - which became accepted over time but was probably
already present in the original form o f the Roman creed -
refers back to the Johannine povoyevrjç uioç,9 the statement
‘he sits at the right hand o f God’ has a number o f referents in
the synoptic gospels, the book o f Acts, numerous letters o f the
New Testament but not in the CorpusJohanneum. Apparently
the term povoysvqq/unigenitus, which was relatively un
common in the second century, was as an outgrowth o f
Johannine vocabulary added at an early date to the phrase tö v
ulov auTOTJ, xov Kt3piov qpöv. The older unjohannine ‘sitting
at the right hand o f the Father’ (KaGrjpevov év ôsîqt toö
naxpoq) is by contrast the real ‘high-point’ (in the literal sense
o f the word) o f the christological creed.
Kattenbusch notices and Markschies emphasizes the fact that
in the original Greek version the participles o f the individual
statements up until and including the ascension are in the
6 Op. cit. (n. 3), p. 369.

7Rom. 8:34; Col. 3:1; Heb. 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22; Acts 2:33; cf. 7:55f.; Mark
16:19. The patris is apparently taken from the Fourth Gospel, John 1:18.
8For the formula, see F. Kattenbusch II, pp. 533f., 540, 915ff. omnipotens is the
translation o f navxoKpdicop which is common only in Revelation and comes
from the LXX.
9John 1:18 (a variant reading o f the majority text). Cf. 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John
4:9, cf. F. Kattenbusch, op. cit. (n. 3), II, pp. 581ff. That it ‘remained seldom in
the literature for a long time’ (p. 585), probably depends upon the fact that this
typical Johannine formula became accepted only with time. For Justin, see the
quote in Irenaeus, adv. haer. 4.6.2 from Justin’s Syntagma against Marcion
( ‘unigenitus filius venit ad nos’) and dial. 105.If. where the term is discussed
based on Ps. 22:21 and - typicallyJohannine - related to the eternal generation
o f the Logos from the Father. Examples in texts with creedal character, see
A. Hahn, op. cit. (n. 3), §§14.17-23. For the origin, see (over against the false
derivation o f F. Kattenbusch, II, p. 595) J. N. D. Kelly, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 120ff.,
140-4, who correctly points to the Johannine background.
‘Sit at My Right Hand! ’ 123
aorist tense, that, however, beginning with KaGqjievov the

verbs are perfect participles denoting a present state, that is,
the five preceding verbs point to singular events o f the past,
whereas the ‘sitting at the right hand’ o f the Father is relevant
to the present o f the congregation or o f the candidate for
baptism who is reciting the creed. Because the following
present participle épxopevoç . . . denotes a future state, the
‘sitting. . .’ is (ignoring the introduction: ‘I believe in . . . ’ ) the
only statement in the christological part o f the creed which is a
statement about the present. The Latin translation has
consequently up until ascendit a series o f finite verbs in the
perfect tense followed by the present sedet and the future
venturus est.10 Tertullian emphasizes this fact by adding a
nunc: ‘receptum in caelis sedentem nunc ad dexterampatris’ (de virg.
vel. 1.3). This difference o f tense between the different parts
o f the creed goes back to the New Testament formulations (see
below, pp. 139ff.).
This ‘high-point’, which is related to the present o f the
confessing Church, interprets the Dominum nostrum (xöv
Kupiov qpcov) in the introduction to the christological section:
‘he who sits at the right hand o f God is “ KUpioç”
with him’ , that is, the formula ‘portrays Jesus clearly as the
KUpioç xqç ôo^rjç in a static state’ .11The following inde venturus
(Ö08V épxopevoç) is through the inde (oGev) directly related
to the present ‘position’ and status o f the one who is exalted to
‘the right hand o f the Father’ .
Originally it was presupposed, that the Son o f God, who
was resurrected with the transformed body o f the Crucified
One and who ascended into heaven, is actually sitting ‘at
the right hand o f the Father’ . This idea, that in antiquity
was objectionable even to one who was only superficially
educated in philosophy, soon led to conflicts and to
spiritualizing interpretations, which C. Markschies has dis
10F. Kattenbusch, op. cit. (n. 3), II, pp. 617, 651: That which is circumscribed
by the aorist participles ‘belongs to an earlier time. In the present he is sitting at
the right hand o f the Father’ [italics by the author] ; see Christopher Markschies,
‘Sessio ad dexteram’, in Marc Philonenko (ed.), Le Trône de Dieu, W U N T 1.R.69
(1993), pp. 259, 280, 292-5.
11 F. Kattenbusch, op. cit. (n. 3), II. p. 652.
cussed in detail.12The great Christian Platonists from Clement

o f Alexandria and Origen to Eusebius and Didymus the Blind
demonstrate a noticeable reserve in relation to the sessio ad
dexteram; they try either to avoid this statement or to interpret
it in a non-spatial spiritual sense. This may be the reason that
the statement is missing in the Eastern confessions o f the third
and fourth centuries (in opposition to those o f the West), for
example in the Nicene Creed o f 325 and in many other texts
o f that period.13
The Apologists, in particularJustin, who had been a Platonic
philosopher, had certain difficulties with this formula (see
below, pp. 126f.). This distancing from the realistically
imagined ‘sitting at the right hand o f God’ has an analogy in
the rejection o f the eschatological realism o f Revelation among
many theologians o f the East o f the same period. As the result
12 See below, pp. 128f. Clement mentions the formula only a few times: Paed.
1.4.1 (GCS Stählin 1, p. 91), whereby for him the Àoyoç is Geôç. ô èv x<£ naxpt
(John 14:10, 11 cf. 20) is the real statement, ô éic ÔeÇuov xoö naxpoç on the
other hand the traditional formula. H e omits the offensive ‘to sit’!
In the Adumbrationes in Epistola Iudae (GCS III, p. 209 1. 8ff.) he quotes
Mark 14:61f. and interprets the ‘sitting at the right hand’ in terms o f place as
‘sedere in eminenti honore et ibi requiescere’. See Exc. ex Theod. 38.1; 62.If.
(GCS III, pp. 119.3f.; 128.2) for the Valentinian exegesis o f the text. For the
Gnostic interpretation, see Irenaeus, adv. haer. 1.30.14: Christ at the right
hand o f Jaldabaoth among the Ophites; among the Basilidians the lower ruler
o f the world or the Demiurge lets the Son (who is superior to him, but whose
status he does not recognize) sit at his right hand: Hippolytus, ref. 7.23.6. For
Gnostics a true ‘sitting at the right hand’ was only conceivable in the case o f a
lower spiritual being. The exception, that proves the rule, is the Gnostic
Baruch (Hippolytus, ref. 5.26.17), for whom the highest being, ‘the good one’,
gives the place at the right hand to the Father.
,SA. Hahn, op. cit. (n. 3) §142 = Lietzmann KIT 17/18 (41935), p. 26. Hahn,
p. 161, n. 8, calls attention to four later versions which insert the missing passage;
his information is in part unreliable: The reference to Gelasius (ed. Lüschke/
Heinemann. GCS 28, 1918, p. 125 1. 19) is incorrect, in Con. Chalced. Act. V
(A C O II. 1.2, ed. E. Schwartz, p. 127.16) Kai KaOeÇojievov év ôeÇiçt xoö
naxpoç is only a v. 1. in the apparatus. For other additions, see C. H. Turner,
E O M IA 1.2.1 (Oxford, 1913), p. 304 1. 16; see index o f additions p. 322, No. 40.
For the omissions, see Eusebius in his letter to his congregation in Caesarea
(Hahn §123, cf. 188 = Lietzman, pp. 18f.); Arius (and Euzoius); Hahn §187 =
Lietzmann, pp. 24f.; H.-G. Opitz, Urkunden zur Geschichte des Arianischen Stmtes
(1934), No. 30. In this ‘Capitulation o f Arius’ from the end o f the year 327
there is a very similar reference to the Nicaenum (see Opitz, p. 64 1. 8). For
Laodicea in Syria, see Hahn §131. Cf. the Dekalogus o f Gregory o f Nazianzus
(Hahn §135, V I/V II); the translation o f the Nicaenum by Hilary o f Poitiers
(Hahn §143, s. CSEL LXV, 47.16 - 48.6; see C. Markschies, op. cit. [n. 10], pp.
(Sit at My Right HandV 125
o f the Arian controversy the emphasis shifted to the beginning

o f the christological section, the Johannine iriöv auxoü xöv
povoYSvq, that is, to the ontological relation to the Father and
thus to the pre-existence and to the incarnation, which were
then extensively treated in the context o f the christological
debates. Nevertheless one could not ignore or leave out the
‘sitting at the right hand o f God’ which sounded anthropo
morphic and which did not at all correspond to the
philosophical language o f the time.
On the other hand, tradition-bound witnesses to the physical
ascension and the existence o f Christ in the present at the right
hand o f God are not entirely absent. The Tomus ofPopeDamasus
with its twenty-four anathemas states under section 15: ‘Si quis
non dixerit, quod in carnesedet in dextera Patris, in qua uenturus
est iudicare uiuos et mortuos, hereticus est.’ 14 In the second
confession at the end o f the Ancoratus, which was probably
composed by Epiphanius himself, there is the statement:
nioreuopev . . . eiç ëva Kupiov Tqooüv Xptoxöv . .. naOövxa
öe töv auxöv év oapKi, Kai avaoxävxa àveÀOovxa eiç xoùç
oupavoùç év auxcp xcj) ocopaxi, évôo^coç KaOioavxa év ôeîqt
t o u naxpoç, épxopevov év auxo) xcj) ocopaxi.15That this creed
was not directed against the christology o f Apollinaris o f
285f.); Antioch according to John Cassian (Hahn §130 = Leitzmann, p. 22);

Germinus o f Sirmium (H ahn §192). Athanasius (H ahn §194, cf. however
§195, 268, and Apollinaris, Ep. ad Iovianum, in H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von
Laodicea und seine Schule, T U I (Tübingen, 1904), pp. 250-3, etc. In the West
the formula seems to have always been used and respected, see the ‘Hippolytic’
Traditio Apostolica (B. Botte, La Tradition Apostolique de Sainte Hippolyte, LQ F
31, Münster, 41972, p. 50); Tertullian, praescr. haer. 13.4; adv. Prax. 2.1; virg.
vel. 1.3 and Hahn §§17-121. A witness for the East is (Ps.-P)Hippolytus, c. Noet.
1.7, according to the elders o f Smyrna, cf. 18.9 (ed. R. Butterworth, London,
1977), although the authenticity o f the text is problematic, see R. M. Hübner,
‘Die antignostische Glaubensregel des Noët von Smyrna’, M T h Z 40 (1989), 279-
311 (279, n. 1-2: lit!). For Melito o f Sardis and Justin, see below, p. 126.
14A. Hahn, op. cit. (n. 3), §199, p. 273; Text in C. H. Turner, EOMIA, 1.2.1, p.
289 1. 93-6 (lat.) = 71-4 (gr.); Greek version also in Theodoret, h.e. 5.11.9, ed.
L. Parmentier and F. Scheidweiler, GCS 21954, p. 300.5-7. Cf. C. Pietri, Roma
Cristiana /, BEFAR 224 (Rome, 1976), pp. 729ff.
15§119.8, ed. K. Holl, GCS I, 148 = A. Hahn, op. cit. §126, p. 136; exactly the
same wording §127, p. 136, in the creed that is incorrectly attributed to
Athanasius. For the text o f Epiphanius, see F. Kattenbusch, op. cit. (n. 3), I.
pp. 296f.: ‘Epiphanius mentions the sitting at the right hand only occasionally’
Laodicea can be seen in the fact he also later in his confes

sion addressed to Jovian can say: Kai KaOqpevoç £K ôeîcov
xoù naxpoç Kaxà xrjv ànô yf|ç . . . ütpoujievrjv aäpKa.16
C. Markschies, who drew my attention to this text, pre
supposes that in these confessions the ‘catholic biblicism o f
the Homoeans’ left its traces.
After his discussion o f Valentinus’ interpretation o f John,
Irenaeus, exhibiting an anti-Gnostic tendency, emphasizes
in a confession-like listing o f the salvific events the ‘bodily
ascension . . . o f Christ’ (xrjv evoapKov riç xoùç oûpavoùç
àvaÀi]i|nv xoü . . . Xpioxoü) as ‘a firm truth that is pro
claimed by the Church’ ; at another place he says o f the
prophets: ‘gloriosam eius apud patrem a dextris conversationem
(öiaxpißqv) videbant\17 This realistic conception o f the
‘physical sitting’ o f the exalted Jesus ‘at the right hand o f
God’ led to hermeneutical difficulties among ‘orthodox’
theologians like Justin, who consciously wanted to hold fast
to the bodily nature o f the ascension o f Christ.18 In the
with reference to Anc. 116.3f. (H oll, 144), in which the crucifixion by

the Jews is contrasted to the divinity o f Christ for the Christians and this
later is substantiated with Ps. 110:1, see below, p. 129, n. 28. For the creed,
see A. M. Ritter, Das Konzil von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol, FKDG
15 (Göttingen, 1965), pp. 138ff., for the second creed, pp. 165f.; further
examples for Epiphanius in C. Markschies, op. cit. (n. 10), pp. 297f. n. 141-4;
see the texts in: A C O 1.1.7, p. 66. H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea
und seine Schule, T U I (Tübingen, 1904), p. 252, 12f. O n the other hand a
reference is missing in the creed in his work Kaxà pépoç nkm ç (H ahn §204
= Lietzmann, op. cit., pp. 176-84). Cf. the reserve o f the Dekalogus o f
Gregory o f Nazianzus (A. Hahn §136, p. 150, VII = Oratio 40) near the end, in
which it is said about Christ at the parousia: o v k en pèv octpKa oûk
aocopaxov öe. oîç a ô io ç oiÔs Àôyoïç Geosiôsoxépou ocopaïoq, ïva kcù
c>4>Ôfj ùno xôjv £KKevxr|oàvxoL>v Kai pelvrj Oeôç eÇco naxuxqxoç. It is
characteristic that in the context o f this creed there is no mention o f ‘sitting
at the right hand’.
16Apollinaris, Ep. ad Iovianum, in H. Lietzmann, Apollonaris, op. cit. (n. 15),
pp. 250-2 (252, 12f.).
17Adv. haer. 1.9.5; 1.10.1; 4.33.11; cf. 5.31.1-2 about the corporality o f the
general resurrection, for which the resurrection and ascension o f Jesus is the
paradigm: ‘post deinde corporaliter resurrexit et post resurrectionem assumptus
est’. See C. Markschies, op. cit. (no. 10), pp. 260, 278-83.
18See the fragment from De resurrectione 108 in K. Holl, ‘Fragmente
vornicänischer Kirchenväter aus den Sacra Parallela’, T U V/2 (1899) pp. 47f.,
also C. Markschies, op. cit. (n. 10), p. 281.
'Sit at My Right HandV 127
footsteps o f the Jewish apologetics o f Aristobulus and Philo

the first Christian ‘Platonists’ emphasized that one should
not believe that ‘ the uncreated God himself descended or
ascended’ , because he ‘remains in his place, wherever that
is (év xf\ auxoü önou nöxe, pevei), is himself
immovable and is not to be localized in one place, not even
in the entire world (ouxs Kivoupevoç, ô xoncp xe àxcopqxoç
Kai KÖopa) oÀcp)’ . The conception o f a ‘place’ at the ‘right
hand’ o f God is not acceptable. Because o f his transcend
ence beyond space and time he acts exclusively through
his Logos as his Son and messenger. Where in the Old
Testament one tells about the coming o f God to earth, it is
the Logos which is meant; otherwise one would have to
believe that ‘ the Father and Lord o f the universe was at that
time not in heaven’ . Anthropomorphic words o f scripture
such as Gen. 11:5; 7:6; 17:22; 19:24; Ps. 24:7 and - this
text is explicitly quoted - Ps. 110:1 all deal only with the
Son.19
In other words, Justin could no longer picture the sitting
o f the Son at the right hand o f the ‘unspatial’ Father in
a spatial-bodily sense. This may be the reason that this
m otif seldom appears in the writings o f the Apologists.20
Justin quotes Ps. 110 relatively often, but - in opposition to
the New Testament - the pre-existence o f the Son in v. 3 and
the indication o f the priesthood o f the Son in v. 4 were
more important than the exaltation to the right hand o f
God in v. 1. He also often connects in stereotypical fashion
death, resurrection and ascension without including the
‘sitting at the right hand’ , which coming from the New
19Dial. 127.1f., 5; cf. C. Markschies, op. cit. (n. 10), p. 269. For Justin as a
middle Platonist, see C. Andresen, Logos und Nomos. Die Polemik des Kelsos wider
das Christentum, AKG 30 (Berlin, 1955), pp. 308ff.: ‘The influence o f middle
Platonism is evident in the transcendent idea o f God in Justin’ (311), cf. pp.
338ff., 349f. etc. See N. Hyldahl, Philosophie und Christentum. Eine Interpretation
der Einleitung zum Dialog Justins, AThD 9 (Copenhagen, 1966), pp. 286ff.; for the
Platonizing transcendence o f God in Justin, dial. 4.1 énÉKEiva nàoqç oûoiaç,
see Plato, rep. 509b, cf. Justin, dial. 127.2 and apol. 13.4: axpenxov Kai aei övxa
Ô80V.
20 With the exception of Justin, Ps. 110:1 is nowhere quoted; the motif o f sitting
at the right hand also does not appear again. Theophilus o f Antioch, ad
Auctolycum alludes only in 2:10 to Ps. 110:3.
Testament has already become traditional.21 One almost

gains the impression that Justin wants to avoid this m otif
because it demands an intepretation. More important to
him than the difficult ‘sitting at the right hand o f God’ - which
he practically only mentions in the context o f the passage
from the Psalms - was the resurrection o f Christ and his
ascension into heaven, which he interprets as the beginning
o f Christ’s rule and Christ’s vanquishing o f the demonic
powers.
It could be related to the hermeneutical difficulties o f
this all too anthropomorphic formula that it is used much less
frequently in the second century than it is in the texts o f
the New Testament.22 Ignatius, who emphasizes the unity o f
Father and Son, avoids it in order to escape the danger o f
ditheistic conceptions,23 even though he was interested in
the bodily nature o f the Exalted One: The resurrected Jesus
ate and drank with the disciples coç oapKiKÔç; more impor
tant, however, was that fact that he was nveupaxiKwq rjvcopevoç
T(p naxpi.24 This approaches the central statements o f the
Gospel o f John such as 14:10: öxt éycb év xcp naxpi Kai. ô
21An exception is dial. 32.2, that is to be understood as a threat o f judge

ment. 32:6 follows the quotation o f the entire Psalm 110:1-7, cf. 36:5f.
where Ps. 24:7 and Ps. 110:1 are quoted as pro of for the majesty o fje su s as
ßaoiAeüt; xfjç ÔoÇqç. Apol. I.45.2f. quotes Ps. 110:1-3; dial. 83.If. v. 1-4;
dial. 63.3 v. 3 and 4; v. 1 is quoted separately otherwise only in dial. 56.14
and 127.5. For Ps. 110:3, see dial. 45.4; 76.7, 83.4; for Ps. 110:4 dial. 19.4;
33.If.; 96.1; 113.5; 118.1. The formulaic connection between resurrection
and ascension without Ps. 110:1 appears in apol. 1.31.7; 42.4; 46.5; 56.7,
8; dial. 17.1; 34.2; 38.1; 39.7; 63.1; 69.1, 3, 7; 82.4; 82.1f. 85.1f.; 108.2; 126.1;
132.1.
22In the Apostolic Fathers it appears otherwise only in 1 Clem. 36:4 in
dependency upon Heb. 1 as a quotation from the psalm and as a threat, and
Barn. 12:10 again as quotation for the purpose o f disproving thatjesus is the son
o f David.
23See C. Markschies, op. cit. (n. 10), pp. 258-65.
24Smyr. 3:3; cf. Eph. 5:1; Mag. 7:If.: töv cmJ>* èvôç naxpoç nposAOovxa Kai
eiç eva övxa Kai x ^ p q o o v ia ; Rom. 3:3: ô yàp 0eoç rjpöv ’Iqooôç Xpioxôç év
naxp\ wv jiâÀÀov <|)awexai: this refers apparently to the one who was exalted
to the Father after his suffering. See G. Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu, StANT
26 (Münich, 1971), pp. lOOf. There is less room here than in the Gospel
o f John for an explicit, bodily exaltation or ascension. For the problem o f
Jesus’ eating in Ignatius, see C. Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus, W U N T 1/65
(Tübingen, 1992), p. 99, n. 89.
'Sit at My Right Hand! ’ 129
naxrjp év époi éoxiv.25 Although not intended by Ignatius

or John, they are not far from a monarchianistic mis
interpretation. On the other hand the trinitarian solution o f
the problem by means o f the christological nepixcopqoiç
as taught by Cyril or John o f Damascus was still distant.26
Epiphanius can therefore warn in the Ancoratus: èmOice yap
év ôeï;i<jt xoü naxpoç Kai oû k eînev, dofjÀOsv riç xov naxépa,27
as supposedly Sabellius and Arius (!) claimed. In reality these
problematic jibes may be directed against the one-hypostasis-
theology in the style o f a Marcellus o f Ancyra.
Measured against the New Testament, we do not possess
(with the exception o f Justin and Irenaeus) many references
from the second century. Those which are preserved are
formulaic and, as in the case o f those o f Melito and Polycarp,
are probably influenced by use in worship. For example, at the
end o f the Passover Homily o f Melito:
ô év napGevcp oapK(D0£iç,
ô év KpsjiaoOeiç,
ô etc; yqv xa<j)su;,
ô éx vsKpôv àvaoxa0£iç
xai àveÀGcbv riç xà utpqÀa xôv oupavôv.
ô KaOiêvoç év ôeÇiqi xoü naxpoç,
ô £x<ov éôuoCav navxa xpïvai (xai) cxpÇeiv.
This text is clearly analogous to the Roman baptismal creed.28

The confession-like text in the second chapter o f the letter o f
25Cf. John 14:11, 20; 10:30; 1:18: see below, pp. 149ff. and C. Markschies, op.
cit. (n. 10), p. 267. It is not an accident that the ‘mystic’ Ignatius in opposition to
Justin never speaks o f the ‘exaltation’ or the ‘ascension’ o f Christ and that
‘heaven’ or the ‘heavenly world’ is relatively seldom, see only Ignatius, Eph. 19:2
and the formulaic Smyr. 11.2. ‘Angels’ appears only Smyr. 6.1 in a negative
context, xà enoupavia refers to the truth o f faith: Trail. 5.1 or - ambivalently -
to the heavenly power: Eph. 13:2; Trail. 9.1; Smyr. 6.1 and particularly 5.2.
26See A. Grillmeier, Jesus Christus im Glauben der Kirche I (Freiburg, 1979), pp.
722f.
2717.6, in GCS I, 26, ed. K. Holl; see F. Kattenbusch, op. cit. (n. 3), I, p. 297.
For the problem, see C. Markschies, op. cit. (n. 10), pp. 297f. For the christology
o f Marcellus, see K. Seibt, ‘Markell von Ankyra als Reichstheologe’, theological
dissertation (Tübingen, 1990).
28 804-9; cf. 820f.: ouxoç ô àvaoxàç ek veKpc&v ouxoç ô KaOqpevoç év ÔeÇi^t
xoô naxpoç; (= Holl pp. 784-9, 801). Text in: Melito de Sardes, Sur la Pâque, ed.
O. Perler, SC 123 (1966), p. 124; cf. fr. 15 1. 39 (242); for the question o f
Polycarp to the Philippians, which is a further development o f

older formulas in the New Testament, has five clearly
identifiable sections, but is freer in its formulation.29 Our
formula appears occasionally in the apocryphal literature o f
the second century; it is, however, not particularly common.
And, as one could almost predict, the Gnostics could not make
much use o f it.30 From the beginning o f the third century the
formula had established itself in confession-like formulations
in the West, whereas in the East one was still hesitant.31
Apparently this kerygmatic motif, which appears in so many
o f the New Testament texts, was occasionally offensive to the
more-or-less educated pagans, Jews and heretics and was
therefore avoided in apologetic-polemic texts directed to this
audience. It more likely had its Sitz im Leben in the homology o f
the worship service and later also in the baptismal creed, the
latter o f which can only really be documented from the
beginning o f the third century on. This assumption is based
upon the fact that in its early usage - thus, for example, in the
earliest occurrence in the New Testament, Rom. 8:34 - it often
appears in a fixed conventionalized formulation. In addition
the formula repeatedly needed interpretation.
Irenaeus quotes among other passages Rom. 8:34 and
proceeds with a formulation that perhaps reflects knowledge
o f the baptismal creed: ‘unus idem est Christus Jesus filius Dei,
authenticity R. M. Hübner, M T h Z 40 (1989), 203, n. 42; see Melito o f Sardis, On

Pascha and Fragments, ed. S. G. Hall, O E CT (1979), p. 93: New fragment II, 1.174;
and C. Markschies, op. cit. (n. 10), p. 258, n. 30.
29See below, p. 167 and C. Markschies, op. cit. (n. 10), p. 259. Terminological
agreements with the later baptismal creed o f the elders o f Smyrna (in
(Ps.?)Hippolytus, c. Noetum, 1.7 (see above, p. 125, n. 13) exists only in the
place ‘at the right hand’ o f God and the coming o f Christ as ‘judge o f the living
and the dead’. For the problem o f the development o f confessions o f faith and
baptismal creeds, see G. Ritter, Art. ‘Glaubensbekenntnis IV ’, TEE 13 (1984),
pp. 399ff.
30 Biblia Patristica I, pp. 197f.: Asc.Jes. 10.7, 14; 11.32 (see below, p. 171): Ep.
Apost 3 (NTApok5 I, p. 208). Jakobusmartyrium according to Hegesippus in
Eusebius, H E 2.23.13 (cf. Matt. 26:64, par.); Apoc. Pet. 6 (NTApok5II, p. 569), in
connection with the parousia. See below, pp. 186ff.. For the Gnostic inter
pretation, see above, p. 124, n. 12 relating to the Excerpta ex Theodoto and the
Ophites, and also C. Markschies, op. cit. (n. 10), pp. 265f.
31 See above, pp. 126f., n. 15.
‘Sit at My Right Hand!9 131
qui per passionem recondliavit nos Deo, et resurrexit a mortuis,

qui est in dextera Patris, et perfectus in omnibus’. In this case,
too, the past tense changes to the present tense at the sessio.32
At another place he introduces the quotation from Ps. 110:1
with the statement that is also probably related to the baptismal
creed: ‘Resurrected and exalted he remains at the right hand
o f the Father until the time o f the judgement o f all o f his
enemies which had been ordained by the Father . . .’ The
enemies are the fallen angels and the powers that are in
rebellion against God. Behind this formulation there is
probably a creed with the following elements: resurrection,
exaltation, sitting at the right hand o f the Father and coming
for the final judgement. In this case the last element is
traditio-historically connected with Ps. 110:1b (see below, pp.
166f.). After the quotation from the psalm Irenaeus continues:
‘David also explained, that he (Christ) was raised up to the
place from which he descended’ . As proof he quotes Ps. 19:7.
This passage shows that for Irenaeus, as for the New Testament
texts, sitting at the right hand was characteristic primarily o f
the Resurrected and Exalted One, although for him - as
previously in Phil. 2:7, Hebrews, the Gospel o f John and Justin
- the pre-existent Son already possesses godlike dignity and
honour, which presupposes that the Pre-existent One already
had his place ‘at the right hand o f God’.33 It is characteristic
that - in spite o f the divinity o f the Pre-existent One and his
unity with the Father - one speaks explicitly only o f ‘sitting at
32Adv. haer. 3.16.9 (see above, p. 123, n. 10). Cf. 3.16.3: ‘David . . . Dominum
eum confessus est, sedentem ad dextram Patris altissimi’, and 4.33.4-11. See
2.28.7; 3.6.1: ‘Patrem enim Filio collocutum ostendit, qui et dedit ei
hereditatem’, and Epideixis (trans. by L. M. Froidevaux, SC 62,1959), ch. 49.51
(pp. 110f.); further adv. haer. 3.10.6; quotation from Mark 16:19 (the earliest
indisputable witness to the secondary conclusion o f Mark) and Ps. 110:1; 3.12.2:
quotation from Acts 2:30-36 with quotations from Ps. 110:1; 3.12.12; ‘Stephanus
. .. vidit gloriam Dei, et Jesum ad dexteram’ with quotation from Acts 7:56; cf.
the quotation o f the entire Psalm 110:1-7 in Epideixis ch. 48 (pp. 108f.) with
emphasis on the pre-existence and the judgement; further adv. haer. 2.28.7: Only
he, to whom Ps. 110:1 was spoken, knows G o d’s secrets. The Christians ‘nondum
assidentes throno ejus’ cannot know them.
33Epideixis 85 (SC 62, pp. 151f.). trans. by S. Weber, ‘Des heiligen Irenaus
Schrift zum Erweis der apostolischen Verkündigung’, BKV (1912), 57f. For the
exegesis o f Ps. 19:7, see adv. haer. 4.55.4. For the enumeration: ‘angels,
archangels, principalities and thrones’, cf. adv. haer. 3.8.3; Col. 1:16.
the right hand’ o f God in connection with the salvific events o f

resurrection and exaltation. As in the later creeds, it is relevant
to the present o f the Church, not to the pre-temporal being o f
Christ. Through this interconnection between exegesis o f
psalms, reference to the creedal tradition o f the Church and
the interpretation o f the motif o f ‘sitting at the right hand o f
God’ in New Testament texts, Irenaeus proves himself to be
the first ecclesial ‘scriptural theologian’ in the sense that he
can utilize both the Old and the New Testament.34
The central meaning o f the sessio ad dexteram as the ‘high-
point’ o f the christological creedal statement, which we
noted in the Symbolum Apostolicum, is not, however, clearly
evident in the formulations o f Irenaeus. It appears as such in
the second century most likely in the double KaOqpevoc; év xf\
tou naxpôç at the end o f the Passover Homily o f Melito
(see above, p. 129). Homology in worship35 and theological
apology went in partly separate ways, whereby the consistency
o f the tradition was guaranteed by worship. The confessional-
liturgical development o f the m otif goes back to New
Testament times; how far still needs to be established. In
other words, the origin o f this christological statement in early
Christianity cannot be clarified with reference to its early
Christian use by the church fathers, but through them the
various images and motifs that were related to it and more
importantly its theological problematic thus become visible.
The crucifixion and resurrection o f Jesus became known as
34Justin, with whom he is related in many ways, does not have access to the
complete Christian canon. The philosophical-apologetic tendency is more
developed in his works. S. J. Hoh, Die Lehre des H l. Irenäus über das Neue Testament,
N T A VII, 4.5 (Münster, 1919).
35See C. Markschies, op. cit. (n. 10), p. 254, for the texts o f different liturgical
prayers. Further examples from the Orient in A. Hänggi and I. Paul, Prex
Eucharistica, SpicFri 12, Part III. Anaphorae Orientales (Freiburg, 1968), pp. 112ff.:
The anamnesis o f the Alexandrian Liturgy o f St. Mark with allusion to death,
resurrection, ascension Kai xqv ek ÔeÇtôv oou xoö ©eou Kal riaxpoç KaOéôpav
and parousia, further the epiclesis from P. Manch, J. Ryl. Lib. No. 465 (p. 120);
the Coptic Anaphora Cyrillis Alexandrini (137), the Anaphora Basilii
Caesariensis Byzantina (234) in the prayer after the sanctus: Kai àveÀOôv eiç
xoùç oûpavoùç EKaOiosv év ÔeÇiÇ xfjç peyaAcoouvq«; év ùipqÀoïç (cf. Heb. 1:3)
and the anamnesis between verba Domini and epiclesis with recollection o f
crucifixion, burial, resurrection, ascension and xfjç éK ÔeÇicôv oou xoö Oeoü Kal
riaxpöc; KaOeôpaç (236).
salvific events through the direct historical experience o f

the disciples o f Jesus, that is, through the disciples’ witness to
the resurrection and through the ‘ theological evaluation’ o f
the earliest congregation. The ‘goal’ o f the resurrection o f
Jesus, his exaltation to perfect communion with God, that is,
the ‘sitting at the right hand o f the Father’ , could only be
deduced from the scriptures, specifically from Ps. 110:1. All o f
the statements about the ‘resurrection’ , ‘exaltation’ and
‘ascension’ remain unclear without this certainty about the
present ‘place’ o f the Resurrected One. On the other hand,
Jesus’ coming for the last judgement could be deduced from
the words o f Jesus about the coming o f the Son o f Man and
from Dan. 7:13 and its context could be clarified by reference
to Ps. 110:1b. I f we want to understand the origin o f this
statement, that was apparently already central for earliest
Christianity, we will have to analyse the interpretation o f Ps.
110:1 in the New Testament itself.
2. The Use o f Ps. 110:1 in the New Testament

Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament text which appears most
often in direct quotations or in indirect references in the
New Testament. That is in any case the common opinion which
is based upon the assumption that all o f the statements that
speak o f a sitting or a being o f the exalted Christ ‘at
the right hand o f God’ are directly or indirectly dependent
upon Ps. 110:1. In my judgement this conjecture is justified.
The collection o f the loci citati vel allegati in the twenty-sixth
edition o f Nestle-Aland includes sixteen passages, o f which
seven are identified as quotations by the use o f italics. The
distribution is interesting. They are to be found in many
parts o f the New Testament: Matt. 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36;
14:62; and secondarily 16:19; Luke 20:42f.; 22:69; Acts 2:34f.;
Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13;
8:1; 10:12f. I f one includes all o f the passages about the
exaltation o f Christ to the right hand o f God, the number
o f references can be increased. One would then add Acts
2:33; 5:31; 7:55f.; Heb. 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22. There would then be
twenty-one passages.
A separate development o f the m otif appears in Rev. 3:21.

Here the term ‘at the right hand’ is missing; in its place the
communality o f throne between the Father and the exalted
Son is emphasized, which brings as a correlate the common
throne o f those who overcome (see above, pp. 150f.).
In other words the significant majority o f the New Testament
texts - with the exception o f the Pastoral Letters and the
Corpus Johanneum in the narrower sense - evidences the
influence o f Ps. 110:1, from which an apparently basic
christological statement originated.
Ferdinand Hahn says correctly, that ‘ the idea o f the
/exaltation . . . in the New Testament . . . is connected
j consistently with a certain Old Testament quotation: Ps. 110:1
;became the authoritative statement o f Jesus’ heavenly status
and function’ .36 Occasional attempts to question this thesis
have not been able to invalidate it. We, however, are going to
have to concern ourselves with it.
Although we are going to briefly discuss the manifold
variants o f this christological m otif in the early Christian
texts, this study will not focus primarily on that topic, but
rather on the question as to how this m otif arose under
the influence o f Ps. 110:1. In other words: My question is
how the earliest congregation could persistently venture
to make the unheard of claim that Jesus o f Nazareth, the
crucified Messiah, not only was resurrected from the dead
by God - there are occasional reports o f the resurrection o f
individuals in Judaism and in late antiquity - but also that
he was exalted to his right hand, that is, to become his
companion on the throne. It is not only a question o f the
content o f this statement and the ideas that are associated
with it, but rather o f the problem as to when and where
the idea was developed and what its traditio-historicäl
background was, as well as o f the consequences o f this idea
for early Christian christology. Such a study, which has not
yet been made in the necessary detail, should be a com
prehensive monograph. The limited scope o f a contribution
to a symposium forces me to remain brief. That is particularly
36F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, FRLANT 83 (Göttingen, 21964), p. 127.

‘Sit at My Right HandV 135
the case in relation to the vast secondary literature, which can

only be utilized in a very limited fashion.37
As F. Hahn emphasized, Ps. 110:1 contains ‘three different
elements . . . , which are used in relatively different ways in
the New Testament: Most signiiicaiiLis,..the.mQ.tif o f sitting
at the right hand, which appears in many passages without
there being any direct reference to Ps. 110:1; secondly there
is the formulation o f Ps, 110:1b according to which the
one whom God enthroned receives the promise o f the final
victory over his enemies; only occasionally is the introduction
to Ps. 110:1a quoted, which contains the title kyrios.’38
To do justice to the three statements we need to look at the
verse more closely:
Eïriev ô Ktjpioç xcp Kupup pou*

KQ 0OI) £K ô eÇ i& v JlOU
€(oç äv 0(0 tovç èxOpovç oov
imonööiov tg>v noôcov o o v ...
T P ' ’1? 3# m fr dm
J V î “î
Di n- î sprrk
I vî • T
The entire first verse is a meaningful unit, so that one

can assume that in the dark, but presumably very early
beginning o f its influence upon the development o f
christology, all three statements were each in its own way
influential, even though this was not as clear in the later
quotations. On the other hand, it is entirely correct that
37 For literature: The two most important monographs are M. Gourgues, A

la Droite de Dieu. Résurrection de Jésus et Actualisation du Psaume 110,1 dans le
Nouveau Testament, EtB (Paris, 1978) (lit.); David M. Hay, Glory at the Right
Hand. Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, SBLMS 18 (Nashville/New York, 1973);
see T. Callan, ‘Ps. 110,1 and the Origin o f the Expectation that Jesus will
come again’, CBQ 44 (1982), 622-35; W. R. G. Loader, ‘Christ at the Right
Hand - Ps. CX in the New Testament’, N T S 24 (1978), 199-217; idem, Sohn
und Hoherpriester. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des
Hebräerbriefes, W M A N T 53 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981), pp. 15-29 and
Index, p. 275; J. Dupont, “‘Assisa à la droite de Dieu” L’interpretation du Ps
110,1 dans le Nouveau Testament’, in Resurrexit. Actes du Symposium inter
national sur la résurrection de Jésus (Rome, 1970) (Vatican City, 1974), pp. 340-
422.
38F. Hahn, op. cit. (n. 36), pp. 127f.
the main statement is the ‘sitting at the right hand’ . This

statement is repeated in another constellation in v. 5:39
KUpiOÇ 8K ÔeÇlCDV OOU
IV • î “ T -î
The change in the spatial conception between v. la and 5a does

not play a significant role: the Elect One at the right hand o f
God and God at the right hand o f the Elect One is the
expression in each case o f the unsurpassable proximity
to God and the victory over the enemies that this proximity
guarantees. ‘The right side is . . . the side o f honour’ ; at the
same time it is the side o f ‘happiness and success’ .40He who
is at the ‘right hand o f God’ or whom God supports ‘at his
right hand’ , is the one that is elected by God in a unique
fashion and who is closely allied with God. Nevertheless one
must at the same time emphasize, that the ‘ sitting at the
right hand o f God’ , that is, the communality o f throne with
God in the Old Testament, is otherwise unique, whereas God
as the counsel or as the ‘combatant’ at the right hand is
more usual.41
39Even if one understands the difficult and controversial Hebrew text o f v. 5a

with H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen II, B K XV/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 51978), p. 935, in the
sense o f " p ’’D'* "P"^P (Ps. 121:5) ‘the Lord is over your right hand’, one should
not overlook the fact that the L X X assimilates its translation to the wording o f v.
1: Kupioç ex ôeÇiôv oou ouvéOÀaoev év qpépç ôpyfjç aùxoü paoiÀeïç Kpiveî év
t o îç ëOveoiv . . . The execution o f the judgement, which is announced in v. 1, is
described: If ’adonî instead o f ’fldonaj should be read as the original text, the
relationship to v. la would be even more clear, for then God himself would be
addressed in relation to the king at his right hand. For companions at the right
hand o f God, see Deut. 33:2: éx ôeÇiôv aùxoC ayyeÀoi pet’ aûxoü; for God as
counsel at the right hand o f a person, see Ps. L X X 15 (M T 16) :8: öxi éic ôeÇuôv
pou éoxiv, ïva pq oaÀeuOw; cf. Ps. LX X 79 (M T 80) :18: yeqOqxo) rj x£ip oou én’
avÔpa ôsÇiâç oou, see below, pp. 169f., n. 105.
40A. Soggin, Art. ‘pQ_v , T h W A T3 (1982), pp. 660f.: The mother o f the queen
(1 Kings 2:19) and the bride o f the king (Ps. 45:10; cf. Ps. 80:18; Eccl. 10:2; Gen.
35:18), cf. the blessing o f Ephraim by Jacob with the right hand, although he is
standing on the left hand o f Jacob, Gen. 48:13-20. See W. Grundmann, Th W N T
II, p. 32, 23: ‘the side that brings luck’.
41 See the examples above, n. 40; see also Ps. 121:5; cf. Ps. 73:23: ‘thou dost
hold my right hand’; Isa. 41:3; 45:1; Ps. 69:9: *thy right hand holds me’. Before
the judge stands the counsel (Ps. 109:31) or the accuser (Zech. 3:1; Ps. 109:6) on
the right hand o f the accused. Probably Ps. 110:5 indicates a ‘change o f scene’:
God supports the king at his right hand in the battle against his enemies.
Although the emphasis o f the verse lies in the ‘sitting at the

right hand’ , the title ‘lord’ for the Exalted One and the
promise that the Exalted One will overcome his enemies, may
not be simply separated from the ‘sitting at the right hand o f
God’ ; in the early period o f the primitive Church the verse
seems to have functioned as a whole and have in a significant
fashion influenced the beginnings o f post-Easter christology.
When later the entirety o f v. 1 is quoted and not only the motif
o f ‘sitting at the right hand’ utilized - for example, in the works
o f Justin and Irenaeus42 - the lordship or kingdom o f Christ
and his arrival for the judgement are mentioned. To make this
clear we need to turn to the individual texts.
3, Rom. 8:34: Paul as the Earliest Witness

and the Comparison with Later Passages
(Synoptic Gospels, Ephesians, Colossians, Acts,
1 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation)
In the authentic letters o f our earliest author, Paul, Ps. 110:1 is
only twice clearly alluded to, much less often than in the work
o f Luke or in Hebrews. Does this mean, that this text did not
have a particular significance at that time? Certainly not. One
could say the opposite: The time o f its effectiveness in forming
and influencing christology was already past. Romans was
written presumably in the winter o f 56/57 as Paul resided in
Corinth, 1 Corinthians about one and a half years earlier. By
this time the basic aspects o f christology had long been
established. Paul presupposes that in the congregations in
Corinth and Rome a knowledge o f the christological concepts
that were connected with Ps. 110:1 - concepts to which he only
alludes - was unquestionably present. He can use these
formulas because he knows that the congregations understand
them.43 In the manifold quotations and allusions in the New
42See above, p. 128, n. 21: Justin, dial. 32.2; p. 131, n. 33: Irenaeus, Epideixis
85, and C. Markschies, op. cit. (n. 10), pp. 258-60.
43 See M. Hengel, ‘Christologie und neutestamentliche Chronologie’, in
Neues Testament und Geschichte. Festschrift Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag
(Zürich, 1972), pp. 43-67; idem, Der Sohn Gottes (Tübingen, 21977), pp. 91ff. Cf.
M. Gourgues, op. cit. (n. 37), p. 55: ‘recourant à un formulaire déjà fixé, connue
de la communauté’; 56: ‘Le fait que ni Paul ni 1 P(etr) ne sentent le besoin
Testament only after-effects o f the original meaning o f Ps.

110:1 for the beginnings o f christology are visible.
3.1. The structure and theform of language in Rom. 8:34

But we should let Paul himself speak: Rom. 8:33f. - at a
high-point o f the entire letter - summarizes in hymnic prose
the meaning o f ô Geoç imèp rjptöv (8:31), which as a
summation encapsulates his entire theology:44 He poses two
rhetorical questions in the future tense which should be
translated modally and not temporally and which must be
answered with ‘no-one’ ;45at the same time he gives the answer
as to why this is the case: God speaks justly (Rom. 4:5), because
he through Christ once for all (cf. Rom. 6:10) brought about
salvation for the believers and Christ now intercedes for
them:46
d ’expliquer la formule qu’ils emploient, ni d ’en expliciter le rattachement au

psaume - par rapport au q u el. . . elle accuse une certaine distance - indiquerait
également que cette formule était déjà familière aux lecteurs’.
44For Rom. 8:31-39, seej. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, W B C 38 (Dallas, 1988),
pp. 496-513 (503ff.) lit.; not mentioned there W. R. G. Loader, Sohn und
Hoherpriester, op. cit. (n. 37) pp. 15f., 18f., 154-9; M. Gourgues, op. cit. (n. 37),
pp. 45-57;J. Dupont, op. cit. (n. 37), pp. 378-80; G. Delling, ‘Die Entfaltung des
Deus pro nobis in Rö 8,31-39’, S N T U 4 (1979), 76-96; for the structure, see
M. Ebner, Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief, fzb 66 (Würzburg, 1991), pp. 365-86, who
has however a one-sided interest in the peristasis-catalogue Rom. 8:35ff. Entirely
unproductive is the formalistic-rhetorical analysis o f A. H. Suyman, ‘Style and
Rhetorical Situation o f Romans 8,31-39’, N T S 34 (1988), 218-31:
Such an analysis with almost the same result could be made o f almost every
Pauline text and would produce almost nothing for the understanding o f the
content o f the text. Significant on the other hand are the earlier detailed
analyses o f H. Paulsen, Überleferung und Auslegung in Römer 8, W M A N T 43
(Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1974), pp. 137-46; P. von der Osten-Sacken, Römer 8 als
Beispiel paulinischer Soteriologie, FRLANT 112 (Göttingen, 1975), pp. 14-60, 309-
19. See G. Lohfink, op. cit. (n. 24), pp. 84f.: W. Thüsung, Per Christum inDeum,
N T A NF 1 (Münster, 21979), pp. 174-7; F. Hahn, op. cit. (n. 36), pp. 233f.
45For the questions 8:33f. cf. the third Servant Song Isa. 50:8f. See below,
p. 145. Rom. 8:34b-c could allude to Isa. 52:13 - 53:12. F. Delitzsch, Paulus
des Apostels Brief an die R öm er. . . in das Hebräische übersetzt und aus Talmud und
Midrasch erläutert (Leipzig, 1870), p. 13, translates Kai èvxuyxàvei ùnèp qpöv:
we’ap japgia>ba,adenu and refers p. 88 to Isa. 53:12.
46With the significant majority o f the exegetes the justification by God and
the èvTuyxaveiv o f Christ relate primarily to the present o f the congregation
and not to the future judgement. The relation to the present is made clear by
the following verses 35-39, which are the goal o f the preceding. For the modal
'Sit at My Right Hand!9 139
33 tiç éyKaÀsoei Kaxà ekAektöv Osou;
0eôç ô ôiKaicov'
34 xiç ô KaxaKpivcôv;
Xpioxoç ô ànoOavcov,
paÀÀov ôè 8y8p08iç,
ôç Kai éoxiv év ÔeÇia xoû 0eo\3,
oc; Kai évxuyxavei ùnèp qpcov.
This is a four-part formulation with confession-like char

acter in which the sitting (or more exactly: the being o f
Christ) at the right hand o f God has already separated itself
from the L X X text o f Ps. 110:1 and is completely integrated
into the context: This appears as the result o f the resurrection
o f Christ and is itself the presupposition for the priestly
intercession o f the Exalted One for the believers. The idea o f
legal counsel is in my judgement not as probable, for the
counsel stood not at the right hand o f the judge, but rather at
the right side o f the accused in front o f the judge (see above,
n. 41).
The first two statements summarize the traditional kerygma
in very abbreviated form. In opposition to the opinion o f
G. Lohfink47 one should not de-emphasize the unique third
and fourth statements and say that these ‘only explicate the
statement about the resurrection’ . One could also formulate
very differently: Through the third and fourth statements,
which constitute the climax o f the formula, the paAÀov ôè
éyepOeiç is given its unambiguous soteriological meaning.
The third and fourth statements summarize the - not obvious
- consequence o f the resurrection ofjesus for the present
o f the congregation and gives the reason for the reference
to the love o f Christ which is basic to w. 35ff. The oç éoxiv
év ôeïîçt xoû ©soi) is, therefore, with Cranfield more probably
‘an ascending series’ .48Verse 34 cannot, therefore, with Zahn
future tense, that could be translated with ‘want to’ or ‘can’, see E. G. Hoffmann
and H. v. Siebenthal, Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament (Riehen, 1985),
§202b. This does not exclude the possibility that this statement refers also to the
final judgement (see below, p. 159, n. 90).
47G. Lohfink, op. cit. (n. 24), pp. 84f.
48 C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh, 1974), I, p.
438.
and Lohfink49 be taken as a rhetorical question, but has basic

assertatory-homological meaning. That the two participles in
the aorist which are used as predicates - ô ctnoGavcov and ô
éyspOeic; - are followed by two sentences with finite verbs in
the present tense and are introduced with oç Kai, does not
mean that the latter are being subordinated to eyepGeiç; as
later in the Apostles’ Creed and in many similar creedal
formulations it emphasizes the saving presence o f the Exalted
One for his congregation following the ‘once and for all’ o f
the salvific event o f the past. Before we look more closely at the
particular soteriological meaning o f évTuyxâveiv vmép in
8:34b, we must investigate the double formula, which is
uncommon for Paul and beyond that for the entire New
Testament, and compare it with the many later statements o f
‘sitting at the right hand o f God’ .
Paul presupposes - as I already pointed out - that the last
two statements, which are not self-evident, were well known in
the congregation in Rome. In Romans he uses several other
christological formulas (Rom. l:3f.; 3:25; 4:25; 8:32; 14:9)
which are unique to this letter; by the use o f these he probably
wants to emphasize the common foundation o f belief
which he shares with the Christians in Rome. This fact indicates
that these formulas are old - whereby it is not unproblematic
to distinguish between ‘old’ and ‘young’ (since there was a
developmental period o f only about twenty-five years) or to
speak o f ‘pre-Pauline’ tradition (since the conversion o f Paul
took place only two or three years after the events o f the year
30) .50
49T. Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (Leipzig, 1910), p. 424; G. Lohfink,
op. cit. (n. 24), p. 84; see A. Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit (Stuttgart, 1935), p.
287: ‘the questioning tone cannot be sustained in the parallel sentence, because
it enumerates everything, through which Christ has become saviour o f the
congregation’. O n the other hand Zahn wants to relate v. 34 to the final
judgement. See below, p. 150, n. 90.
50 See R. Riesner, Die Frühzeit des Paulus, W U N T 71 (Tübingen, 1994); cf.
M. Hengel, The Hellenization o f Judaea in the first Century after Christ (London
and Philadelphia, 1989), p. 13; idem, The Pre-Christian Paul (London and
Philadelphia, 1991), pp. 12f. That the Roman congregation was relatively old
explains among other things why Paul informs the Romans so thoroughly about
his upcoming trip to Jerusalem (Rom. 15:19, 25ff.). The Romans had close
connections with Jerusalem.
3.2. ex Seîrn and èv ôe&ç

The first thing that one notices in the formula in Rom. 8:34 is
that the wording o f the quotation is inexact. The summons
Kdöou ex ôsîôv pou o f the psalm has been reduced to a simple
indication o f the place where the Exalted One is present: oç Kai
éoxiv év ôeÇia xoö Geoü. In the synoptic texts both in the
quotations and in the abbreviated formulas one always speaks
o f ‘ to be seated’ or ‘ to sit at the right hand’ (imperative or
participle o f KaGqoöai) together with éK öeîöv (to be
supplemented by pepwv);51 on the other hand the letters have
eight different times the more unusual ‘at the right hand’ év
ôeîqt (to be supplemented by usually in connection with
KCtOiÇeiv. Acts takes a mediating position with xf| ôeÇia (2:33;
5:31) or éK ôeÇiôv (7.55f.; cf. the quotation in 2:34).
Because the normal Greek usage in the L X X and in the
Jewish pseudepigrapha is almost exclusively the much more
common éK ôeï;udv and because this form is also used by the
Apostolic Fathers, one could postulate that the impersonal
(KaOiÇeiv) év öeîa is an indication o f a variant translation o f
the Hebrew text which was independent o f the LXX.52Possibly
51 Quotations from Ps. 110:1: Mark 12:36 = Matt. 22:44 = Luke 20:24; Mark
14:62: xöv uiôv xou ctvOpconou KaÔqpEvov 8K ôeÇudv xfjç ôuvâpsooç, cf. Matt.
26:64; Luke 22:69: àno xoü vûv eoxai ô uioç xoô àvGpconou Kaôrjpevov £K
ôeÇiô v . . . Luke relates the word o f Jesus to his exaltation by means o f the
resurrection or ascension, cf. the secondary Mark 16:19. The Synoptic Gospels
have with one exception (Mark 16:5: eÎÔov veavioKov KaÔqpevov èv xoîç
ôeÇioïç) for the standing or sitting at the right (or left) hand always ck ôeÇiô v
(or àpioxepwv) : Mark 10:37, 40, par.; 15:27, par.; Matt. 25:33f.; Luke 1:11.
52The L X X has according to Hatch and Redpath forty-one times ek ôeÇicdv,
twice év ÔeÇiÇ: 1 Chr. 6:24 ô èoxqKox; év ÔEÇicjt aôxoô ( hà'omed ‘a lÿm în o): the
singer Asaph at the right hand o f his brother Heman: 1 Ezra 4:29; Apame, the
concubine o f the king, Ka0r|p£vr]v év ÔEÇtç xoö faoiÀECDç; once év ôeÇioïç:
1 Macc. 9:14 (Codex Sin. op. èv), cf. Mark 16:5. In the Greek pseudepigrapha o f
the Old Testament there is according to the concordance by A.-M. Denis sixteen
times éK ôeÇic&v and never év ôeÇi^î (250f.), similar is the use by the Apostolic
Fathers (see H. Kraft, Clavis patrum Apostolicorum, Darmstadt, 1963, p. 97), here
mainly in Hermas. Even the creedal formula Polycarp, Phil. 2:1 has éK ôeÇudv.
Josephus has this form four times (bell. 3.96; ant. 4.305; 6.235; 8.7) and only once
- geographically - év ÔeÇu? (bell. 4.613). For the Greek papyri, see E. M. Mayser,
Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit II/ 1, p. 23; II/2, pp. 37, 147,
224,384. For this more seldom ev ôeÇiÇ, see - primarily in geographical context -
Thuc. 1.24.1; 2.19; 2.98.2; 3.24.1; 106.1; 7.11 et al.; Plutarch, mor. 984B; Arrian,
anab. 6.22, etc. For sitting, cf. Plato, Phaido 89a: "Exuxov . . . év ôeîà aûxoO
KaOqpevoq different Phaidros 266a. see E. Schwyzer, RhMus 77 (1928), 249-52.
this variant form goes back directly to the Hebrew texts o f Ps.
110:1. Its abbreviated form in Rom. 8:34 would then be a proof
o f its age.
The term év ôsÇig (xov OeoC) occurs also in Col. 3:l 53 and
Eph. 1:2054 whereby in the latter text the aorist participle
Ka0ioaç is transitive: God put his might to work in Christ ‘when
he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right
hand in the heavenly places’ .55 Hebrews reproduces the bk
ôeûov o f the L X X exactly in the quotation from Ps. 110:1 in
1:13. In addition it uses év Seîqt with KaOiÇeiv in the in
transitive meaning ‘to sit’ four times, o f which three are related
to the act o f the exaltation to the right hand o f majesty (1:3) or
o f the throne o f God (8:1; 10:12); in these cases the aorist
indicates a completed action which is inseparably connected
with the once and for all nature o f his sacrificial death. At the
end o f the letter, however - after the listing o f the witnesses to
faith under the Old Covenant who now await salvation - there
is a concluding perfect which embraces equally the past and
the present (12:2):
aôpcovxec; eie; töv tqc; moxecoc; a p x q y ö v Kai TeÀeicoTqv ’Iqo oü v,
oç . . . ûnéjieivev a t a u p ö v
aioxtivqc; K axatjjpovqoaç
év Ô£îa T8 TOÛ Opövoi) TOÖ 08OÜ K8Kà0lK8V.
The congregation, that looks to Christ ‘ the pioneer and

perfecter o f our faith’ , knows and confesses that after his
shameful death on the cross he ‘is seated at the right hand o f
the throne o f God’ , that is, that he is now sitting in the heavenly
temple at the right o f the throne o f God (or better: at the right
hand o f God on his throne) .56 Very probably there is an old
53 èv xfj ôeÇit^c xoö Oeoû KaOqpevoc;.

54 KaGioaç év ÔeÇiq xoö 0 eoö èv èrroupavioiç. Cf. Acts 2:30 G od’s oath to David
and 2 Chr. 23:20.
55A similar usage is in Rev. 3:21; 2 Chr. 23:20 and with God as subject with
reference to David, Acts 2:30, see W. Bauer and K. Aland, Wörterbuch, p. 791. See
below, p. 166, n. 102.
56 Heb. 12:2, see H.-F. Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer, KEK15 (1991), p. 637: ‘a
christological formula’ because o f the ‘stereotypical sequence cross-exaltation’;
p. 639, n. 31: ‘the perfect tense (could) . . . be a durative perfect’. See below,
pp. 148f. Hebrews presuppose the Jewish idea o f the heavenly hekhal, the
curtain in front o f the holy o f holies and the merkabah-throne, see O. Hofius,
‘Sit at My Right Hand!' 143
kerygmatic formula, similar to that related to the death or to

the resurrection o f Jesus, with which those manifold
formulations o f the sitting o f the exalted one év ôeïjiq. o f God -
formulations which are independent o f the L X X - were
associated. In these associations - which irregardless o f
variation had a certain consistency - lay the point o f origin o f
the relevant statements in the later Apostles’ Creed.57
3.3. Acts 2:33f; 5:31 and 7:55f

Luke - presumably because he knows, that this is a very ‘old’
kerygmatic m otif - inserts into the speech o f Peter in Acts 2:34
the quotation from Ps. 110:1 concerning the ‘sitting at the right
hand o f God’; he connects ‘at the right hand o f God’ with the
verb ùipoûv and, leaving out the preposition év, formulates
with a dativus lod: xr| ôe^tq. ouv xou GeoO üijkdGeiç (2:33), that
is, Jesus in contrast to David ascended into heaven and was
‘exalted to the right hand o f G od’ . David predicted the
resurrection (2:27) and the exaltation o f Jesus. Therefore,
Peter can in 2:25-28 quote the psalm o f David Ps. 16:8-11 and
in 2:34 the psalm o f the same author Ps. 110:1 as scriptural
proof. Ps. 16:8, which was already quoted in 2:25 npoopcopqv
xov KUpiov évconiov pou ôià navxoç, öxi éK Ô£Ï;udv pou éoxiv58
points to Jesus’ unique relationship to God; David knows that
Jesus through God’s aid overcomes death ‘at the right hand’ .59
The second text, Acts 5:31, is related to Heb. 12:2: xouxov ô
0£0ç apxqyöv Kai ocoxqpa üij/(do£v xf] öeîq. avxov. In the
context o f both passages mention o f the stations o f the process
o f salvation abound: In the first speech o f Peter in Acts 2:22-
36, mention is made o f death, Hades, resurrection, ascension
Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes, W U N T 14 (1972). That this is a pre-Christian
tradition is confirmed by 4QShirShab, see A. M. Schwemer, ‘Gott als König und
seine Königsherrschaft in den Sabbatliedern von Qum ran’, in M. Hengel and
A. M. Schwemer (eds), Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult, W U N T 55,
pp. 108-10, etc. and H. Löhr, ‘Thronversammlung und preisender Tempel’, op.
cit., pp. 185-205 (193-7).
57 See the collection o f kerygmatic statements in W. R. G. Loader, ‘Christ at
the right hand - Ps. 110:1 in the New Testament’, N T S 24 (1978), 199-217,
particularly 217, and M. Gourgues, op. cit. (n. 37), p. 214.
58Acts 2:25; cf. Ps. 16:11 and see below, p. 211, n. 219.
59See above, p. 136, n. 39 for Ps. 110:5.
(2:34) and exaltation to the right hand o f God, which accord

ing to 2:36 is connected with the function o f the Lord
in judgem ent The quotation from Ps. 110:1 interprets
additionally the nature o f the Exalted One as sitting at the
right hand o f God (cf. Luke 20:42; 22:69). These salvific events
are albeit not yet formulaicly fixed. In the last speech o f Peter
in Acts 5:30-32 there is a similar emphasis upon death,
resurrection and exaltation to the right hand. One can assume
that Luke understood that this christological kerygma
represented the original form o f the proclamation o f the
earliest congregation, a form to which he as the first Christian
‘historian’ was obligated and which he therefore put into
the mouth o f Peter, the authoritative witness.60 In the vision
o f Stephen, Acts 7:55f. Luke introduces again this motif,
which is apparently particularly important to him. The vision
o f the martyr in specie mortis substantiates the truth o f the
sermon o f Peter and demonstrates the relation o f the tempted
congregation (cf. 4:24ff.) to its exalted Lord and thus to
God himself. In contrast to 2:24, the quotation from Ps. 110:1
and the parallels in the Gospel o f Luke, Luke twice speaks
o f the fact that Jesus (or the Son o f Man) is standing éK
ôeï;iG)v . . . t o O Geou. With an enigmatic conception he
appropriates the formulation o f the L X X which for him is
old and venerable. What he intends to say with the term
‘standing’ , which contradicts the entire tradition, we can
only guess. We will return again to this issue (see below, p. 152).
3.4. Rom. 8:34 and 1 Pet. 3:22

Only in Rom. 8:34 and 1 Pet. 3:22 do we find the auxiliary
eivai in place o f ‘sitting’, that is, the formula is in these two
passages reduced to its most simple form. It appears almost
identically:
60 For Acts 2:33f.; 5:31 see U. Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte,
W M A N T 5 (Neukirchen, 31974), pp. 150-6 and Index. xf[ ÔeÇiÇ xoö 0eoö is in
no way to be understood instrumental^ (p. 152). For the lack o f the preposition,
see Stephanus and Dindorf, Thesaurus Graecae Linguae (repr. Graz, 1954), p. 996,
with reference to Diod 13.109.4. For Luke as a ‘Hellenistic historian’, see
C. Thornton, Der Zeuge des Zeugen, Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen, W U N T 156
(Tübingen, 1991).
Rom. 8:34: ôç m i éoxiv év ôeîq. xo(3 Oeoü

1 Pet. 3:22: oç éoxiv év ôeîq to (361 0eoö
It is conceivable that themuch later letter 1 Peter is at this

point indirectly dependent upon Rom. 8:34. Both textshave
additionally in common that they include a more extensive
listing o f the salvific events o f christology than do the other
parallels. In 1 Pet. 3:22 there are three - in the unusual
sequence o f sitting at the right hand, ascension and victory
over the powers - and if one includes 3:18 - suffering, death
and resurrection - six components; in Rom. 8:34 there are
four: death, resurrection, sessio ad dexteram and intercessio
Christi. This makes it probable that - irregardless o f any
changes that Paul himself made - there was a formulaic
tradition which may have been hymnic in character. This does
not exclude the possibility that Paul was instrumental in
forming it. Thus pâÀÀov ôé, which intensifies, and Kai in oç
Kai, which emphasizes, assures and confirms, are to be
attributed to the author o f the letter.62 Noteworthy is the
preceding allusion in 1 Pet. 3:18ab (cf. 2:22) to Isa. 53 - which
has a parallel in Rom. 8:32 - and in Rom. 8:33 to Isa. 50:8f.
3.5. The intercession and dominion of the Exalted One in Hebrews

That there was a fixed formula in the early stages o f the
tradition is also evidenced by the fact that the fourth element
in Rom. 8:34, the intercessio o f the Exalted One, appears also in
Hebrews: In contrast to the many Old Testament priests, who
were subject to death, Jesus as the Son o f God (7:3, 28) has an
eternal and immutable priesthood based upon the divine oath
o f Ps. 110:4 and is, therefore, the ‘guarantor o f a better
covenant’ (7:20-23). ‘Consequendy he is able for all time to save
those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives
to make intercession for thenî' (oOsv Kai ocpÇeiv riç t o navxeÀèç
61 toö is missing in N *, B, V , 33 and is probably missing because o f

homoioteleuton. The question is, whether the pseudepigraphic author o f 1 Peter
at the end o f the first century knew Romans, cf. 2:13—17 and Rom. 12:21 - 13:8.
This would be a real possibility if the letter - as I surmise (1 Pet. 5:13) - was
written in Rome.
62 G. Delling, op. cit. (n. 44), pp. 86,89: pôÀÀov ôé: 1 Cor. 14:1,5; Gal. 4:9. For
(oç) Kai see Rom. 5:2; 1 Cor. 2:13; 4:5; 15:1; 2 Cor. 3:6, etc.
ôûvaxai to ù ç npooepxopévouc; ôi’ auxoü xcp 0ecp, navxoxe

Çcov eiç xo évxuyxâveiv ûnèp auxöv 7:25). Immediately there
follows the claim that he as the perfect high priest was ‘exalted
above the heavens’63 and that he brought himself as sacrifice
(in the heavenly sanctuary) once and for all (7:27). The con
clusion that is to be drawn from this is that ‘we have such a
high priest, one who is seated at the right hand o f the throne
o f the Majesty in heaven’ and who is at the same time
Aeixoupyoç in the ‘true tent’, the heavenly sanctuary (8:lf.).
This eternal service in the heavenly sanctuary is based upon
the self-sacrifice o f the Son, who with his death as heavenly
high priest took his place at the right hand o f God’s throne; it
includes at the same time the evxuyxaveiv (7:25) for the time
between the crucifixion and the parousia which is charac
terized by the fact that he ‘intercedes’ for his own people: ‘He
lets his relation to God . . . benefit them and he mediates the
help that they need to overcome temptation and to be raised
up from weakness’ (2:18; 4:16).64The effectiveness o f Jesus as
the priestly intercessor and advocate is not only a consequence
o f his atoning death, but also the expression o f his partici
pation in the dominion o f God, which he gained through
‘sitting at the right hand’ . ‘Because he is sitting at the right
hand o f God, he can intercede for us’ (8:l ) . 65
According to 9:24 the high priest went into the heavenly
sanctuary, ‘now to appear in the presence o f God on our
behalf’ (vuv epc}>avio0f[vat xcp npooconcp xo\3 08ot5 ûnèp
qpcov). In this vùv epâvioOfjvai before God ûnèp rjpcov,
which covers the period from the crucifixion until the return
63 Heb. 7:26: uiyqÀÔTepoç xöv oupavtöv yevopevoç cf. 4:14; 9:24, see
O. Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes, W U N T 14 (Tübingen, 1972), pp.
67-9. d ç to navxEÀéç 7:25 is to be translated with the Vulgate temporally (in
perpetuum, cf. Syr. Vim) .
64 E. Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebräer (Leipzig-Erlangen, 231922), p. 209;
cf. H. Braun, A n die Hebräer, H N T 14 (Tübingen, 1984), p. 221, and H.-F. Weiss,
op. cit. (n. 56), pp. 418f.: ‘Here at the latest christology again joins the paraclesis
o f the Christian congregation.’ A sign o f this is that in v. 26 the pronoun in first
person plural reappears. But doesn’t christology in a strict sense already include
the real true ‘paraclesis’?
65W. R. G. Loader, op. cit. (n. 37), p. 147. His formulation: ‘The request o f
Jesus is not a request for forgiveness o f the sin o f Christians, but a request for
help in the path o f life’ creates a false alternative.
‘Sit at My Right Hand!’ 147
(cf. 9:26, 29), the atonement and the intercession are

included.66 When one considers the unique soteriological
connection between Ps. 110:1 and 4, between the ‘sitting at the
right hand o f God’ and the heavenly high priesthood o f Christ
including his soteriological intercession one could ask whether
this rigorous rejection o f a second repentance through the
author to the Hebrews is perhaps a soteriological inconsistency,
which would be related to the moralizing pedagogical
tendency o f the letter. Based upon the relationship between
Rom. 8:34 and various texts in Hebrews it appears to me,
however, to be more probably, that the connection between Ps.
110:1 and 4 was not created by the author o f this relatively late
letter, but is much older and was already known to Paul. The
motif o f the heavenly advocacy, which brings about forgiveness
appears also in 1 John 2:1: The ‘righteous advocate’ with the
Father, who brings atonement for the sins o f the world,
reminds one o f the sinless high priest Heb. 7:26; the corres
pondence between the heavenly advocacy with the Father
(n a p a K Â q x o v sxojaev npoç t ö v natépa) and the earthly ‘other
advocacy’ (â À À o ç n a p a K À q T O ç ) in the congregation (John
14:16f., 26; 15:26; 16:7ff.) appears again in the analogous
function o f the evTuyxaveiv o f the one exalted to the right
hand o f God in heaven (Rom. 8:34) and o f the Spirit among
the believers on earth (Rom. 8:26-27).67That the ‘elder John’
(2 John 1; 3John 1) does not see a contradiction between the
advocacy function o f the Exalted One and the (cultic) idea o f
atonement is demonstrated by 2:2: K a i a i k o ç iÀ a o p ô ç éoTiv
. . . The Pauline (and beyond that the early Christian)
christology and soteriology were more richly and further
developed than we often presuppose. The occasional and
fortuitous allusions are only the tip o f the iceberg.
The peculiar significance o f Ps. 110:1 for the christology o f
Hebrews, which presumably develops a much older tradition
argumentatively and in new combinations, is already evident
in the introduction to the letter. The ‘hymnic’ sounding
66Against W. R. G. Loader, op. cit., p. 185, who only recognizes ‘a request for
help for the tempted’.
67 8:26: ouvavxiÄapßdvexai xfj âoGsvsiç q p ö v . . . îmepsvxuyxavei
oxevaypoîç àÀaÀrjxoiç. 8:27: Kaxà Gsôv évxuyxdvei imèp àyicov.
christological introduction in Heb. 1:3 concludes the allusion

in v. 1. T h e salvific event o f death (and resurrection) is
paraphrased with KaOaptopov tgW apapxicav n o iq o a p e vo g
the ‘enthronem ent’ is follow ed by the statement: éKdOtoev
év ôeîa xqç peYaAcoouvqc; év ûijiijàoû;. T h e series o f seven
O ld Testament quotations - five o f which com e from the
psalms - which are supposed to prove the absolute superiority
o f the Exalted O ne over the angels,68 is concluded in 1:13 with
the quotation o f Ps. 110:1. Thus the sitting at the right hand o f
G od is m entioned five times in the letter. Independent o f the
two mentions in the introductory chapter there are two further
times when the m otif o f sessio ad dexteram is connected with the
eternal high priesthood o f Christ with reference to Ps. 110:4.
Both texts, Heb. 8:1 (see above, pp. 145f.) and 12:2 (see
above, p. 142), have already been quoted. A third, Heb. 10:12,
m entions the self-sacrifice o f Christ: outoç ôè p ia v ûnèp
apapxuov npooevéyKaç Guoiav . . . éKaOtoev év ôeîqt to (3
0eoû. This statement alludes in addition to the self-sacrifice
also to Ps. 110:1b, which describes the subjugation o f the
enemies: to Àomov éKÔexopevoç ecoç t £0cdoiv o i éxOpol aÛTOü
unonööiov t ö v noôcov auTOÖ (10:13). This does not mean that
the Exalted O ne has not yet been given dominion. ‘That Christ
has been enthroned . . . through his exaltation, means that he
is finally and definitively Lord o f all. What is still to com e is not
the com pletion, but rather the revelation o f his royal
dom in ion .’69 T h e enthronem ent at the right hand o f G od
means thus the installation o f Christ in his sovereign honour
and power.
3.6. The peculiarform of the communality of throne between the

Father and the Son
Both texts, Heb. 8:1 and 12:2, each o f which expands év ôeÇicjc
68The later Rabbinic literature too speaks o f the eminence o f the messiah
over the angels: wegäbah ‘and he will be high’ in Isa. 52:13 is interpreted ‘and he
will be higher than the angels’ (TanB Toledot §20 [ed. Buber 70b] ).
69 O. Hofius, Der Christushymnus Philipper 2.6-11, W U N T 17 (Tübingen, 1976;
21991). See for the idea o f judgement in Hebrews: God himself is the judge; the
judgement means - as it did for Paul - destruction o f the enemies. In this sense
1 Clem. 36:6 interprets Heb. 1:13 with its quotation o f Ps. 110:1 as the
punishment o f the ‘wicked and the insubordinate’ (see above, p. 128, n. 22).
‘Sit at My Bight HandV 149
with toO Gpovou,70 are not to be understood as though the

Exalted One takes his place upon a separate throne located to
the right o f the throne o f God. Such an idea is documented in
Rabbinic sources for David (based upon the plural ‘thrones’ in
Dan. 7:9) or for Metatron in Rabbinic texts and later in the
Hekhalot-literature (see below, pp. 191ff.). One must interpret
the sitting at the right hand in relation to Christ as ‘on the
right side o f the throne . . .’ , that is, the resurrected Christ sat
to the right beside God himself on the ‘throne o f glory’ ( kisse’
hak-kabod), which is located above the Merkaba, the throne-
chariot with the four animals.71 He thus is given the most
immediateform of communion with God, which was comprehensible to
aJew based upon the texts of the Old Testament This was superseded
only in the Gospel o f John 1:18 by the eternal being o f
povoYevqc; Oeoç ô oî>v riç xöv KÖÄnov xoö naxpoç, which was
expressed in 10:30 more abstractly as éyo) Kai ô naxrjp ëv
eopev.72 In John it is no longer a question o f the communality
o f throne or dominion with God against the background o f Ps.
110:1, but rather the ‘familial’ intimate relationship o f father
and child, which was alluded to in the relationship between
God and wisdom in Prov. 8:30.7S This difference influenced
also the later christological development (see above, pp. 128f.,
and below, pp. 212f.).
70 H. Lohr, op. cit. (n. 56), p. 197: The throne o f God is aside from the curtain
in Hebrews ‘the only object in the heavenly sanctuary’.
71 In the later Hekhalot-literature the ‘theme o f glory’, which according to
Rabbinic thought belongs to those things that existed before the creation (see
Beate Ego, ‘Gottes Thron in Talmud und Midrasch’, in Marc Philonenko (ed.),
op. cit. (n. 10), p. 318, and G. Schimanowski, Weishät und Messias, W U N T II, 17,
1985, pp. 233ff., 237ff., etc.) has a peculiar significance, which ‘as visible sign o f
divine po w er. . . is often personified and directly applied’. ‘The throne is nearer
to God than all other creatures (even nearer than the angels); its predominance
over all other creatures lies in the fact, that it has constant access to God and can
speak directly with G od.’ ‘The significance o f the throne was exaggerated to the
point that the distance between God and his throne was in danger o f getting
lost, i.e. that there was the danger that the throne might be substituted for God.’
‘The throne became as an object o f veneration almost independent.’ Quoted
from: P. Schäfer, Der verborgene und offenbare Gott. Hauptthemen derfrühen jüdischen
Mystik (Tübingen, 1991), pp. 12-14 in relation to Hekhalot Rabbati.
72 Cf. John 14:10f., 20; I7:21ff. (see above, p. 129, n. 25).
73See O. Hofius, “‘Der in des Vaters Schoß ist”: John 1:18’, 7 N W 80 (1989),
163-71: H. P. Rüger, ‘’Amon - Pflegekind: Zur Auslegungsgeschichte von Prov.
8,30a’ in Festschrift A. R. Hulst (Nijkerk, 1977), pp. 154-63; see below, p. 212.
A particular form o f the communality o f throne between the

Father and the Son is also present in Revelation, where the
throne o f God as the expression o f the uniqueness, presence
and dom inion o f God, the navTOKpaxcap,74 plays a significant
role and is m entioned approximately forty times: ô KaOqpevoç
éni tou Opovou (o r xG) Opövco) appears as the com m on
designation o f God. Christ him self says at the end o f the seven
letters (3:21): ‘O vikcov ôcooco avnxp KaOioai p s t’ épou év tco
Opövco pou, coç Kayo) éviKqoa Kai éKaOioa peTà tou naTpoç
pou év t<£ Opövco auTOU. Characteristic is on the one hand
that here as in other places in Revelation (as in the Corpus
Johanneum as a w hole) there is no m ention o f a ‘ sitting at the
right hand’ . Th e communality o f throne between the martyr
and Christ could be an indication o f the role o f the martyr as
assessor o f Christ at the ju dgem en t (Rev. 20:4), although in
3:21a there is mention o f an identity o f the throne ( ‘with me
on my throne’ ) . T h e text o f 3:21b goes significantly further, in
that it speaks o f the com m union o f Christ with the Father
whereas a spatial specification o f the relationship to the Father
is apparently consciously avoided. Th e p£Tà tou naTpoç pou
3:21 points to a closer relationship than the spatially m ore
differentiating éK ôeîcov tou Oeoû. It is significant that M elito
and the Roman creed adopted tou naTpoç (see above, p. 129,
n. 28). T h e version o f the creed was thus not entirely un
influenced b y jo h a n n in e tradition. Christ’s sitting with the
Father on the throne is only m entioned in 3:21b. Th e verb is
n ot used again in connection with ‘ the Lam b’ (the most
im portant designation o f Christ, which is first used in the
introductory vision in chapters 4 -5 ). In Rev. 5:6 the Lamb
appears év péocp tou Opövou Kai t ö v Teooäpcov Çcocov . . .
éoTrjKÔç, which is surrounded by the thrones o f the twenty-
four elders; in 14:1 he ‘stands’ on ‘ Mount Z ion ’ , that is, the
heavenly sanctuary, together with the 144,000. O ther than that
there is no m ention o f the standing o f the Lamb. T h e difficult
passage 5:6 is hardly to be understood as though the Lamb is
74 The term appears often in the L X X as the translation for s'bà’ôt and in Job
for saddaj; in the New Testament only nine times in Revelation as designation
for God and once in a quotation 2 Cor. 6:18. It is characteristically never used as
a christological predicate.
‘Sit at My Right Hand/’ 151
standing between the four beasts and the twenty-four elders,

but rather he is standing on the throne itself in the middle o f
concentric circles. Similarly in 7:9, 10 the throne respectively
he who sits on it and the Lamb appear together in one
sentence; according to 7:17 the Lamb t o àvà jaéoov to ü
Opövou will shepherd the 144,000 and will guide them to
springs o f living water. Complete clarity about the unique
communality o f throne between God and the Lamb comes at
the end o f Revelation in the statement, that the river o f the
water o f life goes forth 8K to ü Opövou to ü Oeoü Kai to ü àpviou
(22:1) and that the throne will be in the heavenly Jerusalem
which will come down upon the earth (kcù ô Opovoç to ù Oeoü
Kai to ü à p v io u év auTfj eoTai 22:3), that is, the presence o f
God and Christ, which is expressed by their common throne
replaces the temple in the eschatological city o f God. It is this
presence which illuminates the city (21:3, 22). Christ is thus
even closer to God than the four beasts, which according to 4:6
are év péocp to u Opövou Kai kukàco to u Opövou and praise
God without ceasing, or than the twenty-four elders, who are
around the throne o f God (kukäoOev to ü Opövou 4:4) or sit
‘before God’ (évcomov to ü Oeoü 11:16) on twenty-four thrones
and who during the praise o f God fall down before him. The
Lamb appears for the first time in 5:6 év péocp to ü Opövou Kai
tcöv Teooapcov Çcpcov whereby the beasts, as a sign o f their
fundamental subordination, glorify with all creatures ‘him who
sits upon the throne and the Lamb’ (5:13). Thus the com
munality o f throne is defined with increasing precision
between chapters 5 and 21. One could almost conclude that
these statements about sharing the throne, which intentionally
avoid the ‘sitting at the right hand’ and thus the possibility o f
an all too anthropomorphic conception o f a bisellium with two
‘gods’ (see below, p. 178, fig. 2) sitting next to one another, are
a preparation for John 1:18 and 10:30.
3.7. Rom. 8:34, Hebrews and the exaltation of Christ in the letters
of Paul
Let us return to the text o f Romans, which is the oldest text
which mentions the motif o f ‘sitting (or being) at the right
hand o f God’ . One notices that Paul mentions this only in
formulaic form in which the sitting is replaced by a simply

being and that he does not even mention the throne o f God.
We can draw several further conclusions from the unique
formulation in Rom. 8:34 particularly in comparison with
Hebrews. Rom. 8:34 is related to Hebrews through the fact that,
in contrast to the heavenly cult and to the priestly service in
the sanctuary or to courtly etiquette, Christ as intercessor does
not stand before the throne o f God but is the companion on the
throne at the right hand o f God, that is - the listener in Rome,
who was familiar with Ps. 110:1, will have associated it with this
- he sits. The idea o f a standing at the right hand o f God even
as intercessor would be meaningless in the context o f this
passage in Romans and is excluded by the parallel in Hebrews.
The picture o f Christ standing in Acts 7:55f., which Luke
certainly took from his tradition,75 is perhaps related to the
greeting o f the martyr or to the judgement over his enemies.
One could possible associate this with the statement Ass. Mos.
10:3: ‘ (sur)get enim caelestis a sede regni sui et exiet de
habitatione sua sancta cum indignationem et iram propter
filios suos.’ On the other hand one could object that è o w c a
means ‘ to stand’ and not ‘to stand up’ . But couldn’t the perfect
indicate that the Son o f Man had already stood up because o f
the threat which had been posed to the witness to Christ? His
prayer 7:59, in which Stephen calls upon the Son o f Man who
is standing at the right hand o f God with Kupie ’Iqooö ôéâi
to nveujaà pot) - beside ‘maranatha’76the oldest prayer to Jesus
in the New Testament - is not a request for advocacy in the

judgement before God but a request for acceptance o f the
martyrs in the heavenly place.
It is also odd that Hebrews, in which Ps. 110:1 and 4 plays
such a significant role, can get along without any direct
reference to the resurrection o f Christ although the resur
rection is known to the author. Instead o f the witness to the
resurrection the author emphasized (this is already evident in
Heb. l:3cd) the atoning death o f Christ and the exaltation to
the right hand o f God. The only mention o f the resurrection
75Luke has the ‘sitting’ o f Ps. 110:1 in key passages: Luke 21:42; 22:69; Acts
2:34. See below, p. 170, n. 108.
76 1 Cor. 16:22; Did. 10:6, cf. Rev. 22:20; cf. 2 Cor. 12:18.
comes at the very end o f the letter in a predication o f God that

sounds liturgical: ‘O . . . Oeoç xf|ç £ipqvi]ç, ô àvayaycbv 8K
v£Kpcov xov noijiéva xcav npoßaxcov xöv péyav (Heb. 13:20).
The author presupposes the resurrection, but avoids it,
however, presumably because it is christologically not
unequivocal enough. The simple resurrection from the dead
in the sense o f coming back to life would not sufficiently
explain the salvific function o f Christ; a real understanding o f
the salvific event comes only through the interpretation o f the
resurrection as exaltation and enthronement. According to
11:19, 35, God could resurrect the dead even during the time
o f the old covenant and according to 6:2, Christians will
participate in the resurrection o f the dead. Sitting on the
throne o f God ‘at the right hand o f majesty’ is on the other
hand something that is only relevant to the pre-existent Son
and the one through whom creation takes place, to the one
who brought himself as a sacrifice through his death on the
cross and was exalted to the unique communion with God,
which differentiates him from all o f the angels (l:13f.).77The
repeated use o f an aï; or é<|)dnaï; in the letter emphasizes the
uniqueness and unsurpassability o f this event.
As the hymn in Philippians demonstrates, Paul speaks in an
analogous fashion o f Jesus’ divine status, incarnation, death
and exaltation over all creatures;78 however, Paul places the
granting o f the title ‘Kupioç’, that is, the holy name o f
the God o f Israel, in place o f the sessio ad dexteram.79 This
analogy in Hebrews and in the letter o f Paul shows how far
back the common roots o f the exaltation (and pre-existence)
christology go. It is interesting in this connection that in the
hymn in Philippians the exaltation o f Christ above all creatures
into the closest communion with God can be stated without
using the language o f Ps. 110:1. At the same time
Paul not only forgoes mention o f ‘ the throne o f God’ entirely
77See O. Hofius, Der Christushymnus Philipper 2.6-11 (op. cit., n. 69), pp. 85 n.
42, 93.
78 M. Hengel, Der Sohn Gottes (Tübingen, 21977), pp. 131-6 (135): O. Hofius,
op. cit. (n. 69), pp. 75-102.
79Phil. 2:6-11, cf. Rom. 14:9. Hebrew, too, can use the title ‘kyrios’ as well as
‘Son’ and ‘G o d’ for Christ: see Heb. 1:4-10, cf. 2:3; see M. Hengel, op. cit. (n.
78), pp. 131ff.; O. Hofius, op. cit. (n. 69), pp. 86f.
and makes use only once in a traditional formula o f the ‘being

at the right hand’ , but in his letters references to the exaltation in
general arefew andfar between. He - very different from Hebrews
- is satisfied in general with the formula concerning the death
and resurrection o f Jesus. That may be related to his peculiar
theologica crucis and with the fact that, where he speaks o f
the resurrection o f Christ, he includes the glorification and
exaltation. The Resurrected One is the Heavenly One; as
the last Adam he is nveûpa Çcponoioüv and avOpconoç éÇ
oupavoü and as such énoupavioç (1 Cor. 15:45-49) who at
the time o f his parousia from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10; 4:16) will
form the believers into beings similar to his owpa xf|ç ôo?;r]ç
(Phil. 3:21; cf. Rom. 8:29f.). Paul can, therefore, call him
Ktjpioç xrjç ööîjq (1 Cor. 2:8), who was resurrected ôià xrjç
ôoS;r|ç xoû naxpoç; (Rom. 6:3), who reflects God’s ôoâ (2 Cor.
4:6), and who transforms the believers with his overflowing
ôoâ (2 Cor. 3:18). ôoâ is in these passages always an
indication o f the heavenly kabôd o f the Exalted One in his
communion with the Father. It could be that the competitors
and opponents o f Paul in Corinth had more to say about
these things than Paul wished, about the glory, the
communality o f throne between the Son and the Father, the
praise o f the Son in the heavenly world, his exaltation through
all the heavens into the inside o f the heavenly sanctuary and
the wonderful manifestations o f his ôoâ. Over against them
he emphasized the ôià moxecoq yàp nepiriaxoöpev, ou ôià
eïôouç (2 Cor. 5:7). He speaks only about ‘seeing’ the
Resurrected One at the time o f his conversion (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8;
cf. Gal. 1:15) and about experiencing npöoconov npoç
npöoconov in the eschaton. Where he o f necessity reports
about his ‘visions and revelations o f the Lord’ (2 Cor. 12:1), he
says nothing about his vision but only that he heard secret
‘unspeakable words’ ; in this case the third heaven or ‘paradise’
is probably to be understood as the highest heavenly place
before the throne o f God, that is, Paul probably saw the Kyrios
in his heavenly glory. This vision o f Christ was not the only one
that he had (2 Cor. 12:2-4).80
80 See U. Heckel, Kraft in Schwachheit W U N T 11/56 (Tübingen, 1993), pp.
56ff.
Statements about the exaltation occur in those passages,

where Paul uses christological formulas or hymnic material,
thus for example in the hymn in Philippians; there
imepuipcooev in 2:9 approaches the confession o f the Lukan
apostle in Acts 5:31: xoûxov ô Oeoç apxqyöv Kai ocoxqpa
uijjcooev xrj depict auxoû... (cf. xr| ôeîq . .. xou Oeou uij/coOeiq
2:33). The place on the throne o f God at the right hand o f the
Father is the highest place in heaven. By use o f the compositum
with unep the hymn includes the idea that the Crucified One
was exalted above all the angels and heavenly powers which do
homage to him (v. 10), a motif which is so self-evident that he
doesn’t have to mention it further in his letters: A confusion o f
Christ with the highest angels, a confusion resulting from
Judaizing tendencies against which Hebrews had to argue, was
apparently for Paul and his congregations no longer a
problem.
In Ps. 110:1, ‘David’ designates the king, who is addressed by
YHW H - ’ adonaj himself as ’adonî ‘my lord’ ; the utilization o f
the psalm in the earliest congregation means that for the
congregation the Exalted One was already her ‘Lord’ . The
maran >ata in 1 Cor. 16:22 shows that Jesus was called upon as
‘our Lord’ in the Aramaic-speaking congregation in Jerusalem,
that is, among his previous disciples. In this formulation is
expressed not only the authority o f the Exalted One but also
the continuing unity o f the disciples with their exalted Lord
after Easter, with the one who a short time earlier was their
teacher. The memory o f him was still immediate among the
disciples after Easter, and we should not undervalue the
significance o f this memory for the development o f the earliest
christology. The predication rabbûnî (Mark 10:51; John 20:16)
is not significantly different from mari. Rabbûn/ribbôn on the
one hand, and mareh and ’ adon on the other hand can be used
as an address o f a person in position o f respect as well as o f
God. Ribbon seel ‘olam was a common designation o f God in
Judaism. The christological interpretation o f the psalm can,
therefore, very possibly be traced back to the earliest con
gregation (see above, p. 137).
The hymn in Philippians goes nevertheless one significant
step farther. The ovopa xô ûnèp näv övopa is the tetragramm
YHWH, for which Kuptoç was already being substituted in the

reading o f the LXX:81 God gave his unspeakable name to the
Crucified and Exalted One.82 I f the Exalted One is given the
same unique name as God in Phil. 2:9, so also - presumably
already in Rom. 8:34, but in any case in later texts, which speak
o f 'sitting at the right hand o f God’ - he participates in the
unique throne o f God, the kisse9hak-kàbôd^ that is, also in the
81 The opinion which has been voiced numerous times in the past years, that the
use o f the title ‘kyrios’ in the LX X as substitute for the tetragramm was introduced
by Christians and therefore the christological use o f K Ûpioç cannot depend upon
the LXX, is in this form misleading. See P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (21959), pp.
218-28, cf. 222; P. Vielhauer, Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament, TB 31 (Münich, 1965),
pp. 147-50; too simplistic is H. Conzelmann, Grundriß der Theologie des Neuen
Testaments (4th ed. revised by A. Lindemann), Uni Taschenbücher 1446
(Tübingen, 1987), pp. 102f. also in K Wengst, ChristologischeFormeln und Lieder des
Urchristentums (Gütersloh, 1972), p. 134 with reference to Vielhauer. In the few
Jewish LX X papyri that we have, the tetragramm in (archaic) Hebrew letters is
used but - this can be seen in the usage o f Philo or the tendency o f Josephus to use
ôeonoxqç instead o f KUpioç - the practice was well established to use as the Qerê
KÛpioç for the Qetîb o f the tetragramm. This convention goes back in my opinion
to the time o f the original translation. It is not impossible thatJewish manuscripts
existed, in which KÛpioç stands in the place o f the tetragramm. It is even possible
that the introduction o f the tetragramm is the result o f a secondary revision. See,
A. Pietersma, ‘Kyrios or Tetragramm’, in A. Pietersma and C. Cox (eds), De
Septuaginta. Festschrift for J. W. Wewers (1984), pp. 85-101, and in more detail
M. Rösch, ‘Die Übersetzung der Gottesnamen in der Genesis-Septuaginta’, in
D. R. Daniels, et al. (eds) Ernten, was man sät. Festschrift for Klaus Koch
(Neukirchen, 1991), pp. 357-77: The L X X played a significant role in the
introduction o f the title K Upioç into Christology.
82 See O. Hofius, op. cit. (n. 69), pp. 29f.: ‘G od gave to the Exalted One
the incomparable unique name, i.e. the kyrios-name that was his own.’ Cf.
M. Hengel, op. cit. (n. 78), pp. 120ff. Behind this may be a singular text such as
Exod. 23:21b, in which it is said o f the angel o f the presence, who led Israel into
the promised land: kî semî b'qirbô ‘for my Nam e is in him’ (LX X : én’ auxcp;
Tertullian, adv. Iud. 9.23: super ilium). 1 Cor. 10:4 could be connected with this.
As a quotation the statement is applied to Joshua in Justin, dial. 75.1f., to whom
the Logos gave his divinic name, Jesus, cf. Tertullian, adv. Iud. 9.23 and adv.
Marc. 3.16.5. By making the pre-existent Logos instead o f God the speaker, the
exegetes o f the second and third century transformed the original christological
understanding. For the contemporary meaning o f this text, see J. E. Fossum, The
Name o f God and the Angel o f the Lord, W U N T 36 (1985), see Index, p. 366 to Exod.
23:20f. If the highest angel carried the ‘name o f G o d’, the one who was exalted
to the right hand o f God deserved all the more the tetragramm and the position
o f power that is connected with it.
83 Cf. Jer. 17:12 kisse'kabôd màrôm, LXX: Opovoç ôoÇqç ûipcopévoç; for the
throne o f JH W H in the Old Testament, see H.-J. Fabry, T h W A T4, pp. 266f.: ‘The
question of the throne o f JH W H is identical with the question o f the kingdom o f
J H W H ’ (p. 266). For J H W H ’s enthronement in heaven, see Ps. 2:4(!); 11:4;
kingdom o f God. In other words, the one who is exalted to the

right hand o f God enters into the exercise o f the dominion
which he himself earlier proclaimed: ‘Kingdom o f God’ and
‘Kingdom o f Christ’ are thus in principle identical.84
A further presumably ‘pre-Pauline’ statement o f the exalta
tion is in the creed-like two-line formula in Rom. l:3f., in which
the second line is: ôpioGévxoç uioö Oeoü év ôuvdpei Kaxà
nveüpa àyia)ot3vr]ç é^ àvaoxàoeoc; veKpcov ‘designated Son
o f God in power according to the spirit o f holiness since (this
appears to me to be a more probable translation than ‘by/as a
result o f ) his resurrection from the dead’ . The heavenly
enthronement o f Jesus as Son o f God, who has divine power
and a ocapa nveupaxiKÖv85 instead o f a fleshly body, appears
here to be identical with his exaltation as companion on the
throne at the right hand o f God. The temporal ‘since the
123:1; cf. 1 Kings 22:19; Isa. 6:Iff. To be enthroned in heaven is reserved for
JH W H . The conceited attempt o f the king o f Babel to match him and to establish
his throne above the stars o f El, ended with his fall (Isa. 14:13ff.), see below, pp.
180f. From the time o f Ezekiel on this throne is identified with the divine throne-
chariot (Ezek. 1:26; 10:1, etc. çf. Sir. 49:8). In the Sabbath-songs from 4Q, which
form an intermediary between Ezekiel and the later ‘Hekhalot-mysticism’, the
throne o f God in the singular plays a central role; probably the throne o f God is
always spoken o f in the singular, in spite o f the orthography '’KDD, because a
masculine plural construction is hardly possible and therefore a phonetic plene-
form must be assumed. (Reference by A. M. Schwemer, modifying her
explication in A. M. Schwemer, ‘Gott als König und seine Königsherrschaft in
der Sabbatliedern aus Q um ran’, in M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer (eds),
Gottesherrschaft und himmlischer Kult (see n. 56), pp. 45-119 (109ff.)), see op. cit.
Index s.v. Thron (p. 492) and HDD (p. 495). In the prayer 4 Ezra. 8:21 it is said o f
G o d ’s throne: ‘cuius thronus inaestimabilis et gloria inconprehensibilis, cui
adstat exercitus angelorum cum tremore’. For the ‘throne o f glory’ in the
Similitudes o f 1 Enoch, see below, pp. 185ff. and for the countless Rabbinic
passages Bill. IV, p. 1268 Index s.v., for its pre-existence G. Schimanowski, Weisheit
und Messias, W U N T 11/17 (Tübingen, 1985), p. 410 Index s.v. and with the
inclusion o f the Hekhalot-texts I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism,
AGJU 14 (Leiden, 1980), p. 247 Index s.v. Throne o f Glory; D. Halperin, The
Faces o f the Chariot, T S A J16 (Tübingen, 1988), p. 610 Index s.v. Throne o f God;
P. Schafer, Der verborgene und offenbare Gott (Tübingen, 1991), p. 184 Index s.v.
84 This holds true in spite o f the (inconsistent) superficial differentiation in
1 Cor. 15:23-28 (see below, pp. 163ff.), which apparently is dependent upon
Paul’s ideas about the sequence o f the eschatological events. It is entirely
unambiguous in the Fourth Gospel, see ‘Reich Christi, Reich Gottes und
Weltreich im Johannesevangelium’, in M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer, op. cit.
(n. 56), pp. 164-84 = in this volume see below, pp. 333-57.
851 Cor. 15:40, 44, cf. Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:51f.; 2 Cor. 5:1-4.
resurrection . . has a parallel in the formulation 'till I make

your enemies your footstool’ - which is admittedly now an
attribute o f the future parousia - and points indirectly to the
heavenly presence o f the Exalted One. One has opined
correctly, that this two-part formula - which was also accepted
in Rome - had an older predecessor which goes back to the
earliest congregation in Jerusalem.86
The four-part statement in Rom. 8:34, which is so unusual
for Paul, is related to ‘old’ (in terms o f a time period o f twenty-
five years this adjective is only to be used with caution)
christological statements, which were significant for the
Roman congregation. It is in my judgement not by chance that
Ps. 110:1 and the sessio ad dexteram appear particularly in texts
that are connected with Rome. To those belong Hebrews, 1
Peter and 1 Clement, but also the Deutero-Pauline letter to
the Colossians and the Gospel o f Mark, which is based upon
traditions going back to Peter.87Luke too, whose two-part work
begins in Jerusalem and ends in Rome, has close connections
to the capital city and it is not by accident that the quotations
and allusions to Ps. 110 - particularly in Acts 2:33-35, the
speech o f the apostle in 5:31 and in a peculiar way in 7:55f. -
are limited to Jerusalem. In Acts 7:55f. the exalted Son o f Man
stands, where one expects the exalted Kyrios Jesus to be sitting
at the right hand o f God. Luke, who in Acts otherwise
designatesjesus commonly as Kyrios,88indicates indirectly (see
above, p. 144) that the ‘Son o f Man’ has become the Kyrios (cf.
Acts 2:36). Thus he lets the dying Stephen call upon Jesus, the
Son o f Man/Kyrios: KUpie TqooO (cf. Rev. 22:20), ôéâi to
nveCjaa pou. One can in a prayer o f petition call upon him
who sits at the right hand o f God as upon God himself.89The
preference for Ps. 110:1 or the formula o f the sessio ad dexteram
is picked up in the West by Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian and
finds its way into the Roman creed (see above, pp. 119-33).
86 M. Hengel, Der Sohn Gottes, pp. 93-104; J. D. G. Dunn, op. cit. (n. 44), pp.
11-17 (lit. 3f.).
87 See M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (London, 1985), pp. 28ff., 47ff.,
50ff., 54ff.
88 Luke 1:21; 2:20f., 25, 34, 36(!), 47; 4:33, etc.
89 Cf. 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20; 2 Cor. 12:8, cf. above, p. 152.
3.8. Rom. 8:34 and Christ as the heavenly high priest

From the text o f Rom. 8:34 one can draw further conclusions.
On the basis o f the unique connection between resurrection,
sitting at the right hand and intercession other than in
Hebrews, I assume that for Paul, or for the congregation
which developed this formula, oç Kai évxuyxavei imèp qpcov
is dependent on où s î ie p e ù ç eiç t o v aicava m x à xrjv xaîv
MeÀxioéôsK Ps. 110:4. The literal almost terminologically
identical parallel (Heb. 7:25) makes this assumption probable.
Paul poses in the context questions in a (model) future tense:
‘Who shall bring a charge . . . ?’ 8:33; ‘who is to condemn?’
8:34. Based on these questions Paul himself may have the
intercession o f Christ in the present and in the final
judgement90 in mind: Heb. 7:25 on the other hand looks to
the continual activity o f Christ as high priest. These are,
however, not mutually exclusive alternatives: In contrast to
the future tense o f the charge, the sitting at the right hand
and the intercessio are in the present tense, for both belong
inseparably together. The exalted Lord is no deus otiosus. His
continual intercessio as the consequence o f his atoning death,
which happened once and for all (Rom. 6:10; cf. 3:25; Heb.
7:27; 9:12; 10:10), is for the good o f the congregation, which
is tempted and troubled; the intercessio has its parallel in the
intercessio o f the Spirit in the believer on earth (see above, p.
147).
In this context several christological tendencies are worth
mentioning. These have equivalents in Romans - where they
are rather un-Pauline - and in Hebrews, and permit the
conjecture that before the apostle wrote the letter he informed
himself especially about the christology that was current in
Rome. The conclusion that the idea o f Christ as the heavenly
high priest is not simply the ‘discovery’ o f the author to the
Hebrews, but that it is much older is indicated by several
factors: The motif appears several times - in part in liturgical
contexts - in Clement (36:1; 61:3; 64), which presupposes
Hebrews but is at this point not dependent upon it; in addition
90 Cf. 1 Thess. 1:10; Rom. 5:9f.; Gal. 5:5. In the question there is a reminiscence
o f Isa. 50:8f. The statement about the servant o f God is applied to the believer,
see above, pp. 138f., n. 45-6.
are texts such as Mark 1:24; 15:38; John 6:69;911John 2:lf. and
- last but not least - Rom. 8:34 taken together with 8:26.
Statements like ôt’ ou (scil. Trjoou XpioxoO) Kai
npooaycoyfjv éoxqKajiev . . . (Rom. 5:2) or the formulaic
öxi Kai Xpioxoç ânaï; nspï àpapxtôv ënaOev ôiKaïoç
ûnèp àôiKcov ïva i)paç n pooayavfl xcp ôscp (1 Pet. 3:18)
also belong in this originally cultic context. The cultic
terminology (npooctyetv = hiqrib) is evident. Hebrews does
not have, as does Rom. 5:2 and the Deutero-Pauline letter to
the Ephesians - in which the ‘access to the Father’ is explicitly
mentioned - the term npooay(ovq;92itdoes have, however, the
same content, namely the open access to God, or more
exactly to the heavenly sanctuary: npooepxcopeOa ouv
psxà nappi]Oiaç xcp Opovcp xfjç xâpiTOç (4:16), that is, to the
throne o f God. This has become the place o f grace as
a result o f the sessio ad dexteram o f the Crucified One,93
because Christ through his blood created ‘ confidence to
enter the sanctuary’ (ëxovxeç. . . napprjoiav eiç xfjv ri'ooöov
xcov àyicov év x<f> aipaxi ’Iq ooö 10:19). Because he ‘opened
the new and living way for us through the curtain’ , because
he is the ‘great priest over the house o f God’ (10:19-21), the
author can repeat the summons. H e does this once in 10:22:
npooepxcopeOa pexà àÀqôivqç Kapôiaç év nAqpoôpujt
moxBCOç; and again in relation to Christ - in a form that is
related to Rom. 8:34 - in 7:25: oOev Kai ocpÇsiv eiq xo
navxeÀèç ôuvaxai xoùç npooepxopèvouç ôi’ auxou xcp Oecp,
91 Cf. Ps. 106:16; Exod. 39:30; Num. 16:7. See Reinhard Feldmeier, ‘Der
Gekreuzigte im “Gnadenstuhl”’, in Marc Philonenko (ed.), op. cit. (n. 10), pp.
213ff.
92Eph. 2:18: öxi Ôi* aùxoO exopev xrjv npooaycoyrjv . . . npôç xöv naxépa;
3:12: év (p exopev xqv nappqoCav Kai npooaycoyfjv év nenoiGqoEi ôià nioxeax;
aüxoö.
93 E. Grässer, A n die Hebräer (Hebt 1-6), EKK XVII, 1 (1990), pp. 259f., relates
the cohortative npooepxcopeôa to Christian worship. That would mean that in
earthly worship the congregation participates in heavenly worship, cf. 1 Clem.
34:4-8. H.-F. Weiss, op. cit. (n. 56), pp. 299f. ‘The throne o f God, designated in
8:1 as the “throne o f the majesty o f (G o d) ”, that is, as the throne o f the ruler and
judge, became a “throne o f grace” through the high priestJesus, who was exalted
to the “right hand o f the throne o f majesty” (8:1), that is, to a place from which
mercy and help go forth.’ Cf. for 10:19-22, op. cit., pp. 520-30. The original
cultic meaning has also been abandoned in 10:22 (p. 528).
navxoxe Çcov sic; to évxuyxavstv ùnèp atk ôv. Paul, who is

somewhat reserved when it comes to all too massive cultic
terminology, but, however, does not want to do entirely
without it, relates in Rom. 5:2 the npooaycoyi] to the x « P lÇ>
to the status o f the one who is justified through faith; he also
boasts about the coming ôoâ, that is, the future heavenly
communion with God, which is already mediated through
Christ. Heb. 12:22 points to this: àÀAà npooeÀqÀuOaxe Eicbv
öpei Kai nöAei 0eoö Çcovxoç, TepouoaAfjp énoupavicp.
Paul writes in the second part o f the soteriological double
formula in Rom. 4:25: Kai nyi]p0ri ôià xrjv ôucaicooiv rjjjuov.
Behind this stands the somewhat un-Pauline thought, that
through the exaltation o f Christ into the heavenly sanctuary,
that is connected with the resurrection, atonement - that is, at
the same time justification - is effected.
In Rom. 3:25 stands an erratic block the interpretation o f
which is controversial: ov npoéGexo ô 0æ ç iÀaoxrçpiov . . .
‘whom (Christ Jesus) God put forth as an expiation’ . This
formulation comes close to the cultic terminology and the
ideational world o f Hebrews, where only iAaoxrjpiov in the
sense o f kappôræt in the earthly sanctuary appears again (9:5) .94
For Hebrews the ‘place o f expiation’ in the heavenly sanctuary
and the ‘throne o f grace’ (4:16) are connected with one
another; in a similar fashion Christ as the once-for-all atoning
sacrifice and the heavenly high priest who is enthroned at the
right hand o f God are identical. In this ‘earthly-heavenly’
salvific event, which took place both on Golgotha95 and in the
94 See P. Stuhlmacher, ‘Zur neueren Exegese von Rö 3.24-26’, in idem,

Versöhnung. Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit, Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie (Göttingen,
1981 ), pp. 117-36 ( 130f.) ; idem, Der Brief an die Römer, N T D 6 (Göttingen, 1986),
pp. 55f.; O. Hofius, Paulusstudien, W U N T 51 (Tübingen, 1989), pp. 38f. Cf. Rom.
8:3 where nepi àpapxiaç as often in the LX X means sacrifice for sin, and 1 Cor.
5:7, the gentile Christian congregations that came primarily from the group o f
the god-fearers and were trained by the reading o f the LX X could understand
lAaoxqpiov only against the background o f the LXX, in which o f twenty-five
occurrences it is nineteen times the translation o f the Hebrew kappôrœt. See
W. Kraus, Der Tod Jesu also Heiligtumsweihe. Eine Untersuchung zum Umfeld der
Sühnevorstellung in R ö 3,25-26a, W A N T 66 (Neukirchen, 1991).
95 Cf. the historically precise and theologically significant indication o f place
eÇ(o xfjç nüÀrjç = ëÇcD ifjç napeppoÀfjç Heb. 13:12F. and John 19:17, 20; Mark
15:20, 22.
heavenly sanctuary, God and Christ act together. This unity o f

action o f the Son and the Father in the death o f Christ on the
cross (2 Cor. 5:19) parallels the heavenly communion o f Father
and Son on the throne, which became reality through the
resurrection and which Paul in my opinion in texts such as
Rom. 8:34 or Phil. 2:9-11 presupposes as self-evident. For
that reason we find so often in the letters o f the earliest
Christian author, Paul, the communal working or the inter
changeability o f the action o f God and Christ. Paul only briefly
alludes to that which in Hebrews one or two decades after the
letter to the Romans is so extensively developed.
On the basis o f this comparison o f Rom. 8:34 and the few
other examples o f Pauline exaltation christology with later
texts - in particular from Hebrews - one can draw the
conclusion that christology at the time o f Paul, that is, between
ad 33 and 60 was - or became successively - much more
differentiated and copious than we usually assume: Our
knowledge is limited; our purely analytic methods o f
approaching the material often misunderstand the thinking o f
the ancient world, and the schematic forms which guide our
analysis tend to blind us. The use o f the argumentum e silentio
often connected with a false sense o f alternatives, which exclude
one another, or a mistaken either/or often leads us astray. In
the ancient world one preferred the many faceted inter
relationship and the multiplicity o f approaches. One looked at
the same thing under apparently different and at the same time
homogeneous aspects and one loved the colourful play o f
figures in ‘mosaics’ and ‘tapestries’. This is true also for Paul,
from whom we only have relatively few more-or-less accidentally
preserved texts referring to an exaltation and atonement
christology. These have nevertheless for him fundamental
significance. He can usually limit himself to allusions because
he knows that his hearers will understand him. On the basis o f
these scattered allusions we can really only guess at the fullness
o f his christological ideas, particularly in relation to the
Resurrected and Exalted One. Much that is only later
documented was already - at least in nuce - sketched out. This
applies not only to his statements about the exaltation, but also
for those about the pre-existence over which there is at the
present time so much controversy.96The witnesses to statements

about pre-existence are not more numerous than those for the
exaltation o f Christ and the former are dependent on the latter.
4. The Combination of Ps. 110:1b and Ps. 8:7

4.1. 1 Cor. 15:24-27
The fact that Paul was well acquainted with Ps. 110 in spite o f
the paucity o f indications can be demonstrated by his use o f it
in 1 Cor. 15:24-28.97Whereas in Rom. 8:34 we have a creedal
text that is formed in hymnic prose, we have here a text that
is an outgrowth o f the exegetical christological teaching o f the
apostle. One can imagine that when Paul presented this
eschatological drama orally he described it much more in
detail and expanded it with other verses from the Psalms.
We should not forget, that in the Corpus Paulinum we have
only a minimal (and partially also accidentally preserved)
extract o f his oral preaching which spanned a period o f
almost thirty years, an extract which nevertheless reveals a
thinker o f fascinating greatness. The richness o f his preach
ing must have been even more fascinating! In regard to
our problem it is striking that in 1 Cor. 15:3ff. Paul does not
speak o f the exaltation o f Christ. It was already subsumed in
the words eyqyepTcn and oi(|)0q. The Resurrected One
appeared to the witnesses to the resurrection from Cephas
to Paul himself as the Exalted One. The sitting at the right
hand o f God appears for Paul (contrary to Luke and Hebrew)
not to be a necessary component o f the euayyéÀtov which
all proclaim (15:11). Nevertheless one must add that Paul
limits himself to the fact that the witnesses ‘saw’ and that
in Corinth the ‘exaltation o f Christ’ was certainly not
contested. In regard to the Pauline formulas dealing with
96 See the criticism o fj. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (London, 21989,
J1980) and o f C. E. B. Cranfield, in L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (eds), The Glory
o f Christ in the New Testament. Studies in Memory o f G. B. Caird (Oxford, 1987), pp.
267-80; further K.-J. Kuschel, Geboren vor aller Zät. Der Streit um Christi Ursprung
(Münich-Zürich, 1990) ; J. Habermann, Präexistenzaussagen im Neuen Testament,
EHS.T 23/362 (1990).
97 For the interpretation, see H.-A. Wilcke, Das Problem des messianischen
Zwischenmchs bei Paulus, A ThA NT 51 (Zürich, 1967), pp. 85-105; E. Schendel,
Herrschaft und Unterwerfung Christi, BGBE 12 (1971), pp. 12-18.
the resurrection - as so often - the argumentum e silentio

would lead one astray. The Resurrected One was for him
neither only a ‘resuscitated body’ nor one who was hidden
somewhere in the heavenly world.
He says to the Corinthians at first nothing about the
rather obvious question as to where the Resurrected One is
now, because they enthusiastically experienced the ‘heavenly
regions’ and they knew this already - one might say all too
well. That means also that Paul presupposes the being o f the
Exalted One in heaven, that is, for Paul beside God or more
exactly in immediate communion with God (15:47, 49; cf.
1 Thess. 4:16; see above, p. 134). The most important
christological title in the writings o f Paul, KUpioç,98 points to
the one who was exalted to God, who is acclaimed by the
congregation in worship as ‘our Lord’ and who shortly will
come from heaven; on the other hand the eschatological and
anthropological consequences o f this knowledge for the
believers is also important to Paul.99
In 1 Cor. 15:23ff. Paul describes - in very abbreviated
manner - the dramatic course o f the events o f the end time:
first the resurrection o f Christ, then at his parousia the
resurrection o f the believers, then the real end will come, when
he will give back the ßaoiAeia o f the Father that has been
entrusted to him, ‘after destroying every rule and every
authority and power’ . The formulation oxav Kaxapyqof]
reminds one o f Dan. 7:1 If., 26. There then follows the
statement which for us is central: ‘For he must reign, axpi ou
0f[ nàvxaç xoùç éxôpoùç ùno xoùç noôaç auxou’ (v. 25).
The ßaoiAsueiv o f the Exalted and Coming One begins with
the resurrection and takes the place o f the ‘sitting at the right
hand’ in Ps. 110:1; Paul then follows with the second half o f
the verse which he utilizes with significant alterations. When
the apostle in 1 Cor. 4:8 speaks ironically o f the oupßaoiAeueiv
98 It appears in the homologumena ca. 180 times. A traditio-historical separa

tion o f the passages containing kyrios into Jewish Palestinian that are related to
the parousia and a Hellenistic cultic usage, as is often made today, is completely
misleading, see ‘Christologie und neutestamentliche Chronologie’ (n. 43), pp.
55ff.
991 Cor. 15:17, 42ff., 51f.; cf. 2 Cor. 5:lff.; Phil. 3:14, 20f., etc.
o f the Corinthians - probably with Christ - he presupposes

that the Corinthian enthusiasts already in the present want to
participate through the Spirit in the reign o f Christ. Paul
reminds them that the complete ‘assumption o f power’ still
lies in the future. As long as humans sin and die, death reigns,
a power which for Paul - as in parts o f Judaism - is possibly
identical with Satan. He as the last enemy will first have to be
destroyed.
Paul offers a rationale for the entire argument in the
following quotation from Ps. 8:7 which he transposes into the
third person: navxa yàp iméxa£;ev ünö xoùç nôôaç auxoû. In
opposition to the majority o f present-day commentators one
should interpret the quotation in v. 25 such that there is a
change o f subject: the 0fj Ps. 110:1 (ecoç âv Of]) and the
imexaêv are expressions o f the action o f God. He is the
unoxaâç av>xcp xà navxa.100
In v. 25, Paul alludes to both Ps. 110:1b and Ps. 8:7 fusing the
two quotations together: he substitutes the ècaç äv o f the L X X
with äxpi oö, which he otherwise also prefers;101 analogous to
the navxa o f Ps. 8:7 he inserts a navxaç; and he substitutes for
ûnonoôiov xwv n oôov the formulation vno xoùç nôôaç auxoü
which also comes from Ps. 8:7. As a concluding emphasis he
then quotes this verse in v. 27. Because in v. 27 God is the
subject o f ûnéxaêv and in v. 29 God is designated as unoxdâq,
the Of] navxaç . . . in v. 25 also has to be attributed to him. Ps.
110:1b and 8:7 refer to the same event. One must recognize
here at least the interchangeability or the unity o f the action o f
God and Christ (see above, p. 164).
Paul does not, however, leave Ps. 8:7 unchanged: Instead o f
imoKaxG) he has only the simple imö. This facile combination
o f Ps. 110:1 and Ps. 8:7 occurs in other places in the New
Testament, which demonstrates that these psalms were for
christological reasons early connected with one another - one
could even say that they were ‘woven together’ .
100The exegesis has been controversial since the times o f the early Church.
For God as subject argue among others Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Wettstein,
Rosenmüller, Godet. See U. Luz, Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus, BevTh 49
(Munich, 1968), p. 86.
101 Cf. Rom. 11:25; 1 Cor. 11:26; Gal. 3:19.
4.2. The combination ofPs. 110:1 and 8:7; Eph. 1:20-22; 1 Pet.
3:22; Polycarp, ad Phil. 1:1f
In Eph. 1:20-22 the author states first that God resurrected
Christ from the dead, and then God ‘made him to sit at his
right hand in the heavenly places’ (éyeipaç auxov £K veicpöv
Kai KaOioaç év ôeîa auxoö év xoïç énoupavioiq) far above all
rule and authority and power and dominion . . . ; there then
follows: Kai navxa ûnéxaÇev imo xoùç noôaç auxoö. Here
there is the same change o f formulation that appears in 1 Cor.
15: (25) 27: the transformation into the third person through
the changing o f ùnéxaâç to ûnéxaêv, the replacement o f
unoKaxo) with the simpler uno. Similar to the form KaOioaç év
ÔsÇiq (xoö 080(3) for the sitting at the right hand o f God this
formulation too, points to an old formulaic use. Because the
ûnéxaêv as in Ps. 8:7 speaks o f the action o f God, the KaOioaç
(similar to the infinitive KaOioai Acts 2:30) must have transitive
meaning: God resurrected him from the dead (éyelpaç auxov
éK v£Kpcov), enthroned him at his right hand in heaven over
all the powers (see above, p. 112), made all subject to him and
‘made him the head over all things for the church’ . This variant
o f the otherwise usual intransitive meaning o f the formulaically
used KaOiÇeiv points to the interchangeability o f the actions o f
God and Christ.102 The author cannot do enough with the
statements that include ‘all’ and ‘above’: in the four verses
1:20-23 naç appears five times, ûnepavco/ûnép twice and un-
as compositum or unö twice. The listing o f the powers and the
motif o f the subjugation remind one o f Dan. 7.
An analogous relationship between Ps. 110:1 and 8:7 is
alluded to in 1 Pet. 3:22; after oç éoxiv év öeîqt xoö Oeou, which
is almost word for word the same as Rom. 8:34, follows
ûnoxayévxcov auxcj) àyyéÀcov Kai éÇououov Kai ôuvapecov,
which reminds one o f navxa ûnéxaÇaç from Ps. 8:7.
In another article I have proposed that at the root o f this
fusion o f psalms in 1 Cor. 15:25-27; Eph. 1:20-22 and 1 Pet.
3:22 there lies an older hymnic use o f the two related motifs o f
exaltation and subjugation o f the powers: Both texts from the
102 For the intransitive use, see Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; Mark 16:19; cf.
2 Thess. 2:4; Acts 3:1; 20:4. It is the more common in the New Testament, see
W. Bauer and K. Aland, W bzN T 6, p. 791.
‘Sit at My Right Hand!* 167
hymnbook o f the Jewish congregation - Ps. 8 and 110 - were

sung in Jerusalem by the earliest congregation as ‘messianic
hymns’ , whereby they mutually interpreted one another and
at the same time exerted a significant influence upon the
origin o f early christology.103
The motif o f subjugation without reference to Ps. 110:1 and
with Christ at the parousia as subject appears in Phil. 3:21 in
connection with the transformation o f the believers Kaxà
xrjv évépyEiav xoû ôuvaoOai Kai ùnoxaâi aùxcp xà nàvxa.
Here it is the Coming One himself who is able to subjugate all.
There is only a faint allusion to Ps. 8:7.
The combination o f the sitting at the right hand o f God and
the imoxdooeiv o f all powers appears also in the five-part creed
in the letter o f Polycarp to the Philippians 2:lf.; next to 1 Pet.
3:18f., 22 this is the most highly developed form o f such a
sequence o f salvific events and it formulates the individual
motifs with particular clarity:
nioxeûoavxeç elç
xoti éysipavxa xoO Kupiov rjpcov ’Iijaoûv Xpioxôv ék veKpöv
Kai Ôovxa aüxcp ööâv Kai Opövov £K öeîcov auxoö’
ô Tjnsxayq xà nàvxa énoupàvia Kai êniyeia,
w n ä o a nvoq Àaxpeûei
oç epxexai Kpixqç Çcdvxcdv Kai veKpcov.
In the text o f Polycarp ôoÇa and Opövov 8K Ôeîôv avxov are

circumlocutions for the divine majesty and royal power o f the
Exalted One. With the formulation £K ôeîôv auxoû, which is
unusual in formulaic use, Ps. 110:1 is directly quoted. The
passivum divinum in the aorist unexdyq as well as the aorist
participle ôovxa shows that exaltation to the right hand and
transfer o f power coalesce and become a unique event in the
past. Àaxpeûei in the present tense describes the veneration
‘in worship’ by ‘breathing’ , that is, living, beings, which is now
being carried out by the Church and the angels, whereas the
coming o f the judge directs attention o f the listener to the
future (see above, pp. 130f.).
103 ‘Hymnus und Christologie’, in W. Haubeck and M. Bachmann (eds), Wort

in der Zeit, Festgabe fü r Karl Heinrich Rengstorff zum 75. Geburtstag (Leiden, 1980),
pp. 1-23 [9-13].
The letter was probably written between 115 and 120;104

the formulas are much older. We should not forget that
only eighty-five to ninety years separate the beginning o f
Christianity and this ‘creed’.
The texts that have been quoted raise the question as to
when and how the visible realization o f the dominion o f him
who is exalted to the right hand o f God will happen. This is to
be differentiated from the enthronement o f Christ in his
heavenly majesty. At first he demonstrates his power through
the gift o f the Spirit, the empowered proclamation and the
‘signs’ and ‘manifestation o f power’ o f his messengers. No later
than with the moment o f his parousia his power will be revealed
to all creatures; finally will come the subjugation and destruc
tion o f all o f the powers which oppose God by the judge o f the
world. The verse Ps. 110:1b, which contains in ëcoç âv 0o) an
indication o f a temporal difference expresses this sequence.
4.3. Ps. 110:1; Ps. 8:5-7 and Ps. 80:18: Son, Lord, Son of Man
and heavenly Man
Only the learned precision o f Hebrews avoids any con
tamination o f Ps. 110 with 8. It does, however, bring both texts
into close proximity and offers not just text fragments but
lengthy quotations from Ps. 110, not only o f v. 1 but also o f v. 4.
After the effective conclusion o f the first seven christological
quotations with Ps. 110:1 in 1:13 there follows in 2:6-8 as next
quotation the text Ps. 8:5-7 which is related in content:
xi éoxiv avOpcanoç ôxi jnjivflOKf] auxou,
fj uloç avcopconoi) öxi émoKénxr), atixöv;
qÀartCDoaç auxöv ßpax*3 xi nap’ àyyeÀouç,
ôoÇj] Kai xijif] éox£<j>avG)oaç aûxov,
[xai Kaxéoxqoaç aùxov èm xà ëpya xôv xeipwv oou, see
Nesüe-Aland, 26th ed. App.]
navxa ùnéxaÇaç unoKaxo xôv noôcov auxoû.
As in the case o f Ps. 110, a christological-soteriological (the
two cannot be separated) interpretation o f this wisdom psalm
was from the beginning a legitimate possibility in the earliest
congregation. Whereas Ps. 110 contains the title Kupioç (and
in the second line àpxi£p£uç), Ps. 8 has uioç avOpconou ( ‘son
104 See M. Hengel, TheJohannine Question (London, 1989), p. 15, n. 88.
o f man’ ) and avOponoç. The Targum to Psalms translates in

both cases with bar näsä’ , the Peshitta with gbr9 and br9ns.
Hebrews subordinates both texts - Ps. 110:1 and 8:7 - to the
title uioç which is for the author definitive and which in 1:2
establishes the general theme o f the letter. In other words,
these texts that described the exaltation o f the Resurrected
One were not associated with specific tides; they supported the
variation and interchangeability o f titles.
We need to take a look at Ps. 80:18, a text which is not quoted
expressis verbis in early Christian literature, but which in
addition to Ps. 8:7 and 110:1 could help to explain why the
exaltation o f the crucified Son o f Man/Messiah, Jesus o f
Nazareth, could so quickly be interpreted with the help o f the
formula ‘sitting at the right hand o f God’ :
But let thy hand be upon the man o f thy right hand,
the son o f man whom thou has made strong for thyself.
T I^ n R
y^ m s«
LXX: yevqOrpxD q xeip oou en’ âvôpa ôeîâç oou

Kai éni ulöv àv0p<onou, öv éKpaxaicooaç oeauxcp*
One must also point to Ps. 80:15f.: ‘Look down from heaven
and see, have regard for this vine . . . , which thy right hand
planted, and upon the son ( [ 3 whom thou has reared
for thyself.’ The L X X translates as in v. 18b with a re
interpretation: Kai éni uiöv avOpcanou, ov éKpaxaicooaç
oeauxcp. In the Hebrew text there are three designations: ‘son
(o f G o d )’ , ‘man at the right hand’ and ‘son o f man’ . In the
Greek text the absolute ben is replaced by ‘son o f man’ which
thus appears twice in the psalm. The targum to the psalm
interprets 80:16b as a reference to the messiah ( 9al malkä mesihä
dehajjeltä läkh) and v. 18 analogously. Midrash Tehilim
understands the son o f man to be Isaac in opposition to Esau
(Rom e). The messianic interpretation and the collective
reference to Israel stand side by side. Here we find one o f the
hidden ‘missing links’, which prepared the way for the con
nection between the son o f man in Dan. 7 and the exalted
messiah/son o f man in the Similitudes o f Ethiopie Enoch; we
should not forget - even in the light o f the scepticism which is
characteristic o f modern exegetes - that pious Jews had

memorized all 150 songs o f their hymnbook.105
One should not deny that Paul took the terms zoyaxoç
’A ô a p and avOpconoq oupavoû in 1 Cor. 15:45,47 from the
tradition o f the son o f man. The titles which were from the
beginning regularly used by him were only Kt3pioç106 or the
Son o f (G od).107 On the basis o f Ps. 2; 8; 89 and 110 (perhaps
also 80:16-18) these titles were from earliest times inter
changeable: The Son o f Man who was awaited at the
final judgement was identical with the Son o f God and the
Kyrios Jesus who was exalted to the right hand o f God.
When Luke in Acts 7:55f. lets the Son o f Man/Judge in the
vision o f Stephen stand at the right hand o f God, he connects
perhaps portions o f both psalms. He himself would not
have dared to make this unusual combination, that is, he
utilized at this place older tradition. One could with all caution
ask whether the ‘standing’ is not the ruling or judging gesture
o f the formulation o f Ps. 8:7 (Kaxéoxrjoac; . . . imoKaxoo xtöv
noötöv auxoö) instead o f the ‘sitting’ o f Ps. 110:1,108
The ‘crowning’ with ôoâ and xiprj in Ps. 8:6 = Heb. 2:7b
supplements the idea o f the heavenly enthronement well,
whereby Heb. 2:9 explicitly emphasizes thatjesus was given the
highest honour ôià xö n aöqpa xou Oavaxou.109 The aorist
105According to C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation o f the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge,
1965), pp. 244ff., 41 If. this word lies behind John 1:51 and 15:lff.; see S. Kim,
The Son o f M an as the Son o f God, W U N T 30 (Tübingen, 1983), p. 85, n. 11; Bill. I,
p. 486. For the Targum to the Psalms, see Luis Diez Merino, Targum de Salmos,
Bibliotheca Hispana Biblica (Madrid, 1982), pp. 141-360. The ‘messianic
treasures’ o f the Targum to the Psalms are still waiting to be recovered.
106Cf. 1 Thess. 4:15-17; 5:23; 1 Cor. 11:26, etc.
107 See Rom. 1:3; 1 Thess. 1:10; 1 Cor. 15:28; Rom. 5:9. M. Hengel, Der Sohn
Gottes (Tübingen, 21977).
108According to Calvin, Inst. 2.16.11 the standing o f the Son o f Man Acts 7:55
relates ‘non de coporis constitutione sed de imperii majestate’. See above, p. 152,
n. 75.
109It is no accident that the motif o f the crowning o f the exalted one in the
Enoch-literature and the Hekhalot-texts and those in the martyr-tradition plays so
significant a role, but recedes in the New Testament - with the exception o f the
ambiguous text concerning the Son o f Man, Rev. 14:14 - in favour o f the
honouring o f the perfected believers (1 Cor. 9:25; 2 Tim. 2:5; 4:8; Jas. 1:17; 1 Pet.
5:4; Rev. 2:10, etc.). The ‘crown’, that is, the royal diadem, thatjesus is given, is the
crown o f thorns. The Exalted One is too closely related to God to still wear the
human symbol o f a crown. Cf. below, n. 179.
navxa ûnéxaÇaç, which expresses the subjugation o f creation

that has in principle already been completed but still remains
hidden from humans, sounded in the later ‘Hellenistic’
congregations better than a subjugation which was temporally
delayed and was limited only to the enemies; in addition the
particularly anthropomorphic formulation o f Ps. 110:1b was
avoided.
The difficulty o f the subordination to the angels in Ps. 8:6
was certainly not for the first time solved by the author o f
Hebrews with his elegant temporal interpretation o f ßpaxu
(2:9). The Hebrew me‘at (Targum: qalîï) could also be under
stood temporally.110
In the earliest period o f Christianity an angel-christology
would have been an option given the Essene préfigurations
and the manifold Jewish speculation about angels. The fact
that in the immediate post-Easter period, that is, in a strict
sense pre-Pauline time, no variant o f an angel-christology
developed, can also be traced back to the very early influence
o f Ps. 8:7 (together with Ps. 110:1).111
That the influence o f these psalms together with Ps. 110 was
from the beginning considerable, is demonstrated finally by
the fact that even in the unquestionable quotations o f Ps. 110:1
as in Mark 12:36 the last line is not as in Ps. 110:1 ëcoç âv 06)
xoùç éxOpouç oou ùnonoôiov xœv noôwv oou, but was
changed under the influence o f Ps. 8:7: unoKaxco xcov iïoôcdv
oou. Matt. 22:44 took over this contaminated version; only
Luke 20:42f., which explicitly emphasizes that David said this
‘in the book o f psalms’ ,112corrects it as does the Byzantine text
and the Old Latin version o f Mark and Luke.
110Job 24:24; Ruth 2:7; cf. Jer. 51:33 and Hos. 1:4; Exod. 23:30; see L. Koehler
and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und, Aramäisches Lexikon zum A T ( 31974),
p. 578.
111 In this context one could point to the Michael/Melchizedek text o f 11Q, the
angel Israel in the' Prayer o f Joseph and Enoch/Metatron in 3 Enoch, see
M. Hengel, Der Sohn Gottes (Tübingen, 21977), pp. 73ff., 76f.; cf. J. E. Fossum, op.
dt, (n. 82); L. W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord (Philadelphia, 1988), pp. 51ff., 71ff.
Thorough is M. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in
vorrabinischer Zeit, TSAJ 34 (Tübingen, 1992); for Heb. 1, pp. 287f. See also below,
pp. 191 ff.
112Cf. Luke 24:44; Acts 1:20; 13:33.
As with the author o f Hebrews the higher - one could also

say the ‘academic’ training o f the author Luke (Col. 4:14) - is
evidenced in such philological-historical ‘minutia’ .
5. The Age of the Tradition

There remains the question as to howfa r back one can trace
the influence o f Ps. 110 (in part in relation to Ps. 8). I have
already indicated that it goes back - in the narrow context o f
about twenty-five years - relatively far (see above, p. 158). The
question is whether this can be further specified. The earliest
text in which allusions to both psalms appear, 1 Corinthians,
was written one and a half to two years before Romans, that is,
approximately in the year 55. As in Rom. 8:34 the formulation
is inexact and in part interchangeable, which leads to the
conclusion that the use o f both psalms goes back to a much
earlier period. Paul presupposes in Rom. 8:34 as in 1 Cor.
15:25f. that his allusions and quotations will be immediately
understood, that is, that people both in Corinth and in Rome
knew the motifs and quotations. Psalms 8 and 110 belonged to
the ypa<J>ai o f which Paul speaks in the context o f the formula
concerning the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:4, for the resurrection
o f Jesus implied without any further explanation his exaltation
to the right hand o f God and - at least as problem - the
subjugation o f the powers.
Based upon a number o f indications (see above, pp. 137f.)
the Roman congregation seems to have been founded rela
tively early: certainly not much later than the congregation in
Antioch and probably as in Antioch through the Hellenists who
were driven out o f Jerusalem. Relations between the Roman
Jews and the Holy City were traditionally very close. According
to a peculiar note o f Porphyry, which has been preserved by
Augustine, ep. 102.8, the Christians could have come to Rome
at the time o f Caligula ( a d 37-41).113 The note o f Suetonius
113 See T. Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, K NT VI (Leipzig, 1919), pp.
8f., n. 16; R. Riesner, op. cit. (n. 50), 152f. The quotation speaks meaninglessly
about the Jews; perhaps in the source it was a question o f Jewish Christians.
For the unique relations between Rome and Jerusalem, see M. Hengel, ‘Der
vorchrisdiche Paulus’, in M. Hengel and U. Heckei (eds), Paulus und das antike
Judentum, W U N T 58 (Tübingen, 1992), pp. 203-6.
about the expulsion o f the Jews because o f the continual

disturbances,114which happened presumably in the year 48 or
49, presupposes that Christian missionaries or agitators had
already been in the far-flung city for a period o f time. Paul
himself had for a long time had the desire to come to Rome
(Rom. l:10ff.). I have already said (see above, pp. 157f.) that
Paul presupposes that the various christological formulas in
his letters such as l:3f.; 3:25; 4:25 and 8:34 are known and
accepted in Rome. In other words, the christological use o f
both psalms and in particular the m otif o f sessio ad dexteram
was material common to early Christian congregations,
whether in Corinth, Antioch or Rome, and in my opinion
demonstrates incontestably that they go back to the Jerusalem
congregation.
This can also be deduced from the fact that Luke around
ad 80 localizes his mentions o f the m otif in Acts exclusively
in Jerusalem, beginning with the sermon o f Peter (2:33-35;
5:31; 7:55f.). The formula which seems to sound adop-
tionistic in 2:36 (öxi Kai Kt3piov auxöv Kai xpioxöv enoiqosv
ô ôeoç) and similar ‘ old ’ statements underscore this
assumption. In addition, the role that the m otif o f sessio ad
dexteram in connection with Dan. 7:13 is claimed to have
had at the trial ofjesus (Mark 14:62, par.; Matt. 26:64; Luke
22:69), and the supposed use o f Ps. 110:1 by Jesus at the
last confrontation in Jerusalem (Mark 12:35-37, par.), points
to the great age o f the use o f this text whether or not we
assume that it already played a role in the teaching o f Jesus
himself (which I don’ t consider impossible, but
which - as its opposite - cannot easily be proved). Mark
14:61f., par. is the christological climax o f all o f the synoptic
gospels; this is strongly influenced by Palestinian Jewish-
Christian tradition and had its origin in a passion narrative
which is much older than the second gospel which was written
around the year 70.115
The statements in Revelation about Christ and God sharing
the throne, which are terminologically relatively independent
114 Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum V, Divus Claudius 25.3: Impulsore Chresto

assidue tumultuantis.
115 See R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, H ThK II.2 (31984), pp. 1-27.
o f Ps. 110:1 and which are influenced through and through by

the Palestinian Jewish apocalyptic, point in the same direction.
In my opinion they too, presuppose the early Christian use o f
Ps. 110:1 but try to overcome the spatial component o f ‘sitting
at the right hand’ - which could lead to misunderstanding -
and speaks, therefore, o f the Lamb being ‘in the middle o f the
throne’ or o f a spatially no more specifically defined eom-
munality o f throne with God (see above, pp. 150f.).
Finally, we should point to the fact that Jesus as the
resurrected and exalted Son o f God (Gal. l:15f.) and Lord
(1 Cor. 9:1) appeared to Paul outside Damascus in his divine
ôoâ and not as a ‘hidden son o f man’ or a human trans
formed into an angel. Psalms 110 and 8 were, therefore, very
probably not discovered for christology only after the conver
sion o f Paul (for example, in Antioch - o f which we know very
little - as the history o f religions school like to postulate).
Between the conversion o f the Pharisaic talmîd hakham and the
original event at the time o f the Passover in the year 30 lie no
more than two or three, at the most four years.116 The
development of the christological ideas which were so basicfor the later
missionary congregation concentrated itself in this brief space of time.
That Jesus o f Nazareth, the Messiah/Son o f Man, who was
hanged on the tree o f shame and was resurrected by God, was
exalted to the right hand o f his heavenly father and is
participant in his divine power, was a claim o f fanatic boldness;
it was intellectual dynamite which could sound like blasphemy
in the ears o f Jewish listeners. The indignation o f the hierarchy
in Jerusalem as also the determination o f the young Pharisaic
Saul to oppose the enthusiastic proclaimers o f this new - one
almost wants to say: monstrous - message appears thus in an
understandable light. Mark 14:6-64 reproduces the anger o f
the members o f the Sanhédrin atjesus’ provocation in content
and style correctly. One could ask why this messianic ‘sect’
1,6 For the following, see M. Hengel, ‘Der vorchristliche Paulus’, op. cit. (n.
113), and below, pp. 214ff.: R. Riesner, op. cit. (n. 50), following Harnack
sur mises on the basis o f later reports in Asc. Jes., Ep. Jac. and Irenaeus only
about one and a half years. For the Jewish-Hellenistic milieu in Jerusalem
around the year 30, see M. Hengel, The Hellenization o f Judaea in the First Century
after Christ (London and Philadelphia, 1990).
didn’t provoke a greater protest; in Jerusalem before the year

70 people were apparently relatively tolerant o f apocalyptic
exaggerations and even ‘heresies’ as long as the letter o f the
Torah was not directly affected. This limit o f tolerance seems
to have been reached or exceeded byjesus’ actions themselves
and then by the earliest Greek-speaking congregation o f the
Hellenists specifically in matters o f christology.
In order to understand the audacity o f this new messianic-
apocalyptic teaching o f salvation, we must - in the necessary
brevity - take a look at the traditio-historical problem o f the
‘sitting at the right hand o f God’ .
6, The Motif in the Old Testament

6.1. Earlier parallels
In the Old Testament, Ps. 110 like the ‘fourth servant song’
Isa. 52:13 - 53:12 appears as an erratic block; the first verse o f
each (Ps. 110:1 and Isa. 52:13) are similar (see below, p. 180).
Perhaps one could add as parallels, Ps. 80:18 and 16:8,11, but
both these texts are less unequivocal.117 Its original meaning
117 See above, p. 136, n. 39 and above p. 143, n. 58. For the O ld Testament
literature to Ps. 110, see in addition to the commentaries J. W. Bowker, ‘Psalm
C X ’, V T 17 (1967), 31-41; S. Schreiner, ‘Psalm 110 und die Investitur des
Hohenpriesters’, V T 27 (1977), 216-22, who postulates a connection with the
installation o f the high priest Joshua, son o f Jehozadak (Hag. 1:1, 12; Zech.
3:1-9, etc.); G. Gerleman, ‘Psalm C X ’, V T 31 (1981), 1-19. An origin in
Maccabean times is postulated by H. Donner, ‘Der verläßliche Prophet.
Betrachtungen zu 1 Makk 14,41f. und Ps 110’, in R. Liwah and S. Wagner (eds),
Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im Alten Israel, Festschrift f ü r Siegfried
Herrmann (Stuttgart, etc. 1991), pp. 89-98. If I understand Donner correctly, he
understands Ps. 110 as the poetic production o f a court prophet in relation to
the installation o f the Hasmonean Simon as high priest and leader o f the people,
who does that which according to 1 Macc. 14:41 could not let happen, because a
trustworthy prophet was not yet there. But 1 Macc. 14:41 is like the similar
formulation in 4:46 and 9:27 an indication o f the - official - end o f prophecy.
There is no trace o f Hasmonean court prophets. Such an origin is also impossible
in terms o f time, for in that case the psalm would then have had to be composed
after 142 and before February 134 (the murder o f Simon). That is much too late
for the incorporation o f the psalm into the psalter, which by this time had already
been translated into Greek, see the prologue to Sirach. That the psalm is missing
in the fragments o f Qumran is pure accident: The psalms 100,101,103,108, 111,
117,121-3,126-8, 131-4 (etc.) also are missing. The ‘baroque’ language that is
in part difficult to understand (see the guesswork o f the translators o f the LX X
and the conjectures) and the syncretistic metaphoric is very un-Hasmonean.
See the secular enkomion for Simon, 1 Macc. 14:4-15: The Hellenistic enkomion
does not need to occupy us any further. The next parallels,

which are also iconographically interesting, are in Egypt, the
great teacher o f Canaan and Israel.118As in the case o f Ps. 45 -
which is in some points related to Ps. 110:1 and which is quoted
as a messianic psalm in Heb. l:8f. - the influence o f Canaanite
mythology is recognizable. The king himself is called falohîm,
his throne is eternal, and God himself anointed him - as the
divine one in opposition to all o f his colleagues - with the oil o f
gladness (Ps. 45:7). In this passage only the permanence o f the
throne o f the king, that is, the reign o f the one who is
addressed, not the sitting at the right hand o f Godr that is, the
communality o f throne with God, is mentioned.119Whereas in
45:10 the place occupied by the queen at the right hand o f the
king ( lîmînka, 8K ôeÇicov oou) is considered to be the place o f
highest honour, in Ps. 110:1 it is transformed into the right
hand o f God himself.
For the later interpretation o f this oracle, which originally
was directed by a court prophet to the king, it appears to be
inconsequential what the presupposition o f this enigmatic
formulation was: Whether the king at his enthronement or at
the autumn festival sat on a throne beside the ark o f the
covenant or whether the palace o f the king lay at the right side
o f the temple on Sion, that is, on the south side o f the temple
which was opened to the east. Significant is the theological
interpretation o f the Davidic monarchy:
The enthronement was the birth o f the Son o f God, and the
Davidic reign on Sion was the vicarious reign o f God. The Davidic
king ruled not only at the bidding o f God but with the authority o f
was the more appropriate language o f the new ruler. The psalm is very probably
old and pre-exilic and related to Pss. 2 and 45. Its language and content makes
an archaic impression. What was changed in the course o f the transmission o f
the text - for example, in connection with the post-exilic domination o f the
priests - we don’t know. Melchizedek, king o f Salem, who blessed Abraham and
to whom Abraham gives the tithe, is not a late, but an age-old mythical figure: It
does not fit in the situation o f the final expulsion o f the gentiles and the Jewish
apostates from the Akra in Jerusalem, who had worshipped there the ‘highest
God o f heaven’ (Gen. 14:18) under the names Zeus and Baalshamen.
118See illustrations 1 and 2 (from O. Keel, Die Welt der altorientalischen Bild-
symboUk und das Alte Testament, Zurich, 1972, pp. 233, 240).
119Ps. 45:7 would be even closer to Ps. 110:1 if the text had originally read:
13n K0D3 ^ tD 3 (see H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen /, 51978, p. 487).
‘Sit at My Right Hand! 9 177
God and his sitting on the throne corresponded to God’s sitting

on his own throne: ‘sit at my (God’s) right hand. . . ’ says an oracle
o f enthronement. . . and the Davidic throne can be called the
throne o f Yahweh’s kingdom, the throne o f Yahweh (1 Chr. 28:5;
29:23).120
F ig u re 1
Abd el Qurna, tomb of Hekaerneheh, Thutmosis IV (1422-1413 bc)
After the return from the exile, when there was a new temple
without the ark o f the covenant under the religious and
political leadership o f the Aaronide priests, but no longer any
kings in Jerusalem, this understanding o f Ps. 110 slowly lost its
original meaning; it did, however, exercise an influence upon
120 H. Gese, Zu r biblischen Theologie (Tübingen, 31989), p. 130.

the later idealized history - as the above-mentioned texts from

1 Chronicles121 demonstrate.
In later times there remained only the possibility o f a figura
tive transference to a historical person, thus in the Rabbinic
literature to Abraham and David or - asJustin documents - to
F ig u re 2
Statue of Horemhab (1345-1318 bc)
Hezekiah,122 or to an eschatological-messianic figure. The

latter appears to be the most pervasive in pre-Christian Judaism
and in New Testament times. The non-messianic inter-
121 See below, pp. I79f. It is not yet eschatological-messianic. Possibly one used
it based on v. 4 - as S. Schreiner, op. cit. (n. 117), surmises - to legitimate the
new Zadokite dynasty.
122 Dial. 33.83; Bill. IV, pp. 452-65. Beginning with the third century Ps. 110
can again be interpreted to refer to the messiah. For modern interpretations
relating to the Hasmonean Simon, see above, p. 175, n. 117.
‘Sit at My Right HandI!9 179
pretations, for example, those in Tannaitic times, probably

have an anti-Christian tendency. This is demonstrated by the
interpretation o f enthronement o f the son o f man/messiah in
the Similitudes o f Ethiopie Enoch which is dependent upon
Ps. 110:1 (see below, pp. 185f.). Other than this text we have
no unambiguous witnesses from pre-Christian times. However,
in a letter Klaus Koch made me aware o f one other context:
The messianic interpretation o f the royal psalms appears to
me to be presupposed by the redaction o f the Psalter. How would
you otherwise explain that the relevant texts are either at the
beginning o f a David-Psalter, such as Pss. 2 and 107, or at the end
o f one, such as 72 and 110? Psalm 89 concludes the third Psalter.
For those who composed the collection o f psalms in the post-exilic
period these psalms apparently had programmatic character, and
that can only be a messianic one.
In the case o f a messianic interpretation the question was raised
as to how one should picture the sitting at the right hand:
Should it be understood as an event in the heavenly world or
as one only on earth; further is the sitting - sometimes together
with a second one who is also ‘sitting on the throne’ - to be
understood as on a throne o f his own at the right side o f the
throne o f God or as on the one and only ‘throne o f glory’ as
the companion on the throne with God? A last possibility is to
understand the entire scene with some o f the church fathers as
a metaphorical expression o f an intuitively comprehensible,
purely spiritual event.123 It was the enormity o f the claim o f a
real mutual participation on the throne with God, which was
responsible for the fact that Ps. 110:1 had only a limited impact
upon the content o f the preserved Jewish apocalyptic texts
from Hellenistic-Roman times. This is in clear contrast to
the significance o f the throne o f God in post-Biblical and
Rabbinic Judaism including the Hekhalot-literature.124
David’s mention o f the kingdom o f his son Solomon in
1 Chr. 28:5 offers no real parallel to the later messianic-
123 See C. Markschies, op. cit. (n. 10), pp. 267-74.
124 See above, pp. 156f., n. 83. See B. Ego, op. cit (n. 71), pp. 318-33, for the
Hakhalot-texts see P. Schäfer, et a l (eds), Konkordanz zur Hakhalot-Literatur
(TSAJ 12, 1986), s.v. ks’ /, pp. 353ff.; II (TSAJ 13, 1988), s.v. mrkbh, pp. 436f. Cf.
P. Schäfer, Der verborgene und offenbare Gott, 12ff. for the ‘theology o f the divine
throne’ in Hekhalot Rabbati, see above, p. 149, n. 71.
transcendent interpretation: Yahweh ‘has chosen Solomon, (his)

son, to sit upon the throne o f the kingdom o f Yahweh over all
Israel’ .125Here it is not a question o f the heavenly throne o f
God itself, but o f the ideal kingdom o f the house
o f David, that Yahweh as the true king o f Israel established,
a m otif that can be traced to 2 Sam. 7:14 in connection with
1 Sam. 8:7 and 16:1. The oracle o f Nathan in 2 Sam. 7, which
was accorded a messianic interpretation in Judaism, certainly
also had some influence on the development o f christology,
for example, in connection with Rom. 1:3f. and in reference to
the title ‘son’.126The significance o f Ps. 110:1 goes,far beyond
that o f these texts.
O f all Old Testament texts three can most probably be
brought into connection with Ps. 110:1.
First o f all is Isa. 52:13,127 the introduction to the fourth
servant song:
'»TO? rran
nïKD: r n■nTi
«teil
•;
r n vT
LXX: ’IÔoù ouvqoei ô naïç pou
Kai i)ipo)0i]O£Tai Kai ôoÇaoOqoexai o(f)ööpa.
Should the Hebrew text be interpreted to be a reference
to the heavenly (what else?) glorification o f the servant o f God
who died as a martyr? The formulation jarum vfnissa*alludes
to the throne o f God, Isa. 6:1: kisse9ram wenissä’.m At the same
time one is reminded o f the sacrilegious pride o f the king o f
Babel in Isa. 14:13f.\ ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars o f
God I will set my throne on high (’àrim kise*î); I will sit on the
mount o f assembly in the far north; I will ascend above the
heights o f the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High
(!æsdammœh le‘œljon).’ The L X X translates: eiç töv oupavöv
avaßqoopai, énàvo) t ö v äoTpcov . . . Oqoco tö v Opovov pou.
125 lâsæbœt ‘alkisse’ malkûtJHWH ‘aljissra’el, cf. 17:4; 29:23; 2 Chr. 9:8; 13:8.
126See O. Betz,Jesus. Der Messias Israels, W U N T 42 (Tübingen, 1987), see Index
s.v. 2 Sam. 7:12-14, pp. 443f. and idem, Jesus. Der H err der Kirche, W U N T 52
(Tübingen, 1990), p. 473.
127For the messianic interpretation o f Isa. 52:13 among the Rabbis, see TanB
Toledot §20 (ed. Buber 70b); cf. above, n. 68.
128Cf. Jer. 17:12 M T and LXX; Isa. 66:1: In these cases it is a question o f the
heavenly sanctuary.
'Sit at My Right Hand,V 181
Ka0iö év opei i)ij/r|Acp . . . avaßqoopai énavco tôv veêAtöv,

ëoopai opoioç t <$) ûij/ioxcp. The punishment for such heaven-
storming presumptuousness is that the one committing
sacrilege will be ‘brought down to Sheol, to the depths o f the
Pit’ (14:15). In this Old Testament passage, which was a model
for the later traditions o f the enemy o f God and o f the
antichrist, we find the alternative, which also appears - in the
opposite order - in the Apostles’ Creed: the place o f the dead
in the deep and the heavenly communion with God on the
throne.1291 ask myself whether this text might not have played
a role in the earliest Jewish polemic against the christology o f
the Jerusalem congregation. The Christian use o f Ps. 110:1
must have provoked such a polemic.130
6.2. Ps. 110:1 andDan. 7:9-14

The most important parallel is in the book o f Daniel, which
was written 165 b c near in time to the New Testament period.
Here the enemy o f God, Antiochus IV, is described with the
attributes o f the king o f Babel (Dan. 8:10, 25; 11:36); on the
other hand it is the persecuted people o f God who in the form
o f its representative is raised ‘like a human' on ‘the clouds o f
heaven’ to the divine council, that is, into the immediate
communion with God (Dan. 7:9-14).
He who has a form ‘like a human’ is granted entry to the
divine court. One could speak here o f a ouvéôpiov in the literal
sense o f the word, such as the Hellenistic ruler and later the
Roman Caesar and their representatives conducted in the
presence o f their friends and advisors for the purpose o f passing
judgement.131First thrones (körsäwän=Opovoi) are placed. God
129This text was important for the later apocalyptic and the idea o f the
heavenly journey up until and including the Hekhalot-texts, see D. Halperin,
The Faces o f the Chariot, op. cit. (n. 83), see Index, p. 587 for Isa. 14:12-15. For the
pseudepigrapha, see the index in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha (New York, 1985), II, p. 856 s.v. thrones o f god and II, pp. lOOOf.
s.v. thrones o f angels, in heaven, etc.
130Cf. John 5:18; 10:33, 36; 19:7. Cf. R. Abbahu (end third century) jTaan 2.1
65b: ‘If someone says to you: “I am G o d”, he is lying, “I am the son o f man”, (been
’ädäm ’a n î), he will regret it: “I will ascend into heaven”, he said it, but he will
not carry it out.’
131 Cf. Josephus, bell. 1.620 and ant. 17.301; see E Lohse, Art. ouvsöpiov, in
T h W N T 7 (1964), pp. 858-69, here pp. 858f.
himself, who is compared to an ‘ancient o f days’, first takes his

place as ‘principal judge’ . His fiery throne (-chariot),
from which a stream o f fire goes forth, is particularly empha
sized. Around his throne there stand other thrones; upon
these thrones the associated judges sit down. Who these associ
ate judges are is not explicitly said, although one could think
o f the highest angels such as Gabriel (8:6; 9:21) or Michael
(10:13, 21; 12:1). Myriads o f angels stand before the ‘Ancient
o f Days’ and praise him. The ‘one like a human’ who comes
with the clouds and is brought before the Ancient o f Days does
not appear as judge but rather as the victorious party in a suit.
He is exalted and honoured, whereas his enemy, in particular
the horrible sacrilegious fourth beast, is destroyed. To him the
power is given which was taken away from the four beasts as
representatives o f the four empires (7:14):
And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom that all
peoples, nations and languages should serve him . . . and his
dominion is an everlasting dominion . ..
The subjugation o f the kingdoms o f the world, the judgement
over kings and peoples and the everlasting character o f his
dominion could also be found in Ps. 110; missing in Daniel
was, however, the motif o f enthronement and the title ‘lord’
for the ‘one like a human’ . Nowhere in the Aramaic text is it
said that the ‘one like a human’ takes his place at the right
hand o f the Ancient o f Days. It is possible that the enigmatic
text presupposes some such thing, that is, that the repre
sentative o f the ‘people o f the holy ones o f the Most High’ -
the personification o f the martyrs or the true people o f God132
- himself is given the function o f judge. The text o f the LX X
version is documented only in the miniscule 88, the Syro-
Hexapla and the Cologne Papyrus (967); it contains a reading
in Dan. 7:22 which points in this direction. The Aramaic text
reads: ‘until the Ancient o f Days came and judgement was
given for the saints o f the Most H igh’ ( wedînà j ehab leqadise
5æljônîn). The L X X translates: Kai xrjv Kpioiv eôoKe xoïç âyioiç
. . . , that is, the holy ones are given the ‘office o f judge’ (cf.
John 5:22 and also v. 27 as well as Test. Abr. Rec. A 13:4).
132 Dan. 11:33, 35; 12:3; cf. Isa. 52:13 - 53:12.
(Pseudo-) Theodotion corrects the reading to to Kpipa. In

early Christianity analogous ideas are pre-supposed in Matt.
19:28 = Luke 22:30; 1 Cor. 6:2f. and Rev. 20:4ff. More significant
was the parallel tradition that the son o f man/messiah as
representative and saviour o f the true people o f God is given
the authority to judge; this is documented in the Similitudes o f
1 Enoch and in particular in the teaching o f Jesus and in
earliest Christianity including Matt. 25:31ff. (see below, p. 188).
The L X X version o f Dan. 7:13 is the earliest Greek translation
o f the book o f Daniel and provides often in contrast to the
literal translation o f (Pseudo-) Theodotion a paraphrase which
interprets freely; this translation contains even further
surprises. In it the mysterious ‘one like a human’ is connected
even more closely to the Ancient o f Days and judge:
Kai lôoù éni133 tcov veêÀôv xo(3 oüpavoû
(bçuiôç àvGpconou rjpxexo
Kai cbç naÀaiôç rujtepcov napfjv*
Kai oi napeori]KÔT£ç n a p q o a v 134 aûxcp135
Kai êôoOq auTCp éôuoia136
Kai nàvTa xa sGvq Tf}ç yfjç Kaxà ysvi]
Kai naoa ôoÇa aïkcp Àaxpeuouoa.137
And lo on the clouds o f heaven
he came (in appearance) like a human,
and he was present like an ancient o f days,
and those who were standing in wait were with him,
and authority was given to him,
and all o f the peoples o f the earth
and all glory waited upon him.
Over against the Aramaic text and Theodotion the L X X gives
the impression that the one like a human is given God’s
authority (as judge) and is appropriately waited upon.138
1330’:p£xa For èiri cf. Isa. 14:14: avaß qoopai énava) xöv ve<j>eÀ6)v. pexà is the
equivalent o f ■
im in the Aramaic text.
13488Syhwt; p. 967 npooqyayov auxcp; Syhmg npooqyayov auxov = 0’ and MT.
1350’ is more literal: Kai ëcoç naAaioö rjpepöv ëc}>0ao8v Kat npooqx0q aûicj).
136 P. 967 adds paoiÀiKq.
1370’: Kai au x# eôo0q q àpxq Kai q xijiq Kai q ßaoiAeia, Kai ndvxeç oi Àaot,
4>uÀa{, yÀôooai aûx^> ÔouÀeuoouoiv.
138A good example o f the later liturgical worship o f the exalted Christ is in
a prayer from the fourth/fifth century preserved in the papyrus from Gizeh
No. 10263 (text in C. Wessely, ‘Les plus anciens monuments du christianisme
Bousset and Gressmann139found in this passage as in Ps. LX X

109(110) :3 ‘traces o f the acceptance o f a pre-existent messiah’ .
In reference to the translation ém for (îm they commented:140
‘Only God comes on the clouds.’
Unfortunately we know nothing about the interpretation o f
Ps. 110 and Dan. 7 in Qumran. I believe that it is not impos
sible that these texts were understood to apply to Michael, the
prince o f light. In 11 QMelch 3 II 1.16 the divine predication
o f Isa. 52:7c is applied to him as ‘heavenly saviour’ .141 In the
later Rabbinic literature the messianic interpretation o f Dan.
7:13 is transformed: One name o f the messiah is ‘son o f the
cloud’ {barneflé) 142or ‘ the cloudy one’ (<anànî).us
écrits sur papyrus’, P O XVIII/3 (1924), 341-508 (405-7); see A. G. Hamman,

Das Gebet in der Alten Kirche, Traditio Christiana 7 (Bern, etc., 1989), No. 55), that
C. Markschies drew my attention to: ô àvaoxcxç 6k veKpöv év x # xatjxj). ifj xpixi]
xoö 0a[v]äxou, éc|)àvr} èauxôv év xfl TaAiAcnqt Kai àveÂ0[ôi)v] ém xô utj/oç xajv
oû p av [ô ]v (,) ô excov [èÇ eù] (ovujicov [pjupfouç pupicéôaç àyyéÀo)v(.) ôpouoç èK
ôeÇiôv pupiouç pupiâÔaç àyyéÀcov, (cf. Dan. 7:13 and 10) poôvxaç piqt (jxovj}
xpi[x]ov(*) àytoç âyioç ô paoiÀeùç xoO auovoç (. . .) éÀ0[è] ( . . . ) ô éÀ0à>v éK
ôeÇiôv xo<5 naxpoç;. . . see Rev. 4-5 and the use o f the Trisagion 1 Clem. 34:6.
Here is the final step o f the christological development, which is based upon
Dan. 7:9-13 LX X and Ps. 110:1. In Dan. 7 exaltation, enthronization and coming
for the judgement are still a unity.
139\y Bousset and H. Gressmann, Die Religion desJudentums im späthellenistischen
Zeitalter (Tübingen, 31926), pp. 264f. Cf. J. Lust, ‘Dan. 7.13 and the Septuagint’,
ETh Lb A (1978), 62-9 (64): ‘The Septuagint wishes to identify the “Son o f man”
with the “Ancient o f the days”. H e is God. Therefore they present him as riding
“on the clouds”.’ Lust postulates a different older Hebrew text as the basis o f the
LXX. Originally the ‘ancient o f days’ and the ‘son o f m an’ were identical,
whereby both are personifications o f the dominion o f God; the Aramaic version
made two separate figures out o f the one. In my opinion the translator wanted
to unite the son o f man and the ancient o f days.
140 Op. cit., p. 265, n. 1.
141 Cf. Dan. 12:lfif. For 1lQM elch, see P. J. Kobelski, Melchizedek andMelchiresa\
CBQ.MS 10 (1981), p. 6 ns. 5ff. See there also the many connections with Ps.
110: Index pp. 158f. In the songs for the Sabbath sacrifice from Qumran
Melchizedek appears apparently in two places as the highest angel-priest.
Unfortunately the text is very fragmentary - reference by A. M. Schwemer, cf.
idem, ‘Gott als König und seine Königsherrschaft in den Sabbatliedern von
Qum ran’, op. cit. (n. 56), p. 89.
142With Levy, s.v.: derived from ve<}>éÀq.
145bSan 96b barneflé (earliest reference in the exegesis o f the Amoraim) ; TanB
Toledot §20 (ed. Buber 70b) : ‘W ho is eAnani? That is the king messiah, as it says:
“And I saw in night vision, and behold, with the clouds o f heaven”, etc. (Dan.
7:13).’ Cf. T g t o i Chr. 3:14.
7. The Combination of Dan. 7 and Ps. 110:1 in the

Similitudes o f 1 Enoch, Mark 14:62 par. and
Matt. 19:28 and 25:31
The ‘one like a human’ in the L X X version o f the judgement
scene almost takes the place o f God. His authority thus
becomes identical to the authority o f God and his dominion
identical to God’s dominion. The sitting at the right hand in
Ps. 110:1 means similarly the transference o f divine authority
and judgement; at the same time it is the most intimate relation
o f one who is chosen by God with God himself. He who sits at
the right hand o f God participates directly in his reign. In Dan.
7:9-11 too, the dominion o f God and o f the son o f man
becomes one in its execution.144
The affinity between both texts becomes evident in the
Similitudes o f 1 Enoch where the elect one, the righteous one,
the son o f man and the messiah, who is in heaven with God,
will sit on the throne o f God at the end o f days.145
51:3: ‘In those days the elect one shall sit on my throne, and from
thejudgement of his mouth shall go forth all the secrets of wisdom
(Isa. ll:2ff.), for the Lord of Spirits had given them to him and
glorified him.’
55:4: ‘Kings, potentates, dwellers upon the earth: You will see my
elect one sitting on the throne of glory (v. 1. my glory) andjudging
Azazel and all his company and his army in the name of the Lord
o f Spirits!’
61:8: ‘He placed the elect one on the throne of glory; and he shall
judge all the works of the holy ones in heaven above, weighing in
the balance their deeds.’
62:2: ‘The Lord of the Spirits has sat down (cj. has seated him) on
the throne of his glory, and the spirit of righteousness has been
poured out upon him. The word of his mouth will do the sinners
in . . . ’ (cf. Isa. ll:2ff.)
The Similitudes are certainly notJewish-Christian and also not
later than early Christianity; they originated in a Jewish group
144This is only alluded to in the LX X o f Dan. 7:9-14 and not stated expressis
verbis. The Greek paraphrase remains even more than the Aramaic text unusually
vague.
145Translation loosely follows S. Uhlig, Das äthiopische Henochbuch, JSHRZ V/6
(Gütersloh, 1984).
- which possibly existed at the same time as the Jerusalem

congregation - that was dedicated to the traditions o f Enoch
and comes from the time between approximately 40 b c and a d
70. A direct - even a mutual - influence is therefore possible.
The author o f the Gospel o f Matthew who wrote at the end o f
the first century probably knew o f texts from the Similitudes.146
Because Tertullian, de cul tu feminarum 1.3.3 says o f the book
o f Enoch: ‘eadem scriptura de domino praedicavif, I assume that
he knew the Similitudes as a part o f the work. According to
J. Theisohn:
Ps. 110:1, 5f. (contains) . . . all o f the elements (idea o f enthrone
ment, element o f judgement, element o f polarization) which are
necessary for the transference o f the formula o f sitting on the
throne o f glory and thus on the throne o f Yahweh to the elect one.
Ps. 110:1,5f. is beyond that the only passage in the Old Testament
period which fulfils these conditions; one can conclude that the
elect one - as the one who sits asjudge on the throne o f Yahweh -
. . . is to be related to the theme ‘kingdom’ and is significantly
influenced by the peculiar form o f royal ideas which are present in
Ps. 110.147
The influence o f Ps. 110 and Isa. l l : l f f . upon the Similitudes
cannot be overlooked.
The affinity between Ps. 110 and the figure o f the son o f man
which is alluded to for the first time in Dan. 7:13 and broadly
developed in the Similitudes, is also present - if we ignore the
special case o f Acts 7:55f. - in the answer o f Jesus to the question
o f the high priest about the messiah in Mark 14:62:
’Eyco eip.i,
Kai oif;eo0£ xöv uiov xoü àvOpconou
146 Cf. Matt. 19:28; 25:31 and 13:40-43 an d j. Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter
StU N T 12 (Gottingen, 1974), pp. 152-201: ‘The congregation o f Matthew
appears to have stood in a tradition, which was among other things influenced
by the Similitudes’ (pp. 200f.). I would not attribute the Gospel o f Matthew to a
congregation, but to a significant theological teacher, who was trained in the
interpretation o f scripture, see M. Hengel, ‘Zur matthäischen Bergpredigt und
ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund’, ThR 52 (1987), 328-400 (341ff.).
147J. Theisohn, op. cit. (n. 146), p. 98. For the date o f the Similitudes, see
S. Uhlig, op. cit., pp. 494, 574f.: E. Isaac, in Charlesworth, O T P I, p. 7. The
argument that no fragments o f the Similitudes were found in Qumran is
meaningless, because many Jewish texts from the first century bc and the first
century ad were not found in Qumran.
‘Sit at My Right Hand!* 187
8K defy.cov KaOqpevov xf|ç ôuvajiEox;

Kai épxopevov jiexà xöv v £<|)£À(dv to C oupavoû.
This christological high-point o f the Gospel o f Mark, which

reveals the messianic secret, is certainly not a construct o f the
author o f the gospel - who is sometimes incorrectly portrayed
as the first ‘Christian novelist’ - but contains an ‘old form ’ o f
christology which connects the exaltation to the right hand o f
God and the parousia for the purpose o f the last judgement.
The age o f this tradition is indicated not only by the Jewish
circumlocution for the name o f God (cf. 14:61) but also by the
fact that in this statement (which combines authority and
judgement) the members o f the Sanhédrin are threatened that
they will seeJesus as the coming Judge. Around the year 70 that
was no longer possible. In my opinion the answer ofjesus is a
part o f the pre-Marcan Passion Narrative. Whether Jesus
himself spoke to the leaders o f the people in this or in a similar
fashion cannot be proved; he seems, however, to have pro
voked them with an indication o f his ‘messianic-judgmental’
authority that they delivered him as a messianic pretendent to
Pilate. The theologically maverick author o f the Gospel o f
Matthew repeated in 26:64 the words ofjesus with only small
changes (whereas he uses the question o f the high priest
unchanged).148 Luke in 22:69 limits himself - consistent with
his theology - to the presence o f the one who is exalted to the
right hand o f God and omits the mention o f the Jesus as the
Coming One according to Dan. 7:13.
The statement is - as I have already said - not only a claim to
authority, but at the same time a word o f the accused to his
accusers. There follows the verb in the future tense oipeoOe.149
The ‘kings’ and the mighty are similarly addressed in the
Similitudes:
148The phrase a n ’ apxi at the beginning emphasizes the significance for the
present o f the sessio ad dexteram and weakens somewhat the significance o f the
statement for the future; the sequence Ka0qpevov ek ôeÇiôv serves to make the
Marcan version more similar to the usual formulas, and the em t ö v ve<j>eAtöv
follows the LX X version o f Dan. 7:13 (see above, p. 183, n. 133), whereas Mark
with pexct presupposes Theodotion.
149Cf. the quotation from Zech. 12:10f. in connection with Dan. 7:13 in Rev.
1:7 (cf. John 19:37); the same connection appears in Justin, dial. 14.8. From Q,
see Luke 13:35 = Matt. 23:39 with a quotation from Ps. 118:26.
\ . . you will see my elect one sitting on the throne o f glory . .
(55:4),
‘and they shall see and recognize him sitting on the throne o f his
glory’ (62:3; cf. v. 5).
The sitting at the right hand o f God, which so clearly expresses

the communion with God, is missing in the Similitudes. In
this text one has the impression that the son o f man was
enthroned by the Lord o f Spirits on the ‘throne o f (his) glory’
(61:8; cf. 62:3, 5),150 that is, the throne o f God himself (51:3),
and as the representative o f God carries out the judge
ment over the kings and mighty. In other words, the throne
o f God becomes the throne o f the elect one and son o f man
and can even appear as the ‘throne o f his (that is, the son o f
man’s) glory’ (cf. 63:5; 69:27, 29).
In the New Testament too, the ‘ throne o f Christ’ as the
throne o f the judge and the eschatological ruler can become
independent. The Son is thereby not ‘separated’ from
the Father. This is the case particularly for the Gospel o f
Matthew in which - apparently dependent upon the language
o f the Similitudes - there is twice mentioned that the Son o f
Man ‘sits on the throne o f his glory’ and the twelve disciples
as the followers o f Jesus become his college o f associate
judges: öxav KaOioi] ô uioç xou àvôpconou ém Opövou ôo^qç
auxoû, KaörjoeoOe Kai ùpeu; ém ôcoôexa Opovouç Kpivovxeç
xàç ÔG)Ô8Ka c})UÀàç xou ’IoparjÀ (Matt. 19:28; cf. 25:31). Christ
‘on the throne o f his glory’ acts as the representative o f
God with G od’s authority. J. Theisohn is right when he
presumes that here there is a direct influence o f the
Similitudes. The brief sixth book o f the Sibylline Oracles, a
Christian product from the middle o f the second century, is
acquainted with the language o f the Similitudes:
co Opövov uipicnoç yevexqc; napéÔcoKE AaßeoOai oônco yEvvqOevxi

I speak from my heart o f the great famous son o f the Immortal, to
whom the Most High, his begetter, gave a throne to possess before
he was born.
,r>° por the formula, see I. Theisohn, op. cit. (n. 146), pp. 155-61; see above,
pp. 156f., n. 83.
'Sit at My Right HandV 189
This should be understood such that the Father ‘gave’ to the

Pre-existent One his and not any throne.151
Paul in 2 Cor. 5:10 can speak o f the revelation o f all
Christians before the ßqpa tou XpiOTOû as the throne o f the
eschatological judge; this did not hinder him several months
later in Rom. 14:10 from saying that ‘we will all stand before
the ßqpa toü Geoö (secondary v. 1. toö XpiOTOu)’ . One must
assume here the eschatological unity o f action between Father
and Son which we have noted several times before; this makes
their functions interchangeable. The quoted passages from the
Similitudes are to be interpreted similarly.
A further development o f these traditions, which was already
influenced by Christian tradition, is in 2 En. 24:1, where Enoch
is told to take his place together with Gabriel (see above, pp.
193f.) at the left hand o f God: the right side remains empty.
Did a Christian editor want to reserve this place for Christ?
8. Other Traditions concerning Heavenly Thrones
Over against this interaction o f Ps. 110:1 and Dan. 7:9-14 -

which exercised a significant influence upon the Similitudes
and the earliest christology - other texts which report the
enthronement o f humans in heaven or even their communion
on the throne with God are o f lesser importance. Nevertheless
it is worthwhile to look at the Jewish ‘analogies’ up until and
including the later Hekhalot-literature. This will permit the
unique nature o f the early exaltation christology to become
clearer. We can ignore those texts which are dependent upon
2 Sam. 7:12ff.152 such as Luke l:32f., which speak o f the
messianic throne o f David and its eternal character, because in
these texts it is chiefly a question o f an earthly dominion. The
enthronement o f Adam and Abel asjudges over the dead153or
the promise that after his death Adam will be given the
heavenly throne o f Satan, the fallen angel who tempted him,154
151 6 Sib If. (Geffcken, p. 130); reference by A. M. Schwemer.
152Cf. Isa. 9:6f.; 1 Chr. I7 :llff; 22:9; 28:5; Ps. 89.5; Ps. Sal. 17:6. Cf. above, p. 180.
153Test. Abr. Rez. A 11:4-11; 12:4, 11; 13:2.
154Apk. Mos. 39:2f.; see D. Halperin, op. cit. (n. 83), pp. 102f. The version o f
the Vita Adae presupposes that Satan as the seducer o f Adam (as plaintiff)
thrones in heaven ever after his fall (cf. Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:8ff.).
are only o f secondary significance. More generally we can skip

over all o f those Jewish texts in which - to use a formulation o f
Billerbeck - the throne is only a ‘metaphor for the royal and
judicial authority’ .155
8.1. The vision of Moses in the Exagoge of the tragedian Ezekiel

Interesting is an early Hellenistic-Jewish text, the content o f
which is enigmatic and whose interpretation is therefore
controversial; because the text comes to us byway o f Alexander
Polyhistor it probably was written no later than the second
century bc. In the Exagoge o f the tragedian Ezekiel156 Moses
has a dream. While on the peak o f Sinai he sees a giant throne
which reaches to heaven and sitting on it is ‘a noble man’
((J>wxa yevvaïov xiva). He beckons to Moses, gives him his
sceptre and commands him to sit on the throne. He then gives
him the royal diadem and yields the throne (aûxoç £K Gpovcov
XopiÇexai). Moses has from there a view o f the entire orb o f
the earth, that which is under the earth and that which is above
heaven; stars fall down at his feet157 and march by him like an
army. Then he awakes. His father-in-law Jethro interprets his
dream: He will establish a great throne (or ‘ he will cast a
great person down from the throne’ ),158Moses himself will act
as judge and leader o f mankind and will have knowledge o f
past, present and future.
One can assume that as in Ezek. 1 and Dan. 7 the ‘noble
man’ is an anthropomorphic vision o f God. P. van der Horst,
who analysed the text in detail notes correcdy: ‘This scene is
unique in early Jewish literature . . . and certainly implies a
155Bill. I, p. 979.
156L. 68-89: For the text, see the edition with detailed commentary by C. R.
Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors: II. Poets (Atlanta, 1989), pp.
362-7: Text and translation, pp. 439-81: Commentary, H. Jacobsen, The Exagoge
o f Ezekiel (Cambridge, 1983), p. 54; see Musa Tragica. Die Griechische Tragödie von
Thespis bis Ezechiel, unter Mitwirkung von R. Kannicht bearb. von einer Arbeitsgruppe
des philolog. Seminars der Univ. Tübingen, Studienhefte zur Altertumswissenschaft
16 (Göttingen, 1991), pp. 216-35, 298-300 (222ff.).
157 Cf. Dan. 9:10; Isa. 14:13 and D. Halperin, op. cit. (n. 83), p. 321.
158L. 85: àp d ye péyav xiv’ éÇavaoxrjoeiç Opövov Stählin, Snell and
Musa Tragica have Opovou here; E. Vogt, JSHRZ IV/3, p. 125 follows this
conjecture.
deification o f Moses.’1591 am no longer entirely convinced that

the second sentence is correct, for this would have as a
consequence the ‘abdication o f God’ . Citing Exod. 4:16 and
7:1, van der Horst points out that Moses can be designated as
God, but this m otif does not appear in the drama o f Ezekiel.
Moses appears as a - certainly unique - judge, ruler and
recipient o f divine revelation. Whether or not there were
‘ (probably rival) traditions about Enoch and Moses as
synthronoi theovt160 in pre-Christian times, cannot be demon
strated. The idea is documented only for the son o f man
(/Enoch)161 in the Similitudes. The closest parallels are Ps.
110:1, which van der Horst does not mention, Dan. 7:9-14 and
the Similitudes.
8.2. The figure of Metatron

Van der Horst refers correctly to Metatron/Enoch in 3 Enoch;
this is, however, a very late text which was composed at the
earliest in the sixth century a d or even later; it is, therefore,
questionable whether one may postulate an unbroken tradi
tion whose beginning reaches into pre-Christian times. The
explanation o f the name o f Metatron given by S. Lieberman,162
that p£Tâôpovoç = oùvOpovoç, sounds plausible, but is not,
however, certain.163 It appears for the first time in three
passages in the Babylonian Talmud.164
159P. van der Horst, ‘Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist’, in
Essays o f theJewish world o f Early Christianity, N T O A 14 (Freiburg - Göttingen, 1990),
pp. 63-71 (67); see idem, ‘Some Notes on the Exagoge o f Ezekiel’, op. cit., pp. 72-
93 (81-7); idem, ‘Dejoodse toneelschrijver Ezechiel’, NedThTS6 (1982), 97-112.
160P. van der Horst, op. cit. (n. 159), p. 69; idem, ‘Some Notes on the Exagoge
o f Ezekiel’, in idem, Essays, pp. 72-93 (83); idem, ‘D ejoodse toneelschrijver
Ezechiel’, NedThTSQ (1982), 97ff.
161 For the identification o f the son o f man with Enoch, see 1 En. 71.
162See appendix 1 in I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mystiäsm, AGAJU
14 (1980), pp. 234-41. An entirely different derivation is suggested by SDt §438
to 32:49, see H. Bietenhard, Sifre Deuteronomium, Judaica et Christiana 8 (1984),
p. 818, n. 17.
163D. Halperin, op. cit. (n. 83): ‘The Problems associated with Metatron are
among the most complicated in early Jewish angelology. We do not know where
his name comes from or what it means.’
164 Other than bChag 15a, see bSanh 38b, in which R. Idith (Bablylonian
Amora o f the first half o f the fourth century) in a discussion applied Exod. 23:21
( ‘my name is in him’) to Metatron; in bAZ 3b he is the heavenly teacher next to
God himself. SeeJ. E. Fossum, op. cit. (n. 82), pp. 297ff., 307f.
The most interesting passage is in bChag 15a; it reports that

Elisha ben Avuyah (Acher) sawMetatron in ‘pardes’ . Metatron
was given permission to sit (next to God himself) in order to
write down the meritorious works o f Israel; Acher consequently
conjectured that there are ‘two powers’ (stj rswjwt) in heaven.
For that Metatron was punished with sixty lashes o f fire, for the
angels are supposed to stand before God and Metatron did
not stand up as Acher entered. Metatron is here understood as
the heavenly vice-regent who thrones in the immediate vicinity
o f God, an idea which the Babylonian teachers criticized.165
The next parallel to ‘pardes’ is qpnayq riç xöv napdöeioov (2
Cor. 12:4), the heavenly journey o f Paul; this refers to the
highest (that is, according to Paul, the third) heaven, in which
God himself thrones. The identification o f Metatron with
Enoch is made in Tg. Jer. I to Gen. 5:24;166the age o f this text is
also controversial. I do not think that it is impossible that
Metatron is the descendant o f the ‘son o f man’ in Dan. 7:13
which had been usurped by the Christians and that the
identification o f the son o f man with Enoch in 1 En. 71 was the
beginning o f a secret teaching which was passed on in esoteric
form, but this cannot be proven. The identification could also
have been transmitted to a later time literally.
The description o f a real enthronement o f Enoch/Metatron
appears first in the post-Talmudic Sefer haHekhalot, which
H. Odeberg published as 3 Enoch and which was written at the
earliest in the sixth or seventh century:
He made for me a throne o f glory and he spread over it a coverlet
o f splendour, brilliance, brightness, beauty, loveliness, and grace,
like the coverlet o f the throne o f glory.167
165See D. Halperin, The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature, AO S 62 (New Haven,
Conn., 1980); idem, op. cit. (n. 83), pp. 35f., 150; A. F. Segal, Two Powers in
Heaven, SLJA 25 (Leiden, 1977), pp. 60ff.;J. E. Fossum, op. cit. (n. 82), pp. 308f.
For 2 Cor. 12:1-5, see U. Heckel, Kraft in Schwachheit, W U N T 11/56 (Tübingen,
1992).
166See Bill. II, p. 173. The tradition o f Enoch as the heavenly scribe is on
the other hand much older and pre-Christian; it goes back to the third century bc
and has a Babylonian origin: see 1 En. 12:3f.; Job. 4:23f., see Bill. II, p. 172. In
bChag 15a the identification seems already to have been made. The problem is its
dating.
167 3 En. 10:1 = P. Schäfer, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, TSAJ 2 (Tübingen,
1981), §13 (= 894).
And I took him away from humans and I made him a throne
opposite (or: equivalent to [kngd] ) my throne. And what is the size
o f this throne? 40,000 times 10,000 parasangs o f fire .. ,168
Metatron as the vice-regent o f God remains an angel who

continues to stand before God and to serve him: He is
supposed to ‘serve before the throne o f glory’ .169 In addition
his throne has been placed at some distance from the throne
o f God at the gate to the seventh Hekhal,170 that is, he has the
function o f the guard at the gate. His status and function are
more or less interchangeable; he can - as bChag 15a demon
strates - be punished and demeaned like other angels. The
evaluation o f these unusual texts depends upon whether or
not one has a right to postulate an unbroken esoteric tradition
about the heavenly function o f the exalted Enoch from the
Similitudes - with its identification o f the son o f man and
Enoch in 1 En. 71 - to these later texts. In 2 Enoch (Slavic
Enoch) Enoch takes his place on the left hand o f God ‘nearer
than Gabriel’ whereas the right hand remains vacant; pre
sumably the Christian redactor reserved this place for Christ.171
In this apocalypse Enoch is otherwise like an angel before God.
Both the motif o f the enthronement o f Moses in the work o f
the tragedian Ezekiel, which was composed in pre-Christian
times, and the later tradition o f the throne in proximity to the
divine ‘ throne o f glory’ for Enoch/Metatron no longer have
eschatological character - in contrast to the enthronement o f
Enoch as judge o f the world on the ‘ throne o f glory’ in the
168P. Schäfer, op. cit. (n. 167), §405/195 = 3 En. 48c.5; cf. §73 = 48c.5. Ms
A (E F G H ) : ‘And I made him higher than everything else. And the height o f his
figure (I made) 70,000 parasangs. I made his throne (as great as) the grandeur
o f my throne . . . ’ For the colossal dimensions o f the objects that are present in
heaven in the tradition o f the Shi’ur-Qoma, which culminates in the description
o f the figure o f God, see M. S. Cohen, The Shïur-Qoma. Liturgy and Theurgy in Pre-
Kabbalistic Jewish Mysticism (1983): idem, The ShVur Qomah. Texts and Recensions,
TSAJ9 (1985).
169Schäfer, op. cit. §19 = 3 En. 15:1; 15B.1: ‘and he went under the throne o f
glory’, cf. Schäfer §385f.
170 3 En. 10:2 = Schäfer §13.
171 2 En. 24:1 (Vs. A ) . In Version J stands ‘at my left hand with Gabriel’, cf. Asc.
Jes. ll:32f.: the angel o f the holy spirit at the left hand o f God; see A. Acerbi,
UAscensione di Isaia. Cristologia e profetismo in Siria nei primi decenni de I I secolo,
Studia Patristica Mediolanensia 17 (Mailand, 1989), pp. 195-209.
Similitudes and the early Christian exaltation o f Jesus ‘to the

right hand o f God’ . It is further to be noted that in relation to
the quantity o f Hekhalot texts the number o f passages in which
an enthronement appears in connection with a throne o f God
are very few. The fact that Enoch is an exception may be an old
reminiscence, which was then transferred to his later ‘meta
morphosis’ in the person o f Metatron. It is interesting that his
‘mimic’ , R. Ishmael, who attended him and who was honoured
like Metatron as a later ‘historical’ person, was not enthroned.
He is only allowed to take his place on the lap o f the leader o f
the angels (Sasangiel = Hadarniel = Metatron).172
8.5. The enthronement of David

An eschatological - or more exactly a messianic - inter
pretation o f the motif o f the throne appears in a Tannaitic
discussion o f an apparent contradiction in Dan. 7:9:173
One passage says: ‘His throne was fiery flames’; and another
passage says: ‘Thrones were placed and one that was ancient o f
days took his seat.’ - There is no contradiction: One for him and
one for David. This is the view o f R. Akiva. R. Yose the Galiliean
said to him: How long will you treat the Shekhinah as profane.
Rather one for justice ( Idjn) and one for grace ( Isdqk).
Apparently Akiva identifies the Davidic messiah with the son o f
man o f Dan. 7:13. He understands the plural korsäwän Dan.
7:9 as ‘two thrones’ . God will sit upon one and the Davidic son
o f man/messiah on the other.174
Like the later legends o f Metatron’s sitting on the throne
and his punishment,175 this episode documents the opposition
172See A. M. Schwemer, ‘Irdischer und himmlischer König. Beobachtungen
zur sogenannten David-Apokalypse in Hekhalot Rabbati §§122-126’, in
M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer, op. cit. (n. 56), pp. 309-59 (312).
173 Chag 14a par. Sanh 38b, see Bill. I, p. 338; IV, pp. 871,1104f. According to
Pes. Rab. 37 (Friedman 163a 1.4ff.: R. Schimon b. Passi, end o f the third century)
God ‘will exalt’ the pre-existent messiah in the time o f the end ‘to the heaven o f
heavens and will spread out the splendour o f his glory over him’.
174See A. F. Segal, op. cit. (n. 165), pp. 48f. For the messianic interpretation o f
Dan. 7:9-14 in Rabbinic texts, see Bill. I, pp. 485f., 956f. Later Rabbinic exegetes
attribute the thrones in Dan. 7:9 to God and the ‘eminent men o f Israel’ or ‘the
house o f David’ (i.e. the messiah) and the elders o f Israel, see Bill. IV, pp. 871,
1103, 1210 = TanchB qdsjm §1. For the Rabbinic interpretation o f the son o f
man, see above, p. 184, n. 143.
175 See above, p. 192 and bChag 15a.
which the idea o f a second or several thrones beside the throne

o f God generated from the time o f the Tannaitic scholars o f
the second century. The ‘two powers (or gods) in heaven’ were
the sign o f heresy.176The invocation and honouring o f angels
such as Metatron was strictly prohibited;177 the prohibition as
well as its significance in Jewish mysticism and magic shows that
it did play a significant role. The Opövoi, Kupiôxi]x£(;, àpxoti
and éôooiai in the hymn in Col. 1:16, which were created by
the ‘Son o f God’ (1:13) and the ‘image o f God’ (1:15) and
which belong to the region o f xà àopaxa èv xotç oupavoïç,
are o f Jewish origin.178
The eschatological heavenly enthronement is also docu
mented in the small David-Apocalypse from the Hekhalot
Rabbati (which has been studied in detail by A. M. Schwemer).
In this work R. Ishmael sees the eschatological fulfilment in a
vision: David is given a radiate crown ‘the splendour o f which
reached from one end o f the world to the other’ ;179 with a
magnificent retinue he ascended to the heavenly house o f
study, ‘ that is located in the raqîa\ where a 40-parasang high
‘ throne o f fire’ awaited him. ‘As David came and sat upon his
throne, which was prepared over against (ngd) the throne o f
176See A. F. Segal, op. cit. (n. 165).

177P. Schäfer, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen, SJ 8 (Berlin, 1975), pp.
67-74; M. Simon, ‘Remarques sur l’Angélolâtrie Juive au Début de l’Ere
Chrétienne’, C R A I(1971), 120-34 = Scripta varia, W U N T II. 23, pp. 450-64. Cf.
bSanh 38b the rejection o f the worship o f Metatron by R. Idith.
178The development o f a pre-existence christology and o f Christ’s mediation
o f creation is an inner consequence o f the unique communality o f throne with
God. Because o f the unity o f the revelation o f God this can have not only a
temporal significance but must exist from the very beginning. If the Son created
the angels and the principalities he is elevated above them. The motif comes
from the wisdom-tradition, see below, pp. 212ff.
179Radiate crowns, which are supposedly portraying Helios, appear often on
coins o f the Hellenistic rulers and in particular in the imperial period beginning
with Nero. See H. Mattingly, Coins o f the Roman Empire in the British Museum I
(1923; repr. 1983), LXIVf. and Index, p. 462 s.v. radiate crown. It already appears
several times during the rule o f Tiberius on a coin o f the deified Augustus
(C X X X IV ). ‘So too, Nero assumes, in his lifetime, the radiate crown o f the main
G o d’ (C L X X I). It was still current in later times. Cf. the portrayal o f (Helios)/
Elijah/messiah in the mosaic o f Beth Alpha, see L. Deqaeker, ‘Le prophète Elie
dans l’iconographie juive ancienne’, in G. F. Willems (ed.), Élie le prophète. Bible,
Tradition, Iconographie, Colloques des 10 et 11 novembre 1985 Bruxelles (Löwen,
1988), pp. 137-54 (reference by A. M. Schwemer). Cf. above, n. 109.
his creator. . be began to sing songs o f praise, ‘which no ear

had heard’ . When he sang Ps. 146:10, praising the dominion
o f God, the entire heavenly and earthly creation beginning
with Metatron joined in the praise o f the kingdom o f God.180
In Revelation beginning with chapter 5 on the other hand, the
Lamb as the companion on the throne o f God is praised like
God himself by the entire creation. In Heb. 2:12 following Ps.
22:23(21b) mention is made o f the ujivelv o f the Exalted One,
which unites the earthly and the heavenly congregation.
In addition to the heavenly enthronement o f the son o f man
or later Enoch/Metatron we have several other passages in
dicating an exaltation or an ‘enthronement’ o f the Davidic
messiah or o f David in heaven. This is particularly notable
because the messianic interpretation o f Ps. 110, which was
certainly present in New Testament times, was suppressed and
this text was related to Abraham, Hezekiah and even the
psalmist David. Only relatively late, that is, at the end o f the
third century, do messianic interpretations appear.181In regard
to the unusual interpretation in relation to David (thus also in
Tg. Ps. 110) I ask myself whether there is not an indirect
allusion to the messiah. This is also a possibility for a very late
text from the new Pesikta, in which David, that is, the messiah,
is sitting in the house o f study o f the new aeon as the first
among all o f the patriarchs and kings and is called upon by
God himself: “ ‘My son (!), sit at my right hand (bnj sb Ijmnj)”
. . . And God will sit and reveal the first principles o f the
Torah’ 182
8.4. The heavenly enthronement of Moses

It is noteworthy that the proof o f a heavenly enthronement o f
Moses, the most important revealer figure o f Judaism, is - in
spite o f his vision in the work o f the tragedian Ezekiel - most
difficult. There are many accounts o f his ascent o f Sinai (Exod.
19:20ff.; 24:lff., 12ff.; 34:lff.) to meet God and many traditions
180A. M. Schwemer, ‘Irdischer und himmlischer König’, op. cit. (n. 172), pp.
319-27. For the quoted text, see Schafer, Synopse §125/126 and P. Schäfer (ed.),
Übersetzung der Hekhalot-Literatur, TSAJ 17 (Tübingen, 1987), pp. 57ff.
181 See Bill. IV, pp. 452-65.
182Quoted in A. M. Schwemer, op. cit. (n. 172), p. 319, n. 24; see Bill. IV/2,
pp. 1153f. Text in A. Jellinek, Bet ha-MidraschVl (1877; repr. 1967), p. 47.
o f his ascent into heaven or his translation following his

mysterious death (Deut. 34). I f we ignore several later
Samaritan traditions, allusions to a heavenly enthronement o f the
mediator o f revelation for Israel are practically absent. The
description o f the tragedian Ezekiel is the exception.183
The portrayal o f Moses with super-human or divine attri
butes, which are documented in Hellenistic Judaism - particu
larly in the works o f Philo - can be ignored since they are not
connected with the idea o f an enthronement in heaven.184 The
middle Platonist language and ideational world o f Philo is not
that o f early christology even if it exerted influence upon
theological development from the middle o f the second
century (from about the time o f Basilides, Valentinus and
Justin) and even more in the third century.
The closest thing to an allusion is present in the very
late Midrash o f the death o f Moses, which was circulated in
various versions with many variants.185 Moses drives out the
183For the legend o f Moses, see J. Jeremias, Art. Mû)üofjç, T h W N T IV (1952),

pp. 854-68 (859f.); W. A. Meeks, The Prophet-King, NT.S 14 (Leiden, 1967),
pp. 73ff., 147ff., 156ff., 165ff., 192ff., 205ff., 209ff., 232ff., 241ff., 254ff. and
the Index, p. 350 s.v. enthronement; K. Haacker and P. Schäfer, ‘Nach
biblische Traditionen vom Tode Moses’, in Josephus-Studien, Festschrift for
O. Michel (Göttingen, 1974), pp. 147-74; P. v. d. Horst, op. cit. (n. 159);
D. Halperin, op. cit. (n. 83), pp. 289-322 (particularly 321), 420-9; for the
Moses-tradition o f the Samaritans apart from Meeks, op. cit., also J. E. Fossum,
op. cit. (n. 82), pp. 87ff., 90ff., 122ff., 130ff., 135ff., 141ff., 150f.; idem, in A. D.
Crown (ed .), The Samaritans (1989), pp. 321ff., 366ff., 379-82, 384-8. See the
contributions o fj. D. Purvis and H. W. Attridge in G. W. E. Nickelsburg (ed.),
Studies on the Testament o f Moses, Seminar Papers (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), pp.
93ff., 122ff.
184For the allegorizing-mystical ‘apotheosis’ o f Moses in connection with
Exod. 24, see Quaest in Exod. 2:29 (Exod. 24:2): ‘O most excellent and God-
worth ordinance, that the prophetic mind alone should approach to God
. . . For when the prophetic mind becomes divinely inspired and filled with God,
it becomes like the monad, not being at all mixed with any o f those
things associated with duality. But he who is resolved into the nature o f unity, is
said to come near to God in a kind o f family relation for having given up
and left behind all mortal kinds, he is changed into the divine, so that such man
become kin to God and truly divine’, trans. by R. Marcus, Philo Supplement II (LCL,
1953), pp. 69f. See W. A. Meeks, op. cit. (n. 183), pp. 100-31 and particularly
122ff.
185My starting point is DtnR 11.10 (p. 239b/240b); cf. A. Jellinek, Bet ha-
Midrasch 1.128f.; 6.77. For the different versions, see P. Schafer, op. cit. (n. 183),
pp. 167f., n. 13; cf. the translation, pp. 168ff. following the manuscript Paris 710
fol. 123r-124r. See D. Halperin, op. cit. (n. 83), p. 293.
angel o f death, Samael, who was sent by God to bring the soul
o f Moses, with the following words:
I ascended and traversed the way in heaven and retained the upper
hand in the battle o f the angels and received the Torah from the
fire and lived under the throne o f fire ( wdrtj tht ks*’s) and hid
myself under the pillar o f fire and I spoke with him (God) face to
face (p. 239b).
Only with promises can God convince the soul o f Moses to

leave his sinless-pure body:
Come out, soul, don’t delay, I want to raise you to the highest
heaven and I want to let you live under the throne o f my glory
(mwsjbk tht ks’ kbwdj) next to the Cherubim, Seraphim and the
heavenly hosts (p. 240b).
It is significant that here it is only a question o f the abode o f

the man o f God under the throne o f God or o f a heavenly
journey o f his soul. God himself takes the soul from the body
o f Moses ‘as with a kiss’. According to the opinion o f various
Rabbinic teachers the place o f abode under the throne o f glory
is the place where the soul o f the righteous ones ‘are preserved’
(gnwzwt tht ks’ hkbwd) .186
In the description that R. Joshua b. Levi (Palestinian Amora
o f the middle o f the third century) gives o f the heavenly
journey o f Moses to receive the Torah,187 he reports a protest
o f the angels, who wanted to prevent God from delivering
the secrets to mankind which have been hidden from the
time o f creation. They refer to Ps. 8:5 and 8:2.188Because Moses
186bSchab 152b Baraita o f R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos; further passages in Bill. II,
pp. 267f. According to Pes. R. 36.3f. (cf. 1 En. 39:7) the throne o f God is also
the place under which the pre-existent light o f the messiah is hidden, see
G. Schimanowski, op. cit. (n. 71), pp. 292ff. The place under the throne o f God
is the place o f security in the immediate proximity o f God, but it is clearly
distinguished from the communality o f throne. Missing is the motif o f
enthronement in the sense o f transfer o f authority. See Metatron in Schäfer,
Synopse §385.958; cf. §75 = 3 En. 48 CIO: Metatron puts the children who have
died under the throne o f glory in order to teach them. Cf. §398 and 98.
187 Schab 88b, cf. M H G Ex to 19.20 (395), Pes. R. 20.4,86b-88a. See P. Schäfer,
Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen, Studiajudaica 8 (Berlin, etc., 1975), pp.
127ff.; D. Halperin, op. cit. (n. 83), pp. 296-307, pp. 321, 423f. there further
parallel texts.
188Ps. 8:2 is quoted with the implied meaning that God should leave his glory
in heaven, see Bill. I, p. 354, cf. p. 356 to Midr H L 8, 11.
is threatened by the angels, God commands him: ‘Grasp my

throne o f glory and give an answer to them, because it is
written: “He who touches the face o f the throne, over him will
he spread his cloud” ’ (me’ahezpenêkissehparsez taläw ‘anäno Job
26:9). R. Nahum interprets: ‘The Almighty spreads some o f
the glory o f his Shekhinah over him and protects him’ 189from
the threat o f the angels. Halperin, who discusses this text in a
broader context and who compares it with the Metatron
tradition,190assumes that grasping the throne o f glory ‘is likely
to be a watered-down version o f a tradition that Moses was
seated on God’s throne at the time o f his ascension’ .191He goes
even further and wishes to understand Metatron, the ‘little
Yahweh’ , as ‘a greater Moses’; ‘more exactly, he is Moses gone
a step farther. Moses ascends to heaven. Moses defeats the
angels; Metatron dominates them. Moses grasps God’s throne;
Metatron sits on a throne identical to i t .. ,’192But one should
not overlook the basic difference. Moses hides himself under
the throne o f God or grasps it in order to find protection. He
never takes his place on the same or on an analogous throne.
Metatron is by contrast enthroned like God, even though he
remains an angel. It is significant that even in the Hekhalot
texts there is no clear statement o f the enthronement o f Moses
on the throne o f God, in contrast to the traditions about
Enoch/Metatron and the messiah in the Rabbinic sources. We
do have several isolated allusions to Moses performing priesdy
189bSchab and Pes. R. spjrs sdj mzjw skjntw wennw eljw.

190 D. Halperin, The Faces o f the Chariot, op. cit. (n. 83), pp. 296-301, 321, 421-
46.
191 Op. cit., p. 321. H e draws attention to Joseph P. Schultz, ‘Angelic
Opposition to the Ascension o f Moses and the Revelation o f the Law\JQ R N.S.
61 (1971), 282-307, and the vision o f Moses in the work o f the tragidean Ezekiel,
see above, pp. 190-1.
192 Op. cit., p. 426, cf. pp. 422ff.: Metatron as Moses. Am ong other things he
refers to the fact that a ‘curtain o f splendour’ was also cast about Metatron at
his enthronement (Schäfer §13; Odeberg, ch. 13, see below, n. 167), which
according to bSchab 88b following Job 26:9 happened to Moses. One must
recognize that there is only rarely mention o f Metatron’s sitting, cf. Schäfer §667:
‘Metatron sits on a glorious throne’ (jib bkw rsjhjqr). For the conflict that is
connected with it, see above, pp. 191-4. Often he stands before God like the
other angels. Schäfer §966 emphasizes: on the ‘throne o f light’ (kisse’ ’or) he
(G od) sits alone (Ibdw) and no other beside him, and there is nothing apart
from him’, cf. §967, 969, 394.
service in heaven, but here he standsYike Elijah, Michael or the

angel o f service before God.193The Rabbinic texts which Meeks
quotes to prove that Moses was a ‘Divine King’ 194do not provide
any help for this question.
A glorification o f Moses, which could lead to an inter
pretation as apotheosis, can be found among the Samaritans,
specifically in the Memar Markah and in the Samaritan
Liturgies. But here, too, the explicit mention o f a heavenly
enthronement are seldom and narrowly circumscribed.195
The reservation that the post-Christian Jewish sources have
about the old idea o f a communion on the throne.between a
human being, who was exalted into the heavenly palace, and
God himself, cannot be overlooked. An exception is only the
traditions about Enoch which were well represented in New
Testament times and which blossomed again centuries later as
he was transformed into the mysterious figure o f Metatron. It
appears to me to be incontestable that this aversion - perhaps
in the context o f the polemic against the two powers in heaven
- has something to do with the origin o f the exaltation
christology and the Christian use o f texts such as Ps. 110:1 and
Dan. 7:9-14.
193K. Haacker and P. Schäfer, op. cit. (n. 183), pp. 170ff.; SDtn to 34:5. §357;
cf. bSota 13b and Midrasch Tannaim to Deut. 34:5. ‘Many say: Moses did not die,
but he stands above and serves’ ( eômed üm'säret lemaealäh); cf.J.Jeremias, Th W N T
IV, pp. 859f.; B. Ego, ‘Der Diener im Palast des himmlischen Königs’, in
Königsherrschaft und himmlischer Kult, op. cit. (n. 56), pp. 361-84 (372-8).
194 Op. cit. (n. 183), pp. 192ff.: see TanB behaealoteka §15 (4:51ff.); cf. Num.
R. 15:3 in which similar to Ezek. 7:1 it is emphasized, that God - in opposition
to the earthly kings - grants the pious participation in the insignia o f his
msyesty: O ne may not sit down on the throne o f an earthly king, but it
is written: ‘Solomon sat on the throne o f JH W H as king’ 1 Chr. 29:23 (see
above, pp. 179f.). God gives Moses the rod like a sceptre (Exod. 4:17) and as
God was enthroned as king with jubilation (Ps. 47:6), so also was Moses
enthroned as ‘king in Jeshurun’ (Deut. 33:5). But in this case it is a question o f
earthly majesty.
195See Meeks, op. cit. (n. 183), pp. 233-6 (233f.) with reference to A. E.
Cowley, The Samaritan Liturgy (Oxford, 1909), I, p. 38 1. 24ff.: ‘God seated him
upon a throne upon which no king is able to sit, and G od appointed him below
and he entrusted him with the unseen world.’ Like Enoch, Moses appears in the
Memar Marqah as the heavenly scribe (trans. J. Macdonald, B ZAW 84 (1963), II,
156: 43,6, Text I): ‘He sat on a great throne ( el krs gdjl) and wrote what his Lord
had taught him. He had learnt at a school house among the angels. At their
table he had sat and with their bread he had been satisfied.’ There is nowhere
any thought o f a communality o f throne with God.
‘Sit at My Eight Hand! ’ 201
Against this background the enormity o f the proclamation o f

the first disciples in Jerusalem and in Jewish Palestine becomes
apparent: Their teacher, who had just been crucified, was not
only resurrected from the dead (that is, brought back to life
and hidden somewhere by God) but is the one who was exalted
to the Merkaba-throne and who shares the throne at the right
hand o f God - whereby all o f the speculation about angels was
ignored and remained in the early period excluded.
8.5. The enigmatic enthronement-text 4Q491

In this connection I wish to make reference to a pre-Christian
Essene text, which Baillet published as one o f the fragments o f
the War Scroll and which he understands as a hymn o f Michael.
Morton Smith, who revised the hymn, recognized that in this
hymn the speaker must be a human being who had been
exalted into heaven. The question must remain open as to who
this person was.196
[The Most High gave me a seat among] those perfect o f the eternal
beings, a throne o f strength (ks* ‘wz) in the congregation o f the
godlike ones.
None o f the kings o f the East shall sit in it
and their nobles shall not [come near it.]
No Edomite (? reading uncertain) shall be like me in glory.
And none shall be exalted save me, nor shall anyone rival me.
For I have taken my seat in the [congregation] o f the heavens,
and none [find fault with m e].
196 M. Baillet, Qumran Grotte 4, DJD VII (1982) pp. 26-9, No. 491 = 4QM fr. 11
col I,Iff.; M. Smith, ‘Ascent to the Heavens and Deification in 4QMa’, in L. H.
Schiffman (ed.), Archaeology and History o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, The New York
Conference in Memory ofYigael Yadin (Sheffield, 1990), pp. 181-8 (183f.). I follow
the translation o f Morton Smith with several corrections, for which I thank Dr
Anna Maria Schwemer. Smith’s reading ‘Edomites’ is very uncertain and prob
ably incorrect. O ne correction o f Smith’s translation involves a substantive
change: Based upon the use o f the word in other texts from Qumran the elim in
this text are to be understood not as ‘gods’ (Smith) but as ‘angels’. At the present
time this psalm is considered to be part o f the Hodajot and not o f the War Scroll.
A more detailed analysis o f this text and its relation to Isaiah 53 appears in my
study ‘Zur Wirkungegeschichte von Jes 53 in vorchristlicher Zeit’ in B. Janowski
and P. Stuhlmacher (eds), Der leidende Gottesknecht - Jes 53 im Alten Testament, im
Neuen Testament, im antiken und mittelalterlichen Judentum sowie in der Alten Kirche,
FAT (Tübingen, 1994), n. 161. See J. J. Collins, in a manuscript entitled ‘A
Throne in Heaven’, that will appear in the Ion Culianu Memorial Volume, ed.
M. Fishbane a n d j. Collins (Albany: State University o f New York Press).
I shall be counted among the godlike ones ( Ijm)

and established in the holy congregation.
I do not desire [gold], as would a man o f flesh;
everything precious to me is in the glory o f [my G od].
[The status o f a holy temple,] not to be violated,
has been attributed to me, and who can compare with me in glory?
What seafarer will return
and tell [o f my equivalent]?
Who [laughs] at griefs as I do?
And who is like me [in bearing] evil?
Moreover, if I lay down the law in a lecture
[my instruction] is beyond comparison [with any man’s].197
And who will attack me for my utterances?
And who will contain the flow o f my speech?
And who will call me into court and be equal?
In my legal judgments [none will stand against] me.
I shall be reckoned with godlike ones,
and my glory, with [that of] the king’s sons.
The aretalogical style and the allusion to an exaltation to

heaven reminds one o f Isa. 14:13f. (which, however, is to be
understood positively in this context), the rejection o f the
accusers reminds one o f Isa. 50:8f. (and Rom. 8:34). The
speaker is a human being, to whom God has given a throne in
the heavenly congregation o f angels. This reminds one o f the
participation o f the Essenes in the heavenly worship (which
has now been forcefully demonstrated by 4QShirShab) and o f
the college o f judges, Dan. 7:9ff.198The exalted and enthroned
197M. Smith reads ’ên as *îm and deletes the first nun in nsnjtj as dittography.
His restoration o f the following line is too imaginative. One could, without
changing the text, read we’ên nisnêti; this lets a new sentence begin with w'hôràjah
lô ’ tidmœh, then the line breaks off.
198The eedat1êlîm is also mentioned in 1QM 1:10; there it is a question o f a battle
o f annihiliation between the assembly o f the divine beings and humans. Cf. 1Q22
col. 41.1 (words o f Moses) : wb ‘dt ’Ijm [wbswd qd] wsjm. Cf. 4Q511 col. fr. 11 (Baillet,
DJD VII, p. 226): bswd jljm w’nsjrrv, 4Q181 fr. 1 1. 3f.: some humans are included
w(swd ’) lîm ledt qwds (Allegro, DJDJ V, p. 79). Collins also draws attention to 1QH
3,2If.: 'You have cleansed the spirit o f perversity from much transgression and
give it a place in the host o f the holy ones and brought it into communion with the
gathering o f the sons o f heaven.’ The mention o f the throne is unusual, kisse’ is
not common in the Qumran texts. The concordance o f K. G. Kuhn lists only one
passage from the Isaiah pesher 4Q(pIs)161, fr. 8-10 1. 19 (DJD V, p. 14) to Isa.
11:1-5. David is given a ks’ kbwd and a holy crown; cf. the florilegium 4Q174
one is hardly the collective entity o f the true Israel, however, in

spite o f Dan. 12:2 and Isa. 52:13ff. One could more readily
think o f the messianic high priest as the representative o f the
people o f God - as in the War Scroll - or o f the teacher o f
righteousness, but we find no complaint about persecution and
no indication o f a confession o f sin by the exalted one as in the
‘teacher-hymns’ from 1QH. He appears to be above all
criticism and sinless. The interpretation as a ‘messianic’ figure
is the most probable.199It should be noted that thé exaltation
only takes place into the circle o f the heavenly angels and the
enthronement on ‘a mighty throne in the congregation o f the
'elirri. There is also, as in other texts - leaving Enoch aside - no
mention o f a continuing enthronement on the throne o f God.
It is, therefore, all the more significant that the disciples o f
Jesus could claim that a historical person, who was put to
death in a disgraceful fashion in Jerusalem as a leader o f the
people, was enthroned as the companion o f God on the
throne in accordance with Ps. 110:1. Here lies the greatest
mystery o f the origin o f the earliest christology. Doesn’t this
unspeakably audacious and at the same time provocative step
necessarily have a basis in, the teaching and the bearing o f Jesus
himself?
col 1.10 with a reference to 2 Sam. 7. Further 4Q504 col. IV, 6: David will sit on the
throne (over) Israel before God eternally (DJD VII, p. 143); 4Q511,2 col. 1,10
speaks o f the true Israel as the ‘people o f his throne’. Only ShirShab speaks seven
times o f the kisse* o f God. Ten times meerkäbäh appears. See J. H. Charlesworth,
Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tübingen, 1991), p. 320.
199 See J. J. Collins: ‘The author o f this hymn may have been not the Teacher,
but a teacher in the late first century bce who saw himself, like Moses,
enthroned in the heavens and issuing tradings and rulings o f irresistible
power.’ But doesn’t this fit an eschatological teacher better? Some passages
from lQ S b, the blessings for the messianic high priest, are in many aspects
related. ‘The Lord bless you from his holy habitation, and set you crowned in
majesty in the midst o f the holy ones, and renew to you the covenant o f the
everlasting priesthood, and give you a place in the holy habitation’ (3,25f.).
‘And you should be like a ministering angel in the holy habitation ( bime<ôn
qôdœs) to the glory o f the God o f hosts . . . and may you be about him as one
who ministers in the royal palace ( Ifhêkal malkût, that is, the heavenly
sanctuary) and may you share the lot o f the ministering angels’ (4, 25f.). In
both cases it is a question o f the admission into the heavenly world and into
the communion with the angels; in lQ S b a ‘place’ (m eqômekàh), but not a
throne is mentioned.
9. The Heavenly Enthronement of Martyrs and the Pious

In addition to particularly eminent persons o f Biblical history
such as Enoch, Moses and David, there is the collective group
o f the martyrs and witnesses to faith or even the pious ones in
general who also have been exalted into heavenly communion
with God. Isa. 52:12 and Dan. 12:2 - also Dan. 7:9-14 and
perhaps Ps. 110 in connection with some other psalms - played
a significant role in the development o f this idea.
9.1. The tradition of the martyrs

Places o f honour for martyrs in the immediate proximity o f
God is documented in a whole group o f Jewish and in
particular Christian texts; in Christian times there was also a
christological influence at work either as a polemic adaptation
o f the Christian m otif from Ps. 110:1 or in the sense o f a
participation in the majesty o f Christ. Paul speaks o f ‘being
glorified with Christ’ Rom. 8:17,2002 Timothy o f ‘reigning with’
2:12,1 Corinthians o f ‘judging with’ 6:2;201 Eph. 2:6 intensifies
this, culminating in the statement that God resurrected the
believers with Christ and enthroned them in heaven with him.
Based upon the confession that Christ was resurrected and sits
at the right hand o f God (Eph. 1:22), 2:4-6 states: ô ôè Oeôç
nÀoooioç civ év éÀéei . . . Kai ôvxaç rjpâc; vsKpoùç xolç
napaiiTCopaoiv ouveÇcoonoîrjoev xcp Xpioxcp . . . ouvqyeipev
Kai ouvcKàOiosv év xoïç énoupavioiç év Xpioxcp Trjooü.
Apparently the influence o f the idea o f the rapture o f the
martyrs into proximity with God is present in Rev. 11:12 where
the heavenly voice that goes forth from God, calls to both o f
the resurrected martyrs: avaßaxe oiôe, after which they travel
in a cloud into heaven while their enemies look on. The motif
o f the throne is also documented in Rev. 12:5, where it is
said that the child o f the woman who fled before the dragon
was taken up npoç xöv Oeöv Kai xöv Opövov auxou. The old
exaltation christology probably influenced these formulations;
the traditio-historical relation should therefore not be reversed
in the one-sided sense that the exaltation o f Jesus to the right
200 Cf. Rom. 8:29; Phil. 3:21; 2 Cor. 3:8; see 1 Cor. 4:8 and Rev. 20:6.
201 Cf. Dan. 7:22; Matt. 19:28 = Luke 22:30.
hand o f God is only a particular case o f the apotheosis o f the

martyrs and the pious.202 The child, like the holy ones whom
the Lamb will pasture (7:17), will be taken up to the place
where Christ is.
In 4 Macc. 17:18 it is stated in the peroratio, the concluding
part o f the festive speech about the martyrs o f Antioch: The
ones who have been killed ‘stand beside the throne o f God
(because o f their unopovrj) and live the blessed age’ .203 The
next Jewish-Christian parallel is Rev. 7:13-15, the Christian
martyrs who have come out o f the ‘great tribulation’ (Dan.
12:1) and who have washed their robes in the blood o f the
Lamb: öia toü tö rioiv évœmov toü Opövou toü Oeoü Kai
Àaxpeuouoiv airtcp. E. Lohmeyer writes: ‘The bliss o f the
martyrs that is described in 15 means the fulfilment o f all
Jewish promises; it consists o f the unbroken “service”, the
continuing “being-with-God” (similar to Ass. Mos. 10:10).’204
There is nothing in such formulations which has to do with a
communion with God on the throne.
Paul speaks on the other hand - going one step farther -
simply o f oùv Xpioxcp sivai. His apocalyptic miniature in
1 Thess. 4:15-18 which is portrayed in clear lines and bright
colours concludes with a sentence which appears at the first
glance to be abstract, but which goes beyond the entire world
o f apocalyptic imagery: Kai outcdç navxoxe oùv Kupicp
eaopeOa.205This eschatological oùv Xpicrccp has its equivalent
in the ‘ transformation into his ôoÇa’ ,206 that is, for Paul the
complete communion o f Christians with Christ and with God
after the parousia; the ‘seeing face to face’ (1 Cor. 13:12) is for
202 K. Berger, Die A uferstehung des Propheten und die Erhöhung des Menschensohns,
StU N T 13 (Göttingen, 1976), pp. 22-149, conjectures that in Rev. 1 1 a pre-
Christian Jewish tradition o f a martyr is documented, upon which the message
o f the resurrection o f Jesus is dependent. As proof he utilizes practically
nothing but later Christian materials and reverses the historical-causal
connection.
203 ôi* i]v Kai t # Ôeup vöv napecrcqKaoiv Opövcp Kai t ö v paKapiov ßioöoiv
auova. Cf. Dan. 7:13 LX X Kai oi nap£oxr|KÔT8ç napq oav aik<j) (the son o f man
or the ancient o f days).
204 E. Lohmeyer, Die OffenbarungJohannes ( 21953), p. 72.
205 1 Thess. 4:17; cf. 4:14: aÇei oùv a ik $ ; 5:10; 2 Cor. 4:14; 13:4; Phil. 1:12. See
P. Siber, M it Christus leben, A T hA N T 61 (Zürich, 1971).
206Cf. 2 Cor. 4:18; Phil. 3:21; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:43, 49, 53.
Paul self-evident. Statements such as Eph. 2:6 or Rev. 3:21 about

their ‘communion on the throne’ in the eschaton would also
be appropriate for Paul, even though it is not by chance that
he does not yet use this hyperbolic terminology. The central
point is, however, that this communion is made possible and is
effected only through Christ. He is not only as the Resurrected
One the anapxq xöv KBKOijiqjxévcov,207 but àpxqyoç xqç
ooxqpiac;208 and npoôpopoc; (Heb. 6:20). It is, thus, most
probable that the majority o f the statements which portray
eschatological salvation as a ‘sitting on the throne with’ or a
‘sitting at the right hand o f in the broadest sense are Christian
statements which are derived from the statements about Christ.
9.2. Testament of Job 33 and related texts

O f all the statements which arose in the Jewish-Hellenistic
environment the unusual hymnic answer o f Job in the
Testament o fjo b comes the closest to the Christian confession.
Job repudiates the accusing question (chapter 32; cf. 20:4) o f
his false friends: ‘Where is now the glory o f your throne?’ : époü
ô Gpôvoç év xcj) imepKoopup éoxiv, Kai rj xouxou ôoâ Kai q
eunpéneia 8K ôeîcov xov naxpoç éoxiv (33:3; cf. 33:2, 7; 41:4).
This is then made more precise. This throne o fjo b is ‘in the
holy land and its glory is in that aeon in which there is no
change’ (33:5-7). Whereas kings and nobles together with
their glory will pass away, ‘my kingdom (ßaoiÄeia) is eternal
and (33:8f.) its glory is in the chariot o f the Father’ (év xolç
âppaoiv xou naxpoç 33:9) - the chariot is naturally the divine
throne-chariot.209Elihu repudiates this statement as proud and
audacious (41:4) - that is,Job is certain that he will be glorified
in the future and that he will participate in the reign o f God,
whereby the accent is upon the immutability o f this heavenly
glorification on a special throne at the right hand o f G od-
Father in opposition to the temporary reign o f earthly kings,
207 1 Cor. 15:20, cf. Col. 1:18; Rev. 3:14.
208 Heb. 2:10, cf. 12:2, Acts 3:25; 5:39.
209 See B. Schaller, Das Testament Hiobs, JSHRZ III/3 (Gütersloh, 1979), pp.
352ff., who p. 354 n. 9b surmises an interpretation o f mcerkabôt in the sense o f
angelic powers based upon Rabbinic and mystic sources. The seven mærkabôt in
4QShirShab makes this interpretation more possible, but on the other hand à
translation with the singular is possible based upon Greek usage.
to which he and his (false) friends belong. The salvation that is

portrayed affects only Job and his family. In 39:12ff. the bodily
ascension o f the children o f Job into heaven is reported. The
soul o f Job is taken by an angel (?) on a heavenly chariot 52:8ff.
One o f the problems o f this unusual text is that o f its date.
B. Schaller proposes a date in the second century ad on the
basis o f ‘seldom and in part late-Hellenistic or even Byzantine
words’ and ‘some borrowed Latin words’ ;210 I ask myself
whether one doesn’t have to consider the third or fourth
century as the Greek-speaking synagogue blossomed for the
last time. Even if one denies a Christian origin, which is argued
by some interpreters even today, an indirect or direct Christian
influence cannot be ruled out; this is in my opinion probable.
A Jewish author could apply christological motifs to Job and
his children and thus rob them o f their uniqueness. Since the
text was transmitted in later times only by Christians, a
moderate Christian redaction o f the text is possible. Such
a Christian influence may appear in the formula éK ôeîcov
toû ncrupoç. It is probably a particularly significant example o f
the glorification o f the martyrs and the pious in later Jewish
and Christian texts whereby we find ourselves in the inter
mediate realm in which it is difficult to differentiate between
Jewish and Christian ideas. It is not explicitly said that Job - as
the only one - sits at the right hand o f the divine Father, but
rather only that his heavenly throne receives its ôoâ from
there. One cannot claim on the basis o f Test. Job 33 that the
sessio ad dexteram o f Christ depends upon a tradition that is
independent o f Ps. 110:1 and which is alluded to in Jewish
sources. Such a pre-ChristianJemsh tradition cannot be proven.
The texts which are used as substantiation do not support this
210 B. Schaller, op. cit., pp. 308, 311: ‘beginning or middle o f the second
century ad ’; this dating is not certain. The church took over Jewish apocrypha in
later times too, and in addition the LX X was used for a long time, see M. Hengel,
‘Die Septuaginta als von den Christen beanspruchte Schriftensammlung bei
Justin und den Vätern vor Origenes’, in j. D. G. Dunn (ed. ), Jews and Christians.
The Parting o f the Ways, W U N T 66 (Tübingen, 1992), pp. 39-84. Aquila was only
much later generally accepted. I would not exclude the third or fourth century,
as Hellenistic Judaism experienced its last great blossoming. The connections
between Jews and Christians was at that time much closer than is generally
assumed.
presumption.211 Relatively old and undeveloped is the state

ment Test. Ben. 10:6 (de Jonge): ‘And then shall you see
Enoch, Noah and Shem, and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob
stand up at the right hand in gladness (àvioxapévouc; 8K
ôeîcov).’ Here there is no mention o f ‘sitting’ . In Syrian
Baruch it is said, that the resurrected righteous ones are like
the angels;212 they even surpass the angels and they see the
‘majestic beauty’ o f the animals in paradise which are under
the throne o f God (51:10-12). They do not, however, get any
closer to the throne o f God. In chapter 37 o f the Apocalypse o f
Elijah, which was composed in the third century a d and which
was revised by Christians and is preserved in Coptic translation,
those who in the persecution o f the antichrist were martyred
will ‘sit at my right hand’ and will receive the ‘ throne o f glory’
and ‘crowns’ . I ask myself if the great persecutions o f Christians
in the third century did not have an influence upon this text.
More unambiguously Christian is the sitting at the right hand
as sign o f greater honour for the confessors and martyrs in
Hermas 9.9 (cf. 3.1.9) and lO.lf., 4 (3.2.1f.; 3.2.4). In this
passage one could, with Dibelius, think o f the heavenly
sanctuary; more probably, as N. Brox suggests, it is only a
matter o f the order o f rank in the congregation.213
It is perhaps worth mentioning that the idea o f being
enthroned in the heavenly sanctuary in communion with the
211 K. Berger, op. cit. (n. 202), pp. 122ff. argues for a relative independence o f
the sitting o f Christ at the right hand o f God from Ps. 110:1. In my opinion he
did not succeed in proving his hypothesis, i.e. the traditio-historical
independence o f the idea. Test. Job. has the formulation £K ôeÇiôv which is
connected with Ps. 110:1 and not év ôeÇiç which is common in the mixed-
quotation in the New Testament.
212A common motif: Mark 12:25 = Matt. 22:30: (bç âyyeÀoi; Luke 20:36:
ioayyeÀoi quoted in Justin, dial 81.4; cf. lQ S b 4, 24-28; 1 En. 51:4; 10:6;
Billerbeck I, p. 891; H. C. C. Cavallin, Life after Death. Part I. A n Enquiry into the
Jewish Background, C B N T Ser 7:1 (Lund, 1974), pp. 203-5.
213Further Christian examples are given by W. Schräge, Die Elia-Apokalypse,
JSHRZ V/3 (Gütersloh, 1980), p. 263, n. h. See Ape. Petr. (Eth.) in N T Apok5II,
p. 626; Od. Sal. 8: ‘And on my right hand I have placed my Elect O ne.’ The
Coptic Test. Isaac, which was revised by Christians (see Charlesworth, O TP I,
p. 964, trans. by Stinespring) promises to Isaac 1:7 a throne in heaven ‘next to
his father Abraham’. Cf. B. Schaller, op. cit., p. 353 for Test. Job. 33:3c. For
Hermas, see M. Dibelius, Der H irt des Hermas, H N T Suppl. IV (1923), pp. 456ff.:
N. Brox, Der H irt des Hermas, KA V 7 (Göttingen, 1991), pp. 114ff.
gods appears in pagan sepulchre inscriptions. A lengthy in

scription from Smyrna from New Testament times describes a
heavenly journey; at the request o f Hermes, Zeus honours the
one who is interred,
for he procured for me the noble honour to live among the blessed
in the starry heaven, sitting as their friend on golden thrones at
their side. And the gods looked friendly at me ...
A later inscription says that the gods exalted the departed one
to be ‘priestess o f Kypris (Aphrodite)’ and ‘companion
(ndpeôpoç) o f Athena’. The departed one can also be called
the ouvOpovoq rjpaxov sïveKa o(D<})pooi)vr[<;.214 The m otif
o f the heavenly ‘seats’ appears relatively regularly and in
many variations on Christian sepulchre inscriptions;215 only
occasionally does the m otif o f ‘at the right hand’ occur.216
I doubt that Klaus Berger is correct that, based upon the few
relatively late Jewish and the numerous Christian witnesses,
one can conclude that ‘sitting or throning at the right hand o f
G o d ... in the intertestamental literature and in the apocrypha
(was) a topos that was originally Jewish and that in early
Christian sources is independent o f (and to a certain extent in
competition with) statements aboutjesus’ and that ‘i t ... is not
legitimate to trace the statements aboutjesus concerning
sitting at the right hand back only to the influence o f Ps.
110:1’ .217 Ignoring the fact that there is not a single pre-
Christian Jewish passage that documents such a tradition,
Berger underrates the knowledge among Christians o f the
psalter as the prayerbook and the hymnbook o f Judaism and
the creative function o f the psalter - particularly through the
influence o f the messianic psalms - in the development o f
214W. Peek, Griechische Grabgedichte (Darmstadt, 1960), Nos. 391, 318, 316.
215 See E. Diehl, Inscriptiones latinae christianae veteres (21961), Index, p. 407 s.v.
sedes III (cf. p. 318 aeterna sedes).
216 Op. cit., 3437, 4f.: ‘nam tuo sic munere, Criste [sic.] dextris tuis tibi nunc
fide adsistit in agnis’ (cf. Matt. 25:33); 1602b(?); cf. 2167, 2: ‘sedis cui proxima
sanctis martyribus concessa deo est. . . ; 63 B,13: nunc propior Christo sanctorum
sede potitus luce nova fueris, lux tibi Christus adest’, 23: ‘uiuit in aeterna paradisi
sede beatus’. See the inscription o f Theodotus o f Alexandria in the form o f a
prayer: Kai (k)t(oov aùxfjç £K ôeÇiâç oou éni Opôvoo ôiKaïooûvqç in C. M.
Kaufmann, Handbuch der altchristlichen Epigraphik (Freiburg, 1917), p. 75.
217 K. Berger, op. cit. (n. 202), p. 124.
tradition in earliest Christianity. Psalm 110:1, in which the title

’adôn or Kuptoç appears, must have immediately jumped out
and helped Christians not only to interpret and thus to
proclaim the phenomenon o f the appearances ofjesus, the
crucified Messiah, but also just to understand it. It is not by
chance that the sitting o f a suffering righteous one or o f the
martyr at the right hand o f God can be demonstrated only in
late texts that were preserved or written by Christians. They
are in my opinion all directly or indirectly dependent upon
the Christian usage o f Ps. 110:1. In the early Christian
eschatology- as already documented by Paul - the hope o f the
participation o f the believers in the ôoâ o f their exalted Lord
is already presupposed as self-evident. Christ’s exaltation ‘ to
the right hand o f God’ had direct soteriological consequences
both for the future expectation o f the congregation as also for
the character o f the present as the time o f inbreaking salvation.
Berger, who with an impressive knowledge o f the sources is
able to identify traditio-historical parallels, often ignores the
question o f the dating o f texts. The eschatological empower
ment and the salvific activity o f Christ, which are fundamental
to the early Christian concept, are missing in Test. Job 33:3
entirely. The resurrection and exaltation ofjesus, the crucified
Messiah/Son o f Man, are not comprehensible without
them, for otherwise they would lose their salvific significance.
The exaltation o f Christ is nothing else than the heavenly
enthronement o f the Son o f God in closest communion with
God, the Father, that is, the eschatological empowerment to
rule including the function o f judgement. The resurrection
and exaltation o f Christ is not exhausted by the fact that he was
raised up to a blissful state as is the case o f the heavenly reward
for the suffering righteous one. That the Father and the Son
are companions on the throne expresses much more and
something very different. The resurrection visions were,
therefore, consistently accompanied by auditions which had a
charge or a commision as content. We will have to return to
this point (see below, p. 216).
In addition to the allusion to Ps. 110:1 in Test. Job and the
few other texts which contain the m otif o f the glorified martyr
and righteous one at the right hand o f God, perhaps other
psalms played a certain role. These presumably belonged

to the ypa(J)ai o f 1 Cor. 15:4 and were christologically inter
preted; at the same time they could be understood in terms o f
a participation o f the ‘dead in Christ’ in the exaltation o f their
Lord. I have already made mention o f Ps. 80:18; Luke quotes
Ps. 16:8-1 lb (with the exception o f the last part o f the verse) in
the sermon o f Peter, Acts 2:25-28. According to Luke, Christ
himself speaks through the mouth o f David; the first person o f
the one speaking refers to him whose resurrection is explicidy
mentioned beginning with v. 10:
8 npoopcojaqv töv KÛpiov évcomov pou ôià navTÔç,
ÖTi £K ôeÇicov \iov (kî mîmînî) éonv
ïva jjirj oaÀeuGâ).
9 ôià toOto qu(J)pav0q r\ xapôia \lov
Kai qyaÀÀiàoaTO rj yÀôooa jiou,
£Ti ôè Kai rj oapÇ jxou
KaTaoKqvcoo£i én’ éÀniôi,
10 ÖTi ouk éyKaTaÀ£iij;£i<; Tqv ipuxqv jiod dç qÔqv
ouôè Ôcdoeiç töv öoiöv oou iô âv ôia(j)9opàv.
11 éyvcopioâç jaoi ôôoùç ^coqc;,
nÀqpcooac; jji£ £Û<J)pooi3vr[c; ji£Tà toû npooconoi) ood,
[T£pnvÔTr]T£<;218év Tfj Ô£îq. oou eiç T£Àoç.]
He who speaks here is at the side o f God or more exactly: God
supports him as his legal counsel (see above, p. 136, n. 41). At
the end o f the passage (which Luke omits) is an expression o f
the certitude that all good things are present for all time
( neiîmôt Ummeka nce$ah) through God’s right hand (or at the
right side o f God) .219Similarly before creation the Gan Eden is
to the right o f the throne o f God and Gehinnom to the left
according to Midr. Teh. 90.12 (cf. Matt. 25:31-34).
In contrast to the occasionally appearing general idea that
certain righteous ones, martyrs or pious ones reside in a
218Varia lectio: xepnvoxqq; Syrhex hdjrwth, splendor gloria in marg.
219The new version o f the Latin psalter, which was authorized by Pius XII in
1945, translates Delicias ad dexteram tuam in perpetuum; the Rabbinic interpreta
tion o f the psalm Pes. RKah. 27:2 (cf. Pes. R. 51:4) is: ‘Three who bring (to you)
delight, stand at your right hand.’ The question here is which group o f the
righteous are most loved by God and bring him the most delight: ‘They will sit at
the right hand o f the Holy One in the coming world’ ( shm *tjdjn Ijsb bjmjnw si
hqbh). In his paraphrase o f Acts 2 Irenaeus quotes from the psalm only the verses
8-10 (adv. haer. 3.12.2).
general way at the right hand o f God, the exaltation o f the

Crucified One is a unique honour. For just that reason he was
neither received into the company o f the martyr-prophets or
the men o f God o f the old covenant nor was he counted as one
o f the highest angels (as later Metatron was); with his resur
rection he was given an incomparable eschatological honour
and function which surpasses all known religio-historical
parallels. This event can be explained on the basis o f the Old
Testament only as the utilization o f Ps. 110:1 (in connection
with Dan. 7).
10. Wisdom as God’s Companion on the Throne
We need to briefly consider Wisdom as God’s companion on

the throne, because this motif, which is probably older than
the Gospel o f John, influenced christology at least in the
prologue to the gospel. In Prov. 8:29f. wisdom is in the
proximity o f God as a child which is playing and in which God
delights (see above, p. 149). The book o f Sirach begins with
the statement: ‘All wisdom comes from the Lord and is with
him for ever’;220 ‘sitting upon his throne, he himself created
her . . . and poured her out upon all o f his works.’221 In Sir.
24:3f. she proceeds from the mouth o f the Highest, lives on
high in heaven and thrones on a pillar o f clouds (Kai ô Opovoç
pou év oxuÀcp ve<j)éAi}(;).222
In the Wisdom o f Solomon in the first century bc this motif
appears more prominently. In the prayer for wisdom, Solomon
asks (Wis. Sol. 9:4) that God may give him ‘wisdom, his
companion on the throne’ (ôoç poi xqv xöv o ö v Opövov
napeôpov oo(J)tav). In another place (8:3) he can say o f her:
‘She glorifies her noble birth (cf. Sir. 24:1) by living with God’
(oupßicooiv 0£Oî 3exouoa). Nevertheless God should send her,
who was with him from the beginning, forth ‘from the throne
o f his glory’ (9:10). The highly mythological picture o f the
divine companion on the throne may have an analogy in the
220 Sir. 1:1: Ilctoa oocjria napà Kupiou Kai jjiex’ aùxoC éoxiv eîç xöv aiöva.
221Sir. l:8f.: KaOqpevoc; ém xo\3 Opövou aùxoO. Kupioç aùxoç êkxiocv aûxrjv .
. . Kai e^é\eew ém nävxa xà ëpya aûxoû.
222 See M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, W U N T 10 ( 31988), pp. 284-92.
cult o f Isis; or it may be analogous to the cult o f Yahu in

the Jewish diaspora in Egypt during the Persian era as in
Elephantine the Jewish military settlers worshipped beside
Yahweh his paredroi Anath-Yahu, Eshembethel and Anath-
bethel. It has, however, at the same time a Jewish-Palestinian
parallel. In 1 En. 84:3 the prayer o f Enoch includes the
formulation: ‘Wisdom does not elude you and retreats
neither from the “place” o f your throne nor from your
presence.’223
The influence o f these texts (or the traditions o f the pre
existence o f a hypostatic wisdom which lie behind them)
upon christology and specifically upon the christology o f
the Corpus Johanneum is well known. It appears also in a
second traditio-historical trajectory which deals with the
communion o f the Pre-existent and Exalted One with the
Father; this development is also not unrelated to Ps. 110. Very
probably Ps. 110:1 was the origin and the confirmation o f the
idea o f the unique heavenly communion o f the Exalted One
and God upon the throne. The allusion to a prç-existence in
Ps. 110:3 (even though the verse itself appears for the first
time in quotation by Justin)224 favoured the connection
between the Son o f God and the divine wisdom, a development
which lead to the idea - that is already documented by Paul -
o f the pre-existence o f Christ and his participation in creation.
The communion o f Jesus as the Son with God on the throne,
which began in time as the result o f the resurrection and
exaltation o f Jesus, was the impulse for the idea that the
communion was ‘eternal’ and has existed from the beginning.
God’s eschatological revelation and salvation through the
Son thus becomes inseparable from his protological revelation
in creation. G od’s action in history, his maintenance o f
creation and his revelation to Israel took place in unity with
the Son. The Son as Wisdom (or Logos) became from the
223Translation loosely follows Uhlig; see there (JSHRZ V6, p. 667, n. 3c) also
for the textual problems and the many parallels. For Elephantine, see M. Görg,
Neues Bibellexikon I, pp. 512f. (lit.); see E. Hennequin, Art. ‘Elephantine’, DBS 11
(1934), pp. 962-1031, and B. Porten in Cambridge History o f Judaism I (1984), pp.
385ff., 391ff.
224Apol. I 45.2-4; dial. 32.6; 45.4; 63.3; 76.7; 83.2, 4. See above, pp. 127f.
beginning God’s ‘companion on the throne’ in inseparable

communion with God.225
11. The Function of Ps. 110:1 in the Development

of the Earliest Christology
As we - in a final section - pose the question o f the function
and the significance o f Ps. 110:1 for the development o f the
exaltation christology and its relation to the resurrection
appearances, we are only too aware o f the difficulty o f this
problem. It is a question o f the relatively short period o f time
between the death o f Jesus and the conversion o f Paul, that is,
two, three or at most four years; it was a time that is historically
impenetrable because sources are lacking, a time charac
terized by precipitous events and developments. On the basis
o f Gnostic and apocalyptic statements that the time period over
which the appearances o f the Lord took place was a year and a
half, Harnack conjectured that the time period in question was
an even shorter one o f only eighteen months.226It is that time
period for which one should reserve the term ‘pre-Pauline’, a
term that is often used (and misused).
Several historical facts can perhaps be established: To them
belong the return o f the ‘twelve’ to Jerusalem at Pentecost for
the purpose o f presenting to the people, who were gathered
for the first festival since the Passover o f Jesus’ death, the
enormity o f the resurrection o f Jesus and for the purpose o f
calling them to repentance in the light o f the coming o f the
Son o f Man as judge. That is probably the historical kernel o f
the story o f Pentecost as told by Luke which perhaps has
something to do with the ‘appearance’ in the presence o f the
500 brothers (1 Cor. 15:6). Presumably an enthusiastic
experience o f the Spirit and the first success at missions in
225 See the (overly) cautious judgement o f G. Schimanowski, op. cit. (n. 71),
pp. 136ff. For the early wisdom christology, see M. Hengel, ‘Jesus als
messianischer Lehrer der Weisheit und die Anfänge der Christologie’, in Sagesse
et Religion. Colloque de Strasbourg (octobre 1976) (Paris, 1979), pp. 147-88, above,
pp. 73-117; H. Gese, ‘Die Weisheit, der Menschensohn und die Ursprünge der
Christologie als konsequente Entfaltung der biblischen Theologie’, in
Alttestamentliche Studien (Tübingen, 1991), pp. 218-48.
220 See the Habilitationsschrift o f R. Riesner, op. cit. (n. 80).
Jerusalem were connected with this festival, which then led to

conflicts with the Sadducean leadership. One result o f the first
missionary activity was the development o f a Greek-speaking
group in the congregation which brought the messianic
agitation into the Hellenistic synagogues in Jerusalem, an
agitation that led to resistance and ultimately to the killing o f
Stephen. An ambitious young Pharisaic teacher, Saul from
Tarsus, attempted to drive out this group o f heretical
enthusiasts who were creating unrest; he was successful, but at
the same time his life was radically changed.227
The brief sketch o f the events which are well known from
Acts 2-7, but which at the same time are controversial, shows
that the earliest Jerusalem congregation was no little band o f
apocalyptic quietists who in hiding were awaiting the
immanent return o f Jesus, the Son o f Man, whom God had
taken away to a secret place. Just the opposite: Jesus appeared
to Peter/Cephas, to the ‘twelve’ and to the others, whom Paul
lists in a report (1 Cor. 15:5-7) that does not include all o f
those who were affected (one would, for example, need to
include the women whom Paul ignores) ;228the appearances o f
the crucified Jesus as the Son o f Man/Messiah whom God had
resurrected was certainly experienced as an entirely un
expected, even revolutionary event that radically changed the
situation. It can be explained neither simply psychologically as
the result o f the impression that the personality o f Jesus had
made upon his disciples nor as the influence o f the supposedly
coalesced traditions o f the fate o f the suffering righteous one
and o f the martyr. The very complex early Christian traditions
do not admit to being thrown upon a traditio-historical
Procrustean bed constructed by modern authors. The
appearances may have spread themselves out over many weeks
or even months and it is difficult for us to gain an overview o f
the group o f people who experienced them. For Paul on the
other hand the number o f the witnesses is as limited as the
time-span o f the appearances: He stands with his ‘untimely’
appearance as the last one, clearly distanced from the witnesses
227 See M. Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul (London, 1991).
228 See M. Hengel, ‘Maria Magdalena und die Frauen als Zeugen’, in Abraham
unser Vater. Festschrift for O. Michel, A GSU 5 (Leiden, 1963), pp. 243-56.
whom he previously listed, and he emphasizes at the same time

that he is the last witness. This distance separates him also from
the ànooxoÀot nàvxeç at the end o f the list whose number
we do not know, but who are limited to the circle o f those
who ‘saw* the resurrected Lord and who were sent out by him
(1 Cor. 9:lf.; 15:8). Because o f the lateness in time o f the
appearance to him and presumably because o f the lack o f any
connection with the ‘earthly Jesus’ his calling as apostle was
disputed during his lifetime. The restriction in Luke’s work to
the ‘ twelve’ and to the forty days is an apologetic limitation
which solidifies the position that was taken over against Paul;
the author to Theophilus did not just create this position, but
it is rather one that in nuce possibly goes back to those
Jerusalem traditions which he also utilizes in Acts 1-7 (cf. Rev.
21:14; Matt. 10:2; Mark 6:20 and 3:14). ‘Tradition’ and
‘redaction’ cannot be so certainly separated as one today likes
to claim; Luke was too good a stylist for that. It could be that
the appearance to the 500 brothers (1 Cor. 15:6) marks that
event, that Luke describes in the story o f Pentecost. In any case
one can deduce from the reports o f the resurrection and from
our earliest witness, Paul, that it was not a matter only o f
‘visions’ , but also o f ‘auditions’ ; the commission o f the
Resurrected One would otherwise be unintelligible.
But what was the meaning and content o f this commission?
The ‘messengers o f the Messiah Jesus’ were supposed to
announce the crucified Messiah, Jesus o f Nazareth, as the
one who was resurrected from the dead and exalted to God,
whose messianic claim was thus ‘j ustified’ by God himself
and whom Israel - as he himself announced - should await as
the coming ‘Son o f Man’ according to Dan. 7:13 and judge.
His resurrection was - as anticipation - the beginning o f
the general resurrection and the period until his coming to
judgement was a period o f grace to permit the repentance o f
the people o f God. The ‘exaltation to God’ could not be better
circumscribed than in dependency upon Ps. 110:1 with the
formula o f ‘sitting at the right hand o f God’ , that is, in the
language o f the time: sharing the ‘throne o f glory’ , which is
above the divine throne-chariot, with God himself. With that
there was connected an eschatological authorization. In terms
o f content the kingdom o f God and the kingdom o f the

Messiah became practically identical.
With reference to the new message there are several
presuppositions to consider which demonstrate that the
enthronement o f Christ according to Ps. 110:1 was a part o f
the early Christian proclamation since the revolutionary
original event.
1. The sources report unequivocally thatjesus, because o f

his provoking claim to authority, was turned over by the
high priestly leaders to the Romans as a messianic pretender,
that is, the post-Easter majesty o f Jesus is inseparable from
his own eschatological-messianic activity.229 It is entirely
possible that Jesus - similar to the way it is reported in
Mark 14:62 - provoked the highest Jewish court, which tried
him, to the utmost with a claim that pointed to his future
identity with the coming judge. Because Jewish hopes about
the future nowhere include the enthronement in messianic-
eschatological honour through resurrection from the dead,
the origin o f christology appears unthinkable without the
assumption o f a messianic claim ofjesus. Christology cannot
be based alone upon the resurrection appearances. Without
such an assumption the early Christian appropriation o f Ps.
110:1 would be particularly incomprehensible.
2. After his death the martyr and the suffering righteous
one could be given a place o f honour in paradise or even at the
‘good* right side next to the throne o f God, but he shares this
place o f honour with many other perfect righteous and pious
ones who also ‘throne’ in proximity to God. A unique escha
tological function or a granting o f power was not associated
with it.
3. The resurrection o f Jesus meant for the first witnesses
much more than, and something radically different from, the
reappearance o f a dead person - in the ancient world people
knew much about ghosts or the art o f necromancy. Thus the
criticism was soon made that the Christians were the victims o f
229 See M. Hengel, ‘Jesus der Messias Israels’, in I. Gruenwald, et al. (eds)
Messiah and Christos. Festschrift for David Flusser TSAJ 32 (Tübingen, 1992), pp.
155-76 (long English version see above, pp. 1-72).
the appearance o f a ghost.230 It was not just a question o f the

simple assurance that Jesus was not dead, but lives again,
perhaps in the place o f the blessed in the heavenly world as
one often assumed - even without appearances or visions -
about the exceptionally pious and particularly the martyrs. Nor
did people claim that God took him away and ‘hid’ him in
heaven, either under the altar (Rev. 6:9) or in some heavenly
place o f rest such as in the case o f the elect one or the son o f
man in the Similitudes (1 En. 46:6; 62:7; cf. 39:6f.) or under
the divine throne like the blessed pious and the soul o f the
pre-existent Messiah immediately after the creation.231 The
Christian text Rev. 11:1 If. should not simply be declared to be
a pre-Christian tradition because it is itself already influenced
by the christological kerygma.
4. The post-Easter ‘enthusiasm’ was the intellectual ‘fasci
nation’ o f those who were affected by the appearances o f Jesus,
appearances which different groups experienced in different
places and which took place over a time period that is difficult
to estimate, but that was not all too long. Luke did not
exaggerate this enthusiasm, but more probably played it down
in light o f the Church which soon after 70 was through
institutions integrated into the world. His portrayal o f the
events o f Pentecost painted over with legendary elements - the
emphasis o f the eschatologically motivated àyaAAiaoiç (Acts
2:46), the prayer that stormed heaven and caused the earth to
quake (4:23-31), or the vision o f Stephen at his death - lets us
see in shadowy contours the original enthusiasm that was
wrought by the Spirit and through which the congregation
was founded. The dynamic o f the beginnings o f Christianity,
which still reverberates in the simple listing 1 Cor. 15:3-8, is in
Luke’s portrayal relatively pale and fragmentarily visible. There
230 Cf. Luke 24:37-9: nveüpa, Cod. D. and Marcion(?) (JxSvxaopa; Ignatius,
Smyr. 3.2: öxi o ù k eipl Ôaipovtov àacojaaxov. Later one brought the Christian
message o f the resurrection o f Jesus into relationship with necromancy and
accused the Christians o f black magic. Jesus as ‘biothanatos’ was a restless soul
and as such mislead the disciples, see M. Hengel, La Crucifixion dans l ’A ntiquité et
la folie du message de la Croix (Paris, 1981), pp. 69ff.; W. Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im
Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (1900; repr.. 1967), pp. 482f.
231 Bill. II, pp. 267f.; 348f.
was probably not only one, but a whole sequence o f ‘pourings

out o f the Spirit’ (cf. 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:8).
5. These stormy events provided an impulse to missions
among the Jewish people in Jewish Palestine, which was in this
form new and unknown both to Judaism and also to the
‘foreigners’ from the Greek-speaking diaspora who lived in
Jerusalem. The remaining time for penance for Israel had
to be utilized, the people had to be called to repentance. Those
who experienced the appearances became the selîhîn sœl
masiah, ànooxoÀoi Xpiaoû messengers o f Jesus, the Messiah.
The event at Pentecost had as its basis such an early missionary
success in Jerusalem: After the Passover in which Jesus died
the entire group o f followers o f Jesus was for the first time
together again; this gathering was accompanied by mani
festations which people interpreted as ‘appearances’ o f the
Resurrected One. The creation o f a Greek-speaking faction in
the congregation, the Hellenists, is a witness to this earliest
‘aggressive’ mission in Jerusalem, which provoked the quick
counter-reaction o f the authorities who were understandably
disturbed by such fanatic enthusiasm.232 They believed that
they had rooted out the threatening ‘messianic fanaticism’
when they turned Jesus as messianic pretender over to the
Roman prefect. And now it raised its head again like a Hydra.
6. The eschatological-missionary enthusiasm needed a
relatively clearly defined message in order to serve as the
basis for the founding o f congregations. This had three
sources: {a) The present experience o f the appearances o f the
Resurrected One. ( b) The memory o f Jesus’ messianic claim
and his message,233 o f the personal communion with him and
o f his crucifixion as a messianic pretender, which was tainted
by his own failure and was experienced as a catastrophe by his
followers - all memories that were still vividly alive. (c) The
eschatological-messianic quotations which Jews knew from
memory, in particular those o f the messianic songs o f the
psalter, were present in the minds o f Jesus’ followers. Driven by
the Spirit - Luke would say Çécov t G> riveupcra (Acts 18:25; cf.
232 See my study The Pre-Christian Paul (London, 1991).

233 1 call attention to my article ‘Jesus der Messias Israels’ op. cit. (n. 229).
Rom. 12:11) - people sung them as psalms o f the present

fulfilment o f the prophetic predictions in honour o f the
exalted Messiah/Son o f Man; beyond that they were used in
missionary preaching and argumentative discussion by
Christians who without acquired training interpreted the
scriptures with charismatic spontaneity. The widespread
composition o f hymns in early Christianity developed out o f
these messianic psalms; unfortunately only a few fragments o f
these hymns have been preserved.234
7. A motivating force in this development was the
consciousness that early Christians were ‘inspired' by the Holy
Spirit, G od’s eschatological gift, and that they ‘interpreted
things wrought by the Spirit in a spiritual fashion’ (cf. 1 Cor.
2:14). The psalter was from the beginning - next to or even
exceeding Isaiah - the most important collection o f texts that
was used by the new messianic movement as scriptural proof.
David, the king and prophet, himself praised in the psalms his
future ‘son’ who was at the same time ‘lord’ .
8. Among these ‘messianic’ psalms which were interpreted
as referring to the Resurrected One, Ps. 110 had a unique
significance. In this psalm the burning question o f the present
‘place’ o f the one whom God ‘raised from the dead’,235 is
answered unambiguously and unsurpassedly. The rudimentary
question o f the ‘place’ o f the Resurrected One was already
answered for our earliest literary witness so distinctively that
he no longer needed to pose it. Jesus, the Son o f Man/Messiah,
was ‘enthroned’ at the right hand o f God; one could even say:
The ‘Son’ (cf. Rom. 1:4) was ‘with the Father'. Through the
resurrection o f Jesus and - inseparable from that - his
enthronement as companion on the throne o f God, whom
Jesus himself called upon as ‘abba’ , God had demonstrated
that he was really the ‘father o fjesu s Christ’ . Paul was an
apostle ‘not from humans’ but ‘through Jesus Christ and God,
the Father, who raised him from the dead’ (Gal. 1:1; cf. Rom.
234 M. Hengel, ‘The Song about Christ in Earliest Worship’ (see below, pp.
227-91), idem, ‘Hymnus und Christologie’, in Wort in der Zeit. Festgabe fü r K. H.
Rengstorf (Leiden, 1980), pp. 1-23.
235 Cf. Rom. 4:24; 6:4,9; 8:11, 34; 10:7; 1 Cor. 15:12, 20; Gal. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:10;
Acts 3:15; 4:10; 13:30.
6:4). The acclamation ‘abba’, which Paul taught to his gentile

congregations, was applicable to the father ofjesus Christ, who
through the Son became the father o f all believers. For Paul
the resurrection ofjesus Christ as the ‘first fruits o f those who
have fallen asleep’ (1 Cor. 15:20, 23) guarantees the later
resurrection o f the believers, whom Paul assured, that the Son
was ‘ the firstborn among many brethren’ (Rom. 8:29; cf. Col.
1:18; Rev. 1:5; Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Thess. 4:14).
The enthronement ofjesus, the crucified Messiah, as the ‘Son’
with the Father ‘through the resurrection from the dead’
belongs to the oldest message which all o f the missionaries
proclaimed in common; it was with this proclamation that the
‘messengers o f the Messiah’ summoned their own people to
repentance and to faith in the ‘Messiah o f Israel’, who had
been crucified and resurrected by God and exalted to his right
hand.236
9. In Hebrews there is an indication which points to

the age o f this tradition: The Son is superior to the angels.
The first and last quotation from the Psalms in Heb. 1 - v. 5
quoting Ps. 2:7 and v. 13 quoting Ps. 110:1 - are introduced
by the almost identical question: ‘To what angel did God ever
say . . . ?’ In the oldest and christologically most significant
texts in the New Testament we find no traces o f an angel
christology. An angel christology was a real possibility since in
Judaism the pious ones and the martyrs, who were exalted to
God, are otherwise brought into close relationship with the
angels. In Hebrews every tendency in the direction o f an angel
christology is strictly rejected and in Revelation it appears only
in the context o f isolated visionary pictures and metaphors. It
does appear in later texts, but these do not reflect consistently
on christology: Examples are the Shepherd o f Hermas or the
Hypotyposeis o f Clement o f Alexandria (which was probably
influenced by a Gnostic exegesis o f Mark 14:62).237In the New
Testament the angels have a position beneath the Son; they
praise and serve him as God himself. In the descriptions o f the
236Gal. 1:16; cf. Acts 9:20, see M. Hengel, Der Sohn Gottes (Tübingen, 21977).
237 Clement o f Alexandria, Hypotyposen (GCS 17* Stählin, Bd. III), 1970, p.
209.
parousia in early Christianity they belong to the retinue o f the

coming Son o f Man or Kyrios.238 Only the Resurrected One
deserves that place with which a Jew could express the closest
conceivable communion with God: as the companion on the
throne at the right hand o f God. He is not one o f the angels or
the highest o f the angels as Metatron/Enoch, the ‘heavenly
vizier’; only the unique honour o f sitting ‘at the right hand
o f God’ befits him, as it is expressed in the various variations o f
the Roman baptismal creed: avaoxdvxa bk vsKptöv, avaßavxa
dç xoùç oûpavoùç Kai KaOqpevov év ôeîa toü naxpoç;.239
10. It is significant that at first the event of the ‘ascension’ itself
does not play a role. Resurrection and ascension are one act.
Only later did the ascension little by little become
independent, even though I do not believe - in opposition to
G. Lohfink240 - that the portrayal as an event forty days after
Easter was a creation o f Luke. In contrast to the parousia it is
never painted in detail. Even Luke (Acts l:9ff.; 24:51) is
reserved in his description o f the event itself, and contains at
the most several allusions which are related primarily to the
heavenly sanctuary.241 It is astonishing how scanty the early
Christian allusions are, even in secondary texts such as Mark
16:19 or in the works o f Justin (see above, n. 21). A detailed
description appears for the first time in the Ascensio Jesaiae, >
which was written at the beginning o f the second century.242
On this point the earliest Christian texts differ significantly
from the contemporary Jewish portrayals o f heavenly journeys
or from the later Hekhalot-literature.
11. The exalted Son o f God is identical with the ‘ (Son o f)
Man’ - the idea o f which was prepared by Dan. 7:13 and the
Similitudes - whose coming as judge Jesus predicted and thus
connected in an enigmatic way with his own person (Luke
238 Mark 8:38, par.; 13:26f.; Matt. 25:31; Luke 9:26; 12:8f.; Rev. 19:14ff., 17, 19.
239According to Marcellus o f Ancyra ca. ad 337 see A. (and L.) Hahn, Bibliothek
der Symbole. . . (Breslau, 31897), p. 23 §17, etc. = Epiphanius, pan. 72.3.1 (GCS
III, p. 258,1. 6-13 = fr. 129 Klostermann).
240 G. Lohfink, op. cit. (n. 24); cf. John 20:17, that points to certain ‘secret
traditions’ o f the Johannine school and its head.
241 Heb. 4:14; 7:26; 9:24; cf. 2:10.
242 Cf. A. Acerbi, VAscensione di Isaia, op. cit. (n. 171).
12:8f.; Mark 14:62). For the disciples who had already

addressed their teacher as Rabbi or rabbûni which is identical
to ‘Lord’ - ribbôn/rabbôn sæl ‘öläm was a common address for
God in prayer - the Exalted One was now maran ‘our Lord’ .
The acclamation maran’Ha, which was inspired by the Spirit,
expressed this peculiar relationship o f the disciples to their
Lord. The ’adonî in Ps. 110:1 could be applied to him, even if
one distinguished between the Qerê ’adônaj, that was used for
the Father, and the ’adonî, which was appropriated for the Son.
The claim, that a christological exegesis o f Ps. 110:1 and the
application o f the title ‘Lord’ to Jesus was first made possible
by the L X X is misleading. In New Testament times ’“donaj (or
Kupioç) was the Qerê for the Tetragramm for the Hebrew
speaking (or the Greek-speaking) reading o f the scriptures in
the worship o f the synagogue and very possibly Kupioç had
already found its way into some o f the manuscripts o f the
Septuagint (see above, p. 156, n. 81 ). The play on words ’adonî-
’adônaj was almost more impressive in the Hebrew language
than was ô Kupioç and xcj) Kupicp pou in the LXX.
12. Significant was finally also Ps. 110:1b which pointed to a

time period: ‘ad 5 asît ’ojebœkâ hadom leraglœkâ. The time period
between the exaltation and the revelation o f the enthroned
Lord and ‘Son (o f M an)’ could be justified with v. lb. God
himself must subdue the opposition o f the enemies o f Jesus,
who appeared to have triumphed at his death. These are on
the one hand the powers in opposition to God, demonic and
human (cf. 1 Cor. 2:8; cf. also Ps. 2:Iff.). Paul calls death the
last ‘enemy’ (1 Cor. 15:26). But this ‘ad 5asît could also and
even primarily mean the subjugation o f the human ‘enemies’
through repentance and new obedience. Paul had been such
an ‘enemy’ o f Jesus (cf. 2 Cor. 5:16), and he can say later: ‘For
while we were enemies we were reconciled to God’ (Rom. 5:10,
cf. v. 8 and Rom. 4:6). The subjugation o f the ‘enemies’ is thus
ambiguous. It happened at first and visibly through the
enthusiastic effectiveness o f the messengers who were
empowered by the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor. 10:4ff.). Psalm 110:1b could
thus sufficiently explain why the Resurrected and Exalted One
did not immediately reveal his power over against the
‘enemies’ . God himself has set a time period through the

temporal ‘ad ’asît. . . for the proclamation o f his offering o f
salvation to Israel through the ‘messengers o f Jesus, the
Messiah’ . The fact that in Ps. 101:1b God appears as subject
does not exclude the possibility that the one who is exalted to
his right hand can act in the royal authority o f the Father.
Significant for Paul is the interchangeability o f the subjects and
the ultimate unity o f action between the Father and the Son.
In such a unity both could be called upon as Kyrios.
13. There remains the question: Doesn’t one have to pre
suppose a more differentiated development which then also
should be reconstructed? That appears to me to be almost
impossible in the light o f the very short time period o f the
development o f christology between the Passover at which
Jesus died and the time o f the conversion o f Paul. There are
many issues that are unknown or controversial: For example,
on the question o f the concrete form o f the messianic claim o f
Jesus or o f the reasons for his crucifixion. In my opinion we
must presuppose that he was crucified because o f his claim to
be the Messiah. Further we know too little about the
appearances, about the time period over which they took place,
the places where they were experienced and the persons who
experienced them. For the period o f these first weeks and
months it is no longer possible to relate specific ideas to certain
groups or to clearly differentiate temporally between ‘very
early’ and ‘a little later’ .243
14. Our traditio-historical system o f index cards, which cuts
up the living connections and the enormous intellectual and
spiritual impulse o f the resurrection appearances and the
dynamic o f the earliest congregation which it set free, leads us
easily astray. In these agitated months o f the beginning, that
are so impenetrable for us and that were so bright and shining
for the disciples, manifold movements and discoveries were
possible that took place independent o f one another or
together with one another or even in a disorderly ‘confusion’ .
243 This central problem o f the very narrow chronology is too little recognized
today, see my article that was written in 1972: ‘Christologie und neutesta-
mentliche Chronologie’ (see n. 43).
The experiences o f the Resurrected One together with the

developments o f the earliest exaltation christology make up a
closely tied knot, whose individual threads we cannot cleanly
separate and chronologically order, all the more so because
the world o f ideas which was influenced by the eschatological
enthusiasm and the way o f thinking o f the first disciples are
directly contrary to our analytical methods. The only thing that
is clear is that intensive christological reflection began with the
first appearances and that it then quickly developed in a
stormy, almost explosive, way. Luke, who represented a
relatively ‘bourgeois Christianity for the educated’ says not too
much, but much too little. Paul’s amazing ‘enthusiasm’ allied
with clear thinking has its roots in this event which shook the
small group o f disciples. The statement o f Ps. 110:1 played a
key role: It makes the christological meaning o f the events for
the first time completely clear. Paul already presupposes this
without often explicitly using the text. Perhaps this is the case
because his Jewish-Christian opponents and the Hellenistic
fanatics made all the more use o f it.
15. The Johannine christology, which progressed beyond
this text, is nevertheless dependent upon its presuppositions.
For John the unity o f Father and Son has outgrown the
anthropomorphic picture o f the communality o f throne and
is, influenced by an older Wisdom tradition, concentrated on
the more intimate image o f the father and the child on his lap
(John 1:18). For the fact that the creed o f the Church
nevertheless - correctly - retains the sessio ad dexteram is due to
the opposition to Gnostic docetism, which did not want to
tolerate the bodily Resurrected One ‘to the right hand o f God’ .
Theologically this creed, which goes back to the earliest
beginnings, is a basic presupposition o f the christological
reflection and o f the development o f creeds within the early
Church, a presupposition which is given much too little
attention in theological investigation. It is the very first step to
the ôpooûoioç T(p naxpi o f Nicaea, for he, with whom God
shares his throne, must also be ‘equal with God’ (Phil. 2:6).
4
The Song about Christ

in Earliest Worship1
XOÙÇ OOÙÇ à(})8À8Ï<;
naïôaç äyeipov
aiveîv àyuoç
ùjavEîv àôoÀcoç
ClKCtKOlÇ ÔTOJiaOlV
naiôow rjyqxopa Xpioxov
Clement of Alexandria (n. 58)
1. The Wide Attestation o f Jewish Psalmody and the Paucity

o f Early Christian Witnesses to the Song in Worship
In a lecture with the title ‘Nature and Art in the New
Testament’2- a title that is more representative o f the time o f
Goethe than that o f the early Christianity - Theodor Zahn
indicates a significant difference between the Old and the
New Testament:
1 This sketch, which encompasses the theme only until the beginning o f the
third century, is based upon a presentation that I made in a seminar o f
theologians and philologians in the summer semester o f 1983 that Günther
Zuntz and I jointly directed. Still unsurpassed is the overview o f the material by
J. Kroll, Die christliche Hymnodik bis zu Klemens von Alexandreia (Akad. Braunsberg
summer 1921 and winter 1921/2, 3-46, 47-98; repr. Darmstadt, 21968); cf.
W. Caspari, ‘Untersuchungen zum Kirchengesang im Altertum’, Z K G 26 (1905),
317-47, 425-46; 29 (1908), 123-53, 441-78; F. Leitner, Der gottesdienstliche
Volksgesang im jüdischen und christlichen Altertum (1906), pp. 26-103; T. Gerold,
Les Pères de VEglise et la Musique ( 1931 ) ;J. Quasten, Musik und Gesang in den Kulten
der heidnischen Antike und der christlichen Frühzeit, LQ F 25 (1930; 21973); S. Corbin,
L'Eglise à la conquête de sa musique (1960); J. Fontaine, Naissance de la poésie dans
Voccident chrétien (1981), pp. 25-38; A. Hamman, Prières des premiers chrétiens
(21962). Texts and commentary by T. Wolbergs, Psalmen und Hymnen der Gnosis
227
In comparison with the Old the New Testament is a book of prose.

First we have historical books, the content of which excluded the
free play of poetic fantasy . . . Then we have the letters, mostly
incidental letters, that were often written under unpleasant
circumstances and which were intended to serve the practical
needs of congregational life.
Even if one does not want to radically exclude the role o f
‘poetic fantasy’ in the New Testament ‘historical works’ , one
must concede that this collection o f texts from earliest
Christianity leaves little room for conscious ‘poetic structur
ing’ in poem and song. It includes no body o f songs or prayers
as does the Old Testament for Israel (or the L X X with ‘psalms’
and ‘odes’ for the Church). The twenty-seven works o f the
New Testament leave us almost entirely in the dark as to liturgy
and song in earliest worship.
With one exception, that didn’t evade the notice o f the
great scholar from Erlangen:
In the other world, into which the apostle John was privileged to
see, there are no instructional lectures, no stimulating or boring
sermons to be heard, but on the contrary much music.3
And one might add: The heavenly poetry that accompanies
the music.
It is true that the four animals, which in Revelation acclaim
‘holy, holy, holy’4 and thus create the foundation o f the
und des frühen Christentums (1971); for the New Testament: R. Deichgräber,
Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit, StUNT 5 (1967); for
Judaism: F. Werner, The Sacred Bridge. The Independence o f Liturgy and Music in
Synagogue and Church during the First Millennium (1959); K. E. Grözinger, Musik
und Gesang in der Theologie derfrühen jüdischen Literatur; TSAJ 3 (1982). As a point
o f departure: E. Norden, Agnostos Theos (1913; repr. 1956). For important sugges
tions I thank Dr Anna Maria Schwemer. Some references were provided by Prof.
H. C. Brennecke. See now M. Lattke, Hymnus. Materialien in einer Geschichteder
Hymnologie, N T O A 19, 1991.
2 N K Z 10 (1899), 287-312 (291).
3 Op. cit., 307. Musical instruments: KiOapa 5:8; 15:2; cf. 14:2; oàÀniyÇ 8:2, 6,
13; 9:14; qôeiv/cpôrj 5:9; 14:3; 15:3; liturgical-hymnic passages: 4:8, 11; 5:9f.;
5:12f.; 7:10, 12, 14-17; ll:l7 f.; 12:10, 12; 15:3f.; 16:5f.; 19:2-8.
4Rev. 4:8; cf. 1 En. 39:12; see R. Deichgräber, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 47ff. It is the
only occurrence o f the Trishagion in the New Testament; cf. below, n. 97. The
introductory scene o f the heavenly worship service is o f primary significance.
The unceasing cult o f the four beasts and the twenty-four elders before the
The Song about Christ in Earliest Worship 229
unbroken worship in the heavenly temple, the twenty-four

elders with golden bowls o f incense and harps in their hands,
who ‘sing’ the ‘new song’ in honour o f the ‘lamb that had
been slain’,5 and also the martyrs on the ‘crystal sea’ with
‘divine harps’ (exovxac; xàç Ktéàpaç xoö Geoü), who raise
their voices in the ‘song o f Moses... and o f the lamb’ ,6belong
entirely to the heavenly world: The singing and playing
martyrs have been freed from the earthly world with its
persecutions and sufferings. They cannot do anything other
than praise their saviour in hymns.
Recent studies have uniformly demonstrated, however, that
one can only with great reservation draw conclusions about
the simple earthly worship services o f the small earthly con
gregations in the first century from the triumphal, heavenly
choirs and hymns in Revelation.7 I f at all one could possibly
throne o f God is the point o f origin o f the salvific event, which is concluded in
22:3f. with the unceasing ÀaxpEueiv o f all the saved before the ‘throne o f God
and o f the Lam b’.
5 5:8-10; cf. 14:3: The number 24 is probably taken from the twenty-four classes
o f singers and priests (1 Chr. 25:9-31; 24:7-18). The incense at the temple has
been spiritualized as ‘the prayers o f the holy ones’. The one true sacrifice with
universal relevance is that o f the ‘sacrificial Lamb’ 5:6, 9, 12; 13:8. That is, the
earthly cult o f the temple no longer has relevance for the seer: see below n. 8. The
‘new song’ o f the heavenly worship is for the ‘Lam b’; to him is given the
responsibility to carry out the eschatological events that are beginning (5:5, 8).
6 15:2f. The inspired Song o f Moses, Exod. 15:1-18, that was spoken
antiphonally in Israel, means according to contemporary Jewish traditions the
recognition by Israel o f the rule o f God; at the same time it was - particularly in
the diaspora - the most important hymn o f the O ld Testament, see mSota 5.4;
tSota 6.2 (1. 303); MekEx 15.1 (Lauterbach, 2.2ff., 7ff.); Philo, vit. contempl.
85ff. cf. leg. all. 2.102; agric. 79f., 82; e b r .lll; somn. 2.269; vit. Mos. 1.180; 2.256;
Josephus, ant. 2.346; cf. 3 Macc. 6:32. The song summarizes the entire salvific
history o f the old and the new covenant: rule o f God, judgem ent and
demonstration o f salvation. Because Deut. 32:4 is alluded to in Rev. 15:3,4, there
could also be an allusion to the second Song o f Moses in Deut. 32, which for
example is quoted as the conclusion o f the martyr-paraenesis 4 Macc. 18:18.
7K.-P. Jörns, Das hymnische Evangelium (1971), particularly pp. 180ff.
R. Deichgräber, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 44ff., 58: ‘Certainly none o i these passages
were taken from the liturgy o f the worship service, but rather they are the literary
products o f the author or o f his sources.’ Conclusions about liturgy can only be
drawn with caution (59). Only at the end ‘does the book write . . . with the liturgy
o f the eucharistie worship service’ with the petition for the coming o f the Lord,
cf. 1 Cor. 16:24; Did. 10:6, J. Roloff, Die Offenbarung desJohannes, ZBK (1984), p.
213.
recognize in the correlation o f the twenty-four elders, songs

with harp accompaniment, bowls o f incense and the ‘lamb
that had been slain’ a reference to the festive worship services
in the temple in Jerusalem, that was an indistinct copy o f the
heavenly sanctuary, but which, admittedly, was no longer
relevant for the seer.8
In the ‘entry hall’ o f the New Testament, the contours o f
song become more clearly identifiable, when Luke, the
historian o f salvation history, begins and concludes his birth
stories with a scene in the centre o f Jewish worship.9There we
meet the last traces of Old Testament psalmody: the Magnificat o f
Mary and the Benedictus o f Zechariah, the gloria in excelsis and
the nunc dimittis.10
N ot only the so-called Psalms o f Solomon, but also the
multifaceted liturgical poetry from Qumran - the Thanks
giving Psalms (H odajot), the apocryphal Psalms o f David from
Cave 11 o f Qumran, the songs for the offering on the Sabbath
and for other festivals11 - demonstrate that certain groups
8 Cf. 11:2. The court o f the temple together with the holy city will be
‘trampled’ by the gentiles. John 11:8 the city is identified with Rome and
‘spiritually’ designated as ‘Sodom and Egypt’. Tl>e true temple is in heaven
11:19; 15:5.
9Luke l:5ff. cf. 2:22ff., 27ff., 42-49. Liturgical singing is also a component o f
the Tamid-sacrifice, with which incense was connected: mTamid 5.6 - 7.4. The
temple and the messianic-eschatological content o f Luke 1 and 2 are the
background for the amassing o f ‘poetic-hymnic’ passages - which is with the
exception o f Revelation unique to the New Testament. Cf. also the programatic
conclusion to the gospel, 24:53: kcù rjoav Ôià navxôç év iepcp eüÄoyoövxe«; xöv
©8Öv. The gospel begins and ends with a temple-scene as an inclusion.
10Luke 1:46-55, 68-79; cf. 1:13-17,30-33,42; 2:14 as a real doxological hymn;
2:29-32.
11 It is impossible to give an overview o f the secondary literature. I mention
only a small selection: B. Kittel, The Hymns o f Qumran, SBL Diss Ser 50 (1981);
S. Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot. Psalmsfrom Qumran, AThD 2 (1960). For the Sabbath-
hymns, cf. C. Newsom and Y. Yadin, ‘The Masada Fragment o f the Qumran
Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice’, IEJS4 (1984), 77-88. A reconstruction o f the
‘Sabbath-songs’, in which earthly and heavenly liturgy are united, has been made
by C. Newsom, Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice. A Critical Edition, HSSt 27 (1985); cf.
J. P. M. van der Ploeg, ‘U n petit rouleau de psaumes apocryphes (llQ P s A p a) ’,
in Tradition und Glaube. Festgabefü r K. G. Kuhn (1971), pp. 128-39; J. A. Sanders,
The Psalm Scroll ofQumrân Cave 11, DJD IV (1965) (including a collection o f the
canonical psalms o f David, several apocryphal poems among which are the
Hebrew version o f Ps. 151 LX X and the love-song to wisdom Sir. 51:13ff., all of
which are attributed to David); idem, The Dead Sea Psalm Scroll (1967). Poetic
within contemporaryjudaism were characterized by an almost

overflowing psalmody. According to a short prose-text, that
was inserted into the Psalms o f David from 11Q, David
supposedly wrote 3,600 fhillim, that is, hymns, 446 songs and
four songs ‘that are to be sung over possessed persons’ , in total
4,050 ‘psams’ ,12
and he spoke each one through inspiration (binebû’ah), which was
given to him by the Highest.
Against the background o f this quantity o f hymnic material, it

is noteworthy that no collection o f Christian psalms (or o f
prayers) originating in the first or second century has been
preserved, all the more so because - as the example o f David
demonstrates - the psalm was understood as a gift o f the spirit
and o f the divine wisdom. The only exception, the Syriac ‘Odes
o f Solomon’ , were composed at the end o f the second or at
the beginning o f the third century. They are, however, not a
part o f the mainstream (see below, p. 243).
passages can also be found at the end o f the Rules o f Discipline, in the War
Scroll and among the many texts from Cave 4. For songs and hymns in the
Pseudepigrapha and apocalyptic literature, seej. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old,
Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2 (1985), Index, s.v. hymns, singing, liturgy, angels
and the section: Prayers, Psalms and Odes, pp. 607-767, which also includes
Christian texts. The heavenly hymns are a separate genre that is evidenced in
Qumran and in the later Hekhalot-texts. An early example, cf. Apoc.Abr. chs 17
and 18, JSHRZ V, 5 (1982), pp. 437-41. See J. H. Charlesworth, ‘Jewish Hymns,
Odes and Prayers (ca. 167 C.E.-135 c.e.) ’, in R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg
(eds), Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta, 1986), pp. 411-36 (lit.).
12 llQ D av C o m p., col. 27, 4-11. Immediately before is 2 Sam. 23:1-7, o f which
only 23:7 is preserved. The text could therefore refer back to 23:2: ‘The spirit of
Yahweh speaks in me (or by me) and his word is upon my tongue.’ With 4,050
poems David surpasses his son, Solomon, who according to 1 Kings 5:12 composed
through the gift o f wisdom 3,000 sayings and 1,005 songs (in the LX X it is 3,000
and 5,000!). Cf. the hymn to wisdom Sir. 51:13ff. (col. 21, 11-22,1) which in the
roll is attributed to David. Further Josephus, ant. 7.305f., who makes David into
the inventor o f musical instruments and the founder o f the choir o f Levites for
festivals, cf. Sir. 47:8ff.; 1 Chr. 16:4ff.; 25:1, 6. David appears as composer and
singer o f psalms in connection with exorcisms Ant.bibl. 60, JSHRZ II, 2, pp. 253f.
cf. 1 Sam. 16:4. In early Christianity David is the most often quoted ‘prophet’; his
‘inspired messianic poems’ form the basis o f the christological proof from the
scriptures Mark 12:36 = Matt. 22:43: Aainô eînev év t<ö nveupaxi x# àyuo. There
follows the most important christological text o f the O ld Testament, Ps. 110:1
(see above, pp. 119-226). Cf. Acts 1:16; 2:25ff., 34; 4:25f.
Beyond that the two psalm-like compositions in Luke 1

contain - at least seemingly at a superficial glance - nothing
that is specifically Christian, but rather appear to be entirely
Jewish. In terms o f content they are a part o f the extensive
contemporary Jewish psalmody and have a messianic-tradi-
tional emphasis comparable to Pss. 17 and 18. Gunkel spoke
o f ‘eschatological hymns’ .13 Because it is improbable, that
Luke himself created them ‘to fit the milieu’ and because they
seem to have - at the first look - no specific Jewish-CAmJmn
traits, many scholars are inclined to assume that the origin o f
them - along with other parts o f the birth stories in Luke 1 -
is to be located in the Jewish baptismal movement. This
hypothesis would be undergirded, if one could presuppose,
that the Magnificat in the original Lukan version, as well as in
Luke’s source, was attributed to Elizabeth. In that case we
would have one song o f praise to the messianic prophet John
coming from his father and another from his mother. Luke
took them over practically unchanged. Noteworthy is the
emphasis upon inspiration: Zechariah was filled with the Holy
Spirit and speaks as a prophet. Luke connects the inspiration
o f Elizabeth with the greeting o f Mary. However, when - as
Harnack suggested - only Kai einev originally stood in 1:46,
the Magnificat too, would be the result o f the spirit o f God
which inspired Elizabeth. This assumption would also be
supported by the implicit connection between Elizabeth in
1:48 and Hanna 1 Sam. 1:11 and epeivev ôè M apiàp npoç
apoç a\kfj[ in v. 56, that presupposes that Elizabeth was the
subject. We further must then presume that very early
M ap iap was added in v. 46, a reading that became almost
universal. Fortunately the addition ‘Elizabeth’ , which is true
to the original intention o f the text, has also been preserved.
This slightly complicated theory seemed up to now to me a
plausible hypothesis, but the quite new erudite and thorough
dissertation o f Ulrike Richert has convinced me that
Magnificat and Benedictus are early Jewish-Christian psalms
praising the Birth o f the Messiah Jesus upon the background
13 ‘Die Lieder in der Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu bei Lukas’, in Festgabe A. v.
Harnack (1921), pp. 43-60. For a discussion o f the form, cf. S. Farris, The Hymns
o f Luke ’s Infancy Narratives, JSNT Suppl. Ser. 9 (1985), pp. 10ff., 67ff.
o f prophetic promises especially from Isa. 7-12 and Old

Testament-Jewish Hymn singing. The original language o f
these two psalms was - as in Jewish prayers - originally Hebrew,
and they are the missing link between the ‘ messianic hymns’
o f the Hebrew psalter and the later christological Hymns o f
the Greek-speaking Christians.14
I spoke somewhat too hastily about the clear contours o f
the songs in the Lukan birth stories, for it is not said
explicitly, whether and how both o f the ‘psalms’ were sung
Luke 1:46 (and 2:28) states simply Kai euisv, 1:67 by
contrast énp0(j>i]X8U0£v Àéywv. Even the praise o f the
angels is not described as ‘singing’ : aivouvxcov xöv Oeöv
Kai Àsyovxcov 2:13. This is consistent with Jewish formu
lation. A t the same time, however, Luke probably had
little interest in song (see below, n. 29 and 30). Similar to
14 This ‘baptist’ hypothesis was posed by A. Loisy in 1893, by D. Völter
in 1896 and in a variant form by A. v. Harnack, SPAW.PH (1900), pp. 538ff. =
Kleine Schriften zur Alten Kirche (1980), I, pp. 439ff. cf. the survey o f research
by R. Laurentin, Structure et Théologie de Luc I - I l (Paris, 1957), pp. 191-223 and
S. Farris, op. cit. (n. 13), pp. 108ff. who rejects the hypothesis, and S. Benko,
‘The Magnificat: A History o f the Controversy’, JB L 86 (1967), 263-75, who
affirms it. In England it was supported primarily by C. F. Burkitt, ‘Who
Spoke the Magnificat’, JTS 7 (1906), 220-7, whereas T. Zahn, Das Evangelium
des Lukas ( 3,41920), pp. 744-50, rejected it mustering all the weapons o f his
erudition. For the text-critical evidence for the reading Elizabeth, see The
New Testament in Greek I I I , The Gospel According to St. Luke, Part One ch. 1-12
(Oxford, 1984) p. 22: (1) O ld Latin a b (1); (2) Irenaeus 4.7.1 according to the
arm. trans. and the Mss C V. For the originality, see Rousseau, Irénée de Lyon,
Contre les heresies, Livre TV, 21 Iff., 456 (SC 100). The reading goes back to
Irenaeus; 3.10.2 could very possibly be a correction. (3) Jerome in an addition
(?) to his translation o f the Homilies on Luke o f Origen, Horn. VII (GCS 49,
Orig. vol. 9 ed. M. Rauer, p. 43): invenitur beata Maria, sicut in aliquantis
exemplaribus repperimus, prophetare. Non enim ignoramus, quod secundum
alios codices et haec verba Elisabeth vaticinetur. In Jerome (or Origen?) the
attestation o f both readings seems still to have been relatively equal. (4) Nicetas
Remesianus (d. after 413), de utilitate hymnorum 9.15f.; 11,11 names
only Elizabeth, see C. H. Turner, ‘Niceta o f Remesiana’,/T5 24 (1923), 225-
52 (238ff.). An alternative would be that Luke redacted his source -
which originated among the followers o f John the Baptist and in which Elizabeth
spoke the Magnificat - relatively carelessly, or that the syntactic problems o f
his transference o f the Magnificat to Mary made the supplanting o f Mary
through Elizabeth possible; but all these hypotheses are too artificial to be
convincing. See also E. Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium, H N T 5 (1929), p. 18,
and W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, T H K 3 ( 31964), pp. 63f.;
and fundamentally now Ulrike Richert, ‘Magnifikat und Benedictus (Lk 1,
46-55 und 1,68-79) ’, Diss. theol. Tübingen, 1994. It will appear in W UN T, 1995.
the Latin carmen dicere (see below, p. 263) one could refer
to singing in Hebrew as ‘speaking in song’: As for example in
the Mishna, one speaks o f the song o f the Levites as a part o f
temple worship.15
We come here to a problem that touches on the entirety o f
Jewish and early Christian liturgical poetry. In Semitic poetry
the differentiation between prayer and song based alone on
form is often not easy to make. This is particularly true for the
later period, in which the genres are not purely preserved.
Schuermann designated the Magnificat as a ‘mixed genre’ o f
eschatological hymn and eschatological ‘song o f thanks
giving’ .16 In opposition to the widely accepted opinion, I do
not consider the Benedictus as a song that was created out o f
two entirely different entities, but rather, in spite o f its two-
part structure, as a single poetic creation, more exactly a hymn
praising the coming o f the Messiah, which begins with the
conventional concluding eulogy o f the first, third and fourth
books o f Psalms: euÀoyrjxôç KUpioç ô Geoç t o u ToparjÀ;17this
signals that the author wants his hymn to be seen as tehillah
in the tradition o f David, which is prophetically inspired18 as
climax in the services o f the redeemed true Israel ‘without
fear’ (Luke 1:74-75). The next two verses, 1:76-77, are a
Lukan insertion relating to John the Baptist as a forerunner.
The end verses 78-79 with the dvaxoÀfj uipouç, whose
lights shines in the darkness (cf. Isa. 9:1) is the Davidic
'branch'sàmah= àvaxoÀi]) sent from heaven and pointing to
Jesus, whose birth Luke reports immediately afterward.
15mMidd. 2.5: 'om'rim bas-sir, mTam. 5.6: Vdabber bas-sîr, 7.3: wedibberû halewijjîm
bas-sîr, cf. 7.4: has-sîr sàhàjû. . . ’ômerîm• O n each day o f the week another psalm
was sung. ‘To speak a prayer’ was circumscribed with berek: mjoma 7.1: the high
priest ûmebarek calaha semonàh b'ràkôt. See below, n. 19.
16H. Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium, H K N T III, 1 ( 31984), p. 71.
17LXX: Ps. 49:14; 71:18; 105:48: The author o f the Benedictus consciously
connects his psalm with the psalter.
18 For the older understanding, see P. Vielhauer, ‘Aufsätze z. N T ’, ThB 31
(1965), 28-46; H. Schürmann, op. cit., pp. 84ff. Kai où Ôè naiÔiov 1.76 is not
the beginning o f an independent section. The child is introduced in w. 68-75
with the praise of past and present salvific acts o f God for Israel. The conclusion
attributes messianic motifs to the child. It unites Isa. 60:1; Zech. 6:12 and Mai.
3:20. For the structure o f the composition, which is well thought through, see
now F. Rousseau, N T S 32 (1986), 268-82 and U. Richert (n. 14) I I 1; V 26; VII 2.
We do not know how and in which context these ‘poetic’

passages were really sung 'm Palestinian congregations, because
we cannot musically reconstruct the type o f singing that was
common at the time o f the second temple and because we
can assume that poetically formulated prayers were recited in
the form o f liturgical chanting. On the other hand there must
have been a difference between simply ‘reciting’ and singing,
for example in temple worship, an acoustical distinction
corresponded to the terminological difference between
singing and praying, between song and prayer.19
It is significant that these Lukan passages appear as an
appendix to Psalms in Christian L X X manuscripts from
the fifth century (fo r the first time in Codex Alexandrinus)
on: They appear together with O ld Testament ‘ songs’
and ‘prayers’ - both cpôai Moouoéooç Exod. 15 and Deut.
32, several npooeuxai o f Old Testament men and women
o f God, and the üpvoç tcdv xpiwv naiôcov in the Greek
additions to Daniel - whereby the number and the order
varies in the manuscripts.20 In other words, they, as the
only New Testament texts, were considered because o f their
liturgical usage to be a part o f the psalter, the ‘ hymn
book ’ o f the Church. Correspondingly, they could be
designated as cpôai iö ’ (thus in the subscription o f Codex
19For singing in the temple to the accompaniment o f music, see K. E.

Grözinger, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 119-32. For die problem o f the ‘weaving together
o f prayer (tefilla) and sung melody or singing (shir/a)’, see op. cit. pp. 2f. (3);
Billerbeck IV, pp. 394f.: Billerbeck does not distinguish between song, prayer
and scripture-reading and thereby absolutizes the forms o f later synagogue
worship. Detailed, but very hypothetical, E. Werner, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 102ff.,
128ff.; cf. J. Kroll, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 11 (f.): ‘in practice hymns and prayer are not
clearly distinguishable’. See W. Caspari, op. cit. (n. 1), 29 (1908), 469ff.: ‘song
can become prayer-like, prayer hymnic’ (471).
20A. Rahlfs (ed.), Psalmi cum Odis Sept. Gött (1931; 21967), pp. 78-81: Cod.
Alexandrinus has fourteen odes, the Verona-Psalter eight, the Zürich-Psalter ten,
the miniscule fifty-five also fourteen. For all o f this, see the detailed studies by
H. Schneider, ‘Die biblischen Oden im christlichen Altertum’, Bib 30 (1949),
28-65; 239-72; 433-52; 479-500, and J. Mearns, The Canticles o f the Christian
Church (Cambridge, 1914); see also E. Werner, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 139ff. For
the odes on papyrus, see J. van Haelst, Catalogue des papyrus littéraires ju ifs et
chrétiens (1976), nos. 241-51, from the fourth to sixth century. Cf. M. Hengel, in
Die Septuaginta (ed. M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer), W U N T 72,1994, pp. 219-
221.
Alexandrinus).21 The nunc dimittis o f Simeon Luke 2:29ff.,

a hymnic prayer with very personal characteristics, was also
inserted here, as was the cpôrj ’H oaioi) Isa. 5:1-9. A t the
end o f collection stood the upvoç ècoOivoç, which in Codex
Alexandrinus - in contrast to the secondary version in the
Apostolic Constitutions 7.47 - is addressed primarily to Christ
and begins with the song of the angels to the shepherds Luke 2:14;
this latter is formally a stylistically pure hymn which was sung
- and this establishes a connection with the hymns o f
Revelation - not by humans, but by choirs o f angels.
It has been long known that a close relationship exists
between this three-part praise that begins with a doxology, and
the original source o f all heavenly liturgy, the Kedushah or
the Trishagion. The gloria in excelsis, which the angels sang in
the holy night, announced the salvation that the thrice holy
God will give to mankind on earth. It is basically a further
development o f the heavenly Trishagion - the continuous
hymn o f the angels before the throne o f God, that is at the
m ot o f all earthly liturgy - which is placed in relation to the
epiphany o f the Son o f God in history.22
This collection o f Old and New Testament poetic-liturgical
texts as npoosuxi], cpôi] or üpvoç shows how closely inter
connected song and prayer are.23
With all o f this we still do not have any bridge to the early
Christian song in worship. We will repeatedly refer back to the
Jewish psalms or upward to the eternal - and future - liturgy in
the heavenly world. One is almost inclined to say, that the
21 See the facsimile edition: The Codex Alexandrinus in reduced photographic

facsimile, O T P a rtIV , ed. T. C. Skeat (1957), pp. 569f.
22 D. Flusser, ‘Sanctus und Gloria’, in Abraham unser Vater, A G SU 5 (1963), pp.
129-52; see below, p. 265, n. 97. Cf. H. Gese, ‘Die Herkunft des Herrenmahls’,
in Z u r biblischen Theologie (1977), pp. 107-27 (127): ‘Through the Sanctus
heavenly and earthly worship become identical.’ For the difference between the
version o f the morning-hymn in Cod. Alex, and Const. Ap. 7.47, see B. Capelle,
‘Le texte du Gloria in Excelsis’, R H E 44 (1949), 439-57. The text o f Const. Ap.
was apparently corrupted by an Arian interpolation.
23This can be seen in the Jewish synagogue, which according to the oldest
references bore the designation npooeuxi], whereas in the diaspora singing o f
hymns possibly was a part o f npooeuxi]* see M. Hengel, ‘Proseuche und
Synagogue’, in Tradition und Glaube. Festgabe K. G. Kuhn (1971), pp. 157-84.
Unfortunately we know very little about synagogue worship in the diaspora in
pre-Christian times.
apparently seamless continuity between the old and the new

covenant is nowhere more in evidence than in the reception
o f the ‘inspired’ prophetic Old Testament Jewish hymnic
praise in the early Christian congregations.
O f the four occurrences o f ûpveîv in the New Testament
the only two which are in the gospels have to do with
singing certain Old Testament psalms in the context o f
the Passover liturgy: The simple K ai ûpvqoavxeç Mark 14:26
= Matt. 26:30 circumscribes the antiphonal singing o f the
second part o f the Hallel psalms (Pss. 115-18) at the end
o f the Passover celebration, which Jesus and his disciples
sang in accordance with the Jewish custom. Psalm 118,
which closes the Hallel, became one o f the foundations o f
early christology and liturgy. In addition to the cry o f
cooavva24 the prayer acclamation marantha too, has its
roots here: He, who at the end o f the Hallel is praised as
the Coming One (Ps. 118:26) is asked to come soon and
finally. Psalm 118 thereby marks directly the transition from
the Jewish Passover liturgy to the early Christian eucharistie
liturgy. In later Rabbinic texts the Hallel was directly
designated by the loan-word himnon,25and according to Philo
the Passover was celebrated pex’ euxöv xe K ai upvcov.26
The only occurrence o f ùpvsïv in the corpus o f letters
is a quotation from a psalm Heb. 2:12 = Ps. 21:23 LXX: ‘I
will tell o f thy name to my brethren èv psocp éKKÀqoiaç
upvqoco os.’ Presumably the author o f Hebrews is think
ing that the exalted Son - after the parousia - will intone
the praise o f the Father in the midst o f the gathering o f the
24 Cf. E. Lohse, ‘cooavvd’ in T hW B 9 (1973), pp. 682-4; cf. Mark 11:9, par.;
Did. 10:6; Hegesippus in Eusebius, H E 2.23.13f.; see I. Heinemann, Prayer in
the Talmud, SJ 9 (1977), Index s.v. and pp. 139-55 (148-54). For Maranatha 1
Cor. 16:22; Rom. 22:20; Did. 10:6; cf. the wisdom saying Matt. 23:29 = Luke
13:35; in addition 19:38 in connection with the Gloria 2:14. For the influence
o f Ps. 118:25ff. see E. v.d. Goltz, Das Gebet der ältesten Christenheit (1901), pp.
212f., 218.
25 For the Hallel in the eucharist, see Billerbeck IV, pp. 69-74 (76 for
the loan-word hîmnôn) and J. Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu ( 41967), pp.
246ff. Cf. I. Heinemann, op. cit. (n. 24), Index, p. 316 s.v. and particularly pp.
125, 129, 145. It was originally used in worship in the temple at the major
festivals.
26 Spec. leg. 2.148.
redeemed congregation; his brethren (2:12a). Here, too,

it is a matter o f ‘heavenly’ worship:27 ‘In the coming
congregation Christ will intone the hymn.’28
This quotation reveals as little about the role o f the song in
the contemporary worship service o f the congregation as the
reference o f Luke in Acts 16:25 to the praise o f Paul and
Silas in prison in Philippi: Kaxà ôè xô peoovuKXiov . . .
npooeuxöpevoi upvouv xöv 0eöv. The close connection
between npooeuxsoOai and ûpveîv is typical for Jewish and
early Christian usage: One can postulate that they are recit
ing psalms, but a song that is sung is not necessarily
presupposed, since ûpveïv xöv 08Öv can simply mean ‘ to
praise God’. The point for Luke is that all o f the prisoners
hear the praise.
I want to pass over for the moment the two or three
texts that indicate singing in early Christian worship (1 Cor.
14:15, 26; Col. 3:16 = Eph. 5:19) and focus on those
descriptions, in which one could expect the mention o f
singing, but which do not include it. They are much more
numerous. In the ‘primary occurrence’ Acts 2:42 the
‘apostles’ teaching, the breaking o f bread and the prayers’
are enumerated, but not a song; one could postulate that
Luke included it implicitly in év ayaAAiaoei 2:46.29 So
also, in opposition to the judgem ent o f J. Kroll, Acts
4:24-30 is not a song o f praise, but just a prayer spoken in
27 Cf. in a similar sense the conflation o f Pss. 21:23 (L X X ) and 107:4 (L X X )

in Barn. 6:16; . . . Kai xpaÀô ooi àvapéoov éKKÀrjaiac; àyuov. Justin, dial.
106.1.2 relates it to the Resurrected One, who interpreted this psalm to the
disciples. Cf. below, p. 252, n. 61 the summons to Christ to proclaim the
Father with praise in Clement o f Alexandria, protrept. 11.113.4. Tertullian,
adv. Marc. 3.22.6, understands it as a prediction o f Christ about the joint
eschatological praise o f the brethren o f Christ and the sons o f God:
psalmus . . . canit ex sua persona ipsius Christi ad patrem. For the heavenly
worship, see Heb. 12:23; Rom. 8:29; John 20:17. See Od. Sal. 6:7; 31:3; 36:2f.;
41:4f.
28 O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer ( 121966), p. 154.
29For Acts 2:46, see M. Hengel, ‘Hymnus und Christologie’, in Wort in der Zeit.
Festgabe K. H. Rengstorf (1980), pp. 1-23 (20f.). See now the thorough
investigation o f the early Christian word-service by J. C. Salzmann, Lehren und
Ermahnen Z u r Geschichte des christlichen Wortgottesdienstes in den ersten drei
Jahrhunderten, W U N T 11/59 (Tübingen, 1994), Index s.v. Hymnus and Lied.
‘unison’ (v. 31: ôeqOévxcov auxcov) with a ‘hymnic begin

ning’ .30
Even in the oldest manual o f church order, the Didache
(chapters 9 and 10), only three prayers, but no songs, are
quoted. Singing is not mentioned. The same is characteristic
o f the earliest description o f early Christian worship by Justin
(apol. 1.67): Reading o f the gospels or o f prophetic texts from
the Old Testament, a sermon and prayers are mentioned, not,
however, the singing o f songs. Naturally one could again here
ask, whether Justin didn’t implicitly include the latter with the
prayers.31 This enumeration could be expanded. Even the
Egyptian Church Order o f Hippolytus mentions, with the
exception o f the (probably secondary) description o f the love-
feast in the Ethiopie version (see below, p. 248), nothing about
singing o f psalms or hymns. This appears for the first time in
the Apostolic Constitutions.
The relative infrequency o f information about song in
worship in texts even in the third century is notable, since
early Christianity was an eschatological-enthusiastic move
ment, in which the song, as a confession o f faith in God’s
revelation o f salvation through his Son, played a significant
role. What are the reasons for this infrequency?
2. The Supplantation o f the Spontaneous Song in Early

Christian Worship by the Canonical Psalter
We have a parallel to this in Jewish worship. Daily singing o f

the Levites took place only in the temple; in synagogue
worship on the Sabbath there was no singing o f psalms. An
30J. Kroll, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 36f. (n. 1). opoOupaÔôv is a word that Luke
prefers and appears ten times in Acts; (én)aip£iv xqv <J)covqv is a phrase from
the L X X and means ‘call loudly’, see W. Bauer, W B s.v. lb. Also in 20:7-11 only
teaching and breaking o f bread is mentioned. For liturgical unanimity, see below
p. 265, n. 97.
31Justin speaks several times about prayers in worship. Thus at baptism,
65.1-3; 67.2.3 at worship with eucharist; 66.2f. the eucharistie prayer. Because
Justin, apol. 13.2 speaks o f a ôià Àôyou nopnàç Kai üpvouç népneiv in relation
to the eucharist, one could perhaps with T. Harnack, Der christliche
Gemeindegottesdienst (1854), p. 268, think o f a ‘festive song o f praise’. Cf.
W. Caspari, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 469ff. n. 5: ‘psalms with responses concerning the
incarnation . . . ’ (471).
exception is the night-vigil (navvuxiç) o f the Therapeutae in

Egypt at the beginning o f the first century ad. Philo reports:
but they composed songs and hymns to God in various verse
forms and melodies, which they accentuated in festive rhythms
when it appeared necessary.
The Therapeutae were, however, like the Essenes and baptismal
sects in Palestine, outsiders. Apparently the singing o f songs
was considered by the Pharisaic-Rabbinic synagogue to be a
custom o f the heretics ( minim) and was done away with after
70, whereas before its destruction the temple had a monopoly
on ‘musical’ worship. The situation in the diaspora remains
unclear. Not until the fifth or sixth century was the Piyyut, the
religious song, behind which the Greek nou]Tqç stands,
introduced again into the synagogue worship, this time,
however, under very different circumstances. The Greek song
was well known to the Rabbis, for the Greek language was
considered to be particularly adapted to singing. Nevertheless
the beautiful foreign art o f singing was too dangerous. One
told o f the famous-infamous apostate Elisha ben Abaja:
‘Greek song in his mouth never ceased.’32
Analogously the spontaneous singing o f songs in worship as
well as the transmission o f such new poetic formulations seem
to have been successively reduced in early Christian worship
after the beginning o f the second century,33 because the
‘heretical’ groups were particularly productive in this area:
Various reports o f multifaceted hymnic production are
preserved about the Montanists and Ebionites, the Gnostics
Basilides and Valentinus, Marcion, the Ophites or Naassenes,
the Carpocratians, Bardesanes (or his son Harmonios) and
later particularly the Manichaeans; several fragments have
even come down to us.34 All these persons and groups could
32 For the Therapeutae, see vit. contempl. 29, cf. 80,83. For ‘secular’ song in
Judaism, particularly after the destruction o f the temple, and Rabbinic criticism,
see Billerbeck 1, pp. 396f. For Greek language and song, see Billerbeck II, p. 451
= jM e g 1.7 71b; for Elisha b. A. op. cit. IV, pp. 399f. = bChag 15b, cf. 407 and
399m.
35 For Ignatius and the Christians in Pontus according to the letter o f Pliny,
see below, pp. 262f.
34 For hymns o f the heretics, see J. Kroll, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 37f., 82-98;
A. v. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur; I, 2 (1893), pp. 796f.;
understand these songs as the product o f the spontaneous

inspiration o f the divine spirit, and they were even more
dependent upon these new creations to the extent that they
- sometimes rigorously - rejected the Old Testament psalter.
Bardesanes as a ‘new David’ supposedly composed 150 psalms,
as some said for the purpose o f ‘misleading the hearts o f the
people’ . Later one said similar things about the Marcionites.
The Marcionite worship seems otherwise not to have been all
too different from that o f the catholic Church. Tertullian
describes it, speaking directly to the arch-heretic: ‘gloriae . . .
relatio benedictio et laus et hymni: quae om nia... in te quoque
deprehendantur. . . ’ At the end o f the Muratorian Canon it is
said o f the heretics: ‘novum psalmorum librum Marcioni
conscripserant’ . In the composition o f these heretical-Gnostic
hymns - as a preserved fragment o f a hymn o f Valentinus and
the Naassene ‘Psalm’ prove - one took over the forms o f
Greek poetry, that were accepted in the educated world and
gave up the original Jewish style o f the ‘psalm’ , that for Greeks
had only the character o f ‘hymnic prose’ . Such hymns were
for the catholic Church, if only because o f their foreign form,
suspect as ‘pagan’ .35This development which had been taking
place since the first half o f the second century is possibly
O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur (21913; repr. 1962), I, pp.

349f., 352, 358f., 364ff., 375. The fragments o f Valentinus in Hippolytus, ref.
6.3.7 and the Naassene Hymn are explained in detail by T. Wolbergs, op. cit.
(n. 1); see A. Kehl, ‘Beiträge zum Verständnis einiger gnostischer und
frühchristlicher Psalmen und Hymnen’, JAC 15 (1972), 92-119 (93ff.). For
Bardesanes, see H.J. W. Drijvers, Bardaisan ofEdessa (Assen, 1966), pp. 127-65,
180f. and Index s.v. hymns. For the Manichaean hymns or psalms, see A. Böhlig,
Die Gnosis, 3. Bd.: Der Manichäismus (1980), Index, p. 407. For the song in
Marcionite worship, see A. v. Harnack, Marcion ( 31960), pp. 145f., 175*:
Tertullian, adv. Marc. 3.22.6f.; Can. Mur., 82ff.: E. Preuschen, Analectall (1910),
p. 33. See v. Harnack, op. cit., pp. 363*f. for Bishop Maruta o f Maipherkat about
the Marcionites: ‘hymns - Arab.: psalms - that they recited at prayers are
different from those o f David’; ‘Gnosis ipsa est poësis says A. Hahn, Bardesanes
gnosticus Syrorum primus hymnologus (Leipzig, 1819), p. 28.
35 In a scholion to Augustine, de. haer. 4 (C C 44,1969, 291) the Basilidans are
accused that they ‘amatoria carmina studiose discunt’. Apparently the ‘heretics’
were the first ones to use secular melodies and the corresponding poetic forms.
The criticisms became a topos: see the attacks against Arius, below p. 257, n. 76.
Cf. J. Kroll for Valentinus, op. cit. (n. 1), 86: ‘The Gnostics broke with the style
and form o f Jewish religious poetry and with the Hellenistic prose-hymn that
related to the fact that more and more educated people

entered the Church and sought songs there that were con
sistent with their aesthetic taste. The Gnostic teachers, who
themselves had an equivalent education and who wished to
be considered philosophers, catered to this group.
An example o f the cultivated education and the high social
status o f the Valentinian Gnostics is an inscription on a granite
slab o f which four lines are preserved. The inscription is
dated to the time o f the Antonines ( ca. middle o f the second
century) and was found in the ‘villa quarter’ along the Via
Latina in Rome. It was apparently affixed to the wall o f the
meeting-room o f the house-congregation:
ÀéK)xpa ô’ éjxoi naoTöv ôqtôouxouoiv auv(aÔ8À<j)oi

dÀ)amvac; neivoûoiv èv qjiET8po(ioi ôopoioi
i)jx)voOvie(; yevexqv Kai iriéa ôoÇàÇov(T£ç
oi) yqc; evGa jiôvi]c; Kai àÀqOeiqç pûoiç éoxiv
My brethren light up the beds of the bridal chambers with torches

after the banquets they make headway into our chambers,
singing praise to the Father and glorifying the Son
from where the flow of the only silence and truth comes.
Although the length o f the original text o f the song (or o f the
donor’s inscription?) can no longer be ascertained, it is
nevertheless clear, that here the praise o f the Father and o f the
Son constitutes the high point o f the celebration, out o f which
the oiyq (?) - or auyq (?) - and àÀqGsia flows.36
was influenced by the Orient.’ These hymns with their agreeable form were also
intended to propagate the teachings o f the heads o f schools (88f.). About the
famous hymn-fragment o f Valentinus see now C. Markschies, Valentinus
Gnosticus, W U N T 65,1992, pp. 218-259. The title ipaÀpoç probably goes back to
the collection o f Valentinus: pp. 225ff. The form is a mixture between Semitic
( parallelismus membrorum) and Greek philosophical hymn. The metre is a dactylic
tetrameter (pp. 220ff.).
36 See M. Guarducci, Valentini a Roma, MDAI.R 80 (1973), pp. 169-89, with a
reproduction o f the inscription: plate 47; further idem, Ancora sui Valentini a
Roma, MDAI.R 81 (1974), pp. 341-3 and P. Lampe, Die stadtromischen Christen in
den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte, W U N T 2.R. 18
(1987), pp. 257-64. For the possibility o f a reconstruction o f the text, see
M. Guarducci, op. cit. (1973), pp. I70ff. and P. Lampe, op. cit., pp. 257-9. The
Valentinian inscription on the gravestone o f Flavia Sophe, CIG IV 9595a, is also
composed in hexameter and was found along the same street, see M. Guarducci,
This development made the spontaneous formulation o f

psalms suspect, even if the creation o f such poetry never
entirely ceased. This becomes understandable when one
considers the popular Gnostic creations o f great beauty such
as the song about Christ in the Acts o f John37 or the wedding
song and the Hymn o f the Pearl in the Acts o f Thomas.38
An impression o f the relatively unencumbered ‘inspired’
creation o f songs on the fringes o f the catholic Church is given
by the Syriac Odes of Solomon which were composed at the end
o f the second or beginning o f the third century. They are not
to be described simply as ‘Gnostic’ , but are an oriental
example o f that kind o f ‘inspired’ creation o f songs, that
otherwise has been almost entirely lost as a result o f increasing
antiheretical traditionalism.39
op. cit. (1973), passim; P. Lampe, op. cit., pp. 259-60. The formal quality o f
hexameter in both inscriptions is good. Metric poetry for literary purposes from
the same time can also be found in the ‘catholic’ church, thus for example the
acrostic hymn in hexameter: I H E O Y I X P E I Z T O I © E O Y Y I O Z E O T H P
Z T A Y P O Z in 8 Sib. 217-50 from the time o f Marcus Aurelius and the relatively
short hymn to Christ o f the so-called 6 Sib., in A. Kurfess, Sibyllinische
Weissagungen (1951), p. 313 ‘The first piece o f pure Christian poetry (from the
middle o f the second century)’. These verses that are oriented on the Jewish
Sibylline poems served apologetic-literary, not liturgical purposes. In this
context one could also mention the mocking poem o f an ‘elder’ from Asia
Minor (?) in iambic senarii against the Gnostic Markos, that Irenaeus, adv. haer.
1.15.6 quotes. It was intended to defeat the educated, agile and successful
Gnostic (cf. 1.13.1) with his own weapons.
37Act. Joh. 94-96. Juno and Kaestli CC Apoc. 1,199-207. The editors consider
chapters 94-102 and 109 to be a later Valentinian addition, which they date in
the second half o f the second century: 2, pp. 581-677 (631f.).
38Act. Thom. 6f. 108-113. Lipsius and Bonnet II.2, pp. 108ff., 219ff. A
translation o f the Syriac version o f the Hymn o f the Pearl in Hennecke and
Schneemelcher, Ntl. Apok. 2, pp. 349ff. Cf. the hymnic prayer at the anointing
and eucharist chs 27 and 50 (II.2, 142f.; 166f.). The conclusion o f the wedding
song (ch. 7 II.2 ,110) characterizes this very impressive hymnic poetry: éÔoÇaoav
ôè Kai upvqoav oùv xcj!> Çôvxi nveupaxi xöv naxépa xfjq âÀqGsCaç Kai xrjv
pqxépa xfjç ootjriaç. The originally Hellenistic Jewish wisdom myth, which
influenced the Valentinian Gnosticism and also Bardesanes (see above, pp.
240f., n. 34), becomes evident.
39Text in M. Lattke, Die Oden Salomos in ihrer Bedeutung fü r N T u. Gnosis, 1
(1979). The odes 5.6.22 and 25 are quoted in the later Gnostic Pistis Sophia;
ode 11 in Greek in P. Bodmer XI which was written in the third century. Lattke
dates the odes (7f.) - following a common tendency - too early. For language
and date, see L. Abramowski, ‘Sprache und Abfassungszeit der Oden Salomos’,
OrChr 68 (1984), 80-90: in the second half o f the second century in Syriac. I
The unfortunate counterreaction o f the catholic Church

was to limit songs in the official worship services more and more
to the psalms in the canonical psalter (and o f the cpôai), a
tendency, which fortunately never really became the norm.
The Syriac Didascalia, written at the beginning o f the third
century, recommends to the pious rich person, who has time
to read books, that he should not read the writings o f the
pagans and should limit himself to the law and the gospel:
‘and when you desire hymns, you have the psalms of David9.40In his
fight for the reality o f the incarnation and against the
‘heretical psalms’ Tertullian cites the psalms o f David as
christological witnesses:41
The psalms give us support, not those of the apostates, heretics
and Platonists, but rather the holy and generally recognized
psalms of David. He sings to us about Christ, and through him Christ
sings about himself.
The psalms o f David are for him ‘songs about Christ’ , as
they are for Justin and Hebrews. In this statement o f the
first Latin church father one encounters that which is the
real theological innovation in the songs o f Christian
worship and which goes back to the very beginnings. The inno
vation was not as much the new forms, but rather the christo
logical orientation o f the psalms which were sung in worship.42
would give preference to the end o f the second or the beginning o f the third
century. The odes are not anti-Manichaean. Against a Gnostic origin, but
supporting a too early dating is J. H. Charlesworth, ‘The Odes o f Solomon not
Gnostic’, C5Q31 (1969), 357-69; cf. idem and R. A. Culpepper, ‘The Odes o f
Solomon and the Gospel o f John’, CBQS5 (1973), 298-322. In my opinion they
presuppose the Fourth Gospel, cf. 315ff. The only one preserved in Greek, ode
11, is a relatively direct continuation o f early Jewish poetry. One has correcdy
noted the parallel to the Hodajot o f Qumran. The character o f the different
odes is in part very different. They are not uniform.
40 Chapter 2. Translation: H. Achelis andj. Flemming, T U 10.2 (1891), 5; Text:
A. Voobus (CSCO.S 175), I7.22f. Lat. Version ed. Tidner, T U 75 (1963), 5.12f.:
Sic vero canticorum desideras, habes Psalmos. Abbreviated Const. Ap. 5.2 (p. 13
Funk).
41 De carne Christi, 20.3f.: Nobis quoque ad hanc speciem psalmi
patrocinantur, non quidem apostatae et haeretici et Platonici Valentini, sed
sanctissimi et receptissimi prophetae David. Ille apud nos canit Christum, per
quem se cecinit ipse Christus. Cf. 17.1.
42 See above, p. 238, n. 27 to Heb. 2:12. Cf. below, p. 290.
The self-confident Paul of Samosata, the bishop o f Antioch

(ca. 270), forbade the singing o f psalms about Christ, ‘because
they were too new or were composed by recent poets’ (coç
Or} vecDxépouç Kai vecoxspcov àvôpcov ouyyP^FF10*1**) •
According to his critics this was bound up with his christology
o f Trjoouç Xpioxoc; KcnxoOev, but such a liturgical reduction
was a sign o f the times.43
Canon 59 o f the Synod of Laodicea about 360 (?) forbids the
use o f ‘private poems and non-canonical texts’ (iôuoxikoùç
ipaÀpoùç Kai aKavövioxa ßißAia) in worship and canon 15
limits the singing o f psalms to the choir o f psalm-singers,
whereas ‘others in the church should not sing’ ;44 this brings
a development to its conclusion that was long in the
making. The Apostolic Constitutions recognize - in addition
to the morning (see above, n. 22) and the brief evening
hymn aiveîxe naïôsç Kupiov, which at the end utilizes the nunc
dimittis Luke 2:29ff. - only the psalms o f David, which are sung
by a psalm-singer between the Old and the New Testament
readings whereas the congregation should sing the refrain (xà
aKpoaxixia); also as a part o f the morning and evening
celebrations certain canonical psalms are to be sung. The
psalm-singers (xj/aAxai) constitute an established order o f the
43 Eusebius, H E 7.30.1 Of. from the letter o f accusation o f the oriential bishops
to Dionysios o f Rome and Maximos o f Alexandria. It was also offensive that
he - supposedly to honour himself - let women sing the songs, a custom that
was common among the ‘heretics’ but also in the catholic Church, but that
was later more and more criticized, see J. Quasten, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 111-24,
and as example Isidor o f Pelusium, ep. 1.90 (120f.): The apostle originally
permitted singing along to guard against idle chatter, later it was forbidden
because ‘they did not become contrite as a result o f the divine songs, but
they used the sweetness o f the melody to excite themselves and they looked
at them in exactly the same way as they did songs in the theatre’.
44 Canon 59: ‘O n oû ôet îÔudxikoôç ij/aÀpoûç ÀéyeoOai év xf| éKKÀqoia
oùôè ctKavövioxa ßißAia àvayivcooKeoèai, àÀAà po va xà KavovtKà xfjç
Kaivfjç Kai naÀaif[<; ôia0i]Kq<;. Canon 15: Ile p i xoö pfj ôeîv nÀrjv xöv
KavoviKöv tj/aAxtöv, xöv éni xöv äpßw va ccvaßaivövxwv Kai àn ô ôi<J>0épaç
ijjaÀÀovxcov, èxépouç xivaç ij/âÀÀeiv év éKKÀqoCçt. ( Les canones des synods
particuliers, ed. P.-P. Joannou, Fonti IX, Discipline générale antique IVe-IXe, 1.2,
Rome, 1962, pp. 154, 136), cf. G. Rietschel, in PRE 10, pp. 402, 59ff. and 16,
pp. 223, 42ff.; T. Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons II. 1 (1890), pp.
193-202; E. Schwartz, Gesammelte Schriften IV. Z u r Geschichte der Alten Kirche und
ihres Rechts (1960), pp. 163ff. Cf. M. Hengel, in Die Septuaginta (n. 70), pp.
226f. Their date is unsure.
clergy.45 With this the Church has returned almost to the

custom o f the temple worship.
3. Indications o f the Spontaneous Song in Early Christian

Worship in the Second and Third Centuries
This development explains why - with the exception o f the

Odes o f Solomon - no Christian collection o f songs and only
a few songs or song fragments from the time before the fourth
or fifth century have been preserved, although in the early
congregations certainly many songs - and not only Old
Testament psalms - were sung. ‘O f this rich treasure only a
paucity remains.’46Because the songs that were composed
from the early Christian beginnings on were predominantly
(in contrast to the prayers that were taken from the treasure
o f Jewish prayers) 5ongs about Christ,47 this loss is particularly
painful. These songs would have thrown significant light on
the development o f christology in the dark second century, as
they - fragmentarily enough - do in the New Testament.
Antiheretical purism and liturgical timidity resulted in the
impoverishment o f the tradition.
The significance o f the song for the formation and
development of christology is witnessed to by the anonymous author
45 2.57.6; 59.2 (161, p. 171 Funk). Morning and evening hymn 7.47, 48. The
prayers in 7.33-38 (cf. the introduction 33.1) and parts o f the great praefatio-prayer
8.12 contain ‘hymnic’ passages (cf. e.g. 7.35.6) and go back, as W. Bousset
demonstrated, to earlier Jewish forms (N G W G .P H , 1915, p. 435 = Religions
geschichtliche Studien, ed. v. A. F. Verheule, NT. S 50,1979, pp. 231-85), but they are
not ‘songs’ that were sung. For ‘singing o f psalms’ in the Apost. Const, see 2.54.1
the (eucharistie) prayer after the scripture reading, the ipaÀpcpôla and the
sermon; cf. 1.5.2; 2.58.4; 6.30.2: singing in honour o f martyrs (cf. J. Kroll, op. cit.
(n. 1), p. 40 n. 1); 7.35.3f.: in the heavenly and earthly worship; 8.13.16 and 14.1:
during the eucharist Ps. 33 was sung: 8.34.10; 8.35.2; 42.1; for the class o f the
psalm-singers, see 3.11.1; 8.10.10; 12.43; 13.14; 28.7f.; 31.2: sub-deacons, readers,
singers and deaconesses receive one portion, cf. 8.47.43, 69.
46J. Kroll, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 46.
47 Op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 43ff.: ‘We have reason to assume that the hymn to Christ
goes back to the earliest congregation. The ecstatic element that was at work in
Christianity exercised a determining influence upon it’ (43). For the totally
different situation in the prayers, see J. A. Jungmann, Die Stellung Christi im
liturgischen Gebet, LF 718 (1925). Prayer was directed normally to God the Father,
whereas Christ often was only given the role o f mediator, for example in the
phrase ‘through Christ’ which is already common in the New Testament.
of the work against Artemon. He argues against the heresy that

‘the saviour was only a human’ , not only with the reference to
earlier authors o f the second century, ‘who proclaimed that
Christ is both God and human’, but also with reference to
the manifold songs about Christ that were known to the con
gregations: ‘How many psalms and how many songs, which
from the beginning were written by pious brothers, sing about
Christ as the Logos of God and confess his godhood.’48 This
information from the time around 200 (?) builds the bridge
between the song about Christ at the beginning o f the second
century (Pliny, ep. 10.96 and John 1:1-18), the hymn o f
Clement o f Alexandria and the other Egyptian texts from the
third century. It confirms the central significance o f the song
about Christ.
Beginning with the fourth or fifth century collections o f
artistic hymns in Greek have been preserved that were made
by Gregory o f Nazianzus and Synesios o f Cyrene and in Latin
by Hilarius, Ambrosius and Prudentius. In contrast to the texts
o f Ambrosius, the hymns o f the aforementioned Greek
authors have not been accorded any liturgical recognition.
The epoch o f the Byzantine composition o f hymns, which
produced really ‘ new songs’ for worship, began in the sixth
century. Only the extensive poetry o f Ephraem Syrus (d. 373),
which was directed against the hymns o f Bardesanes (or his
son Harmonios) and o f the other heretics gained significance
in worship.49 Early hymns, for example those o f Hippolytus,50
have been entirely lost.
48 Eusebius, H E 5.28.1-6 (5): ijiaÀpoi ôè öooi Kai (pôai àÔ8À<j>(Dv a n ’ àpxnç

ùnô moxc&v ypa<|)eïoai xöv Aöyov xoö Geoö xöv Xpioxöv upvoöoi 0eoÀoyoOvxeç.
The usual attribution to Hippolytus is controversial. For interpretation, see
W. Caspari, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 29, 464f.: In this case it is clearly a question o f
non-Biblical new songs to Christ. Cf. above, p. 245, n. 43 for Paul o f Samosata.
He had reason as an opponent o f the Logos christology to prefer simply singing
psalms to the ‘new’ hymns to Christ as Logos and God. In the case o f ij/aApcpÖsiv
o f a women’s choir eiç sauxov on the Passover it is not a matter o f the content,
but o f the ‘inflammatory’ kind o f performance: a>v Kai àKoûoaç âv xiç (J)piÇeiev.
49 Sozomenus, H E 3.16.5-7: The Syrians then sang the new texts o f Ephraem
to the melodies composed by Harmonios. For a critical evaluation o f the
significance o f Harmonios, who is only mentioned by Michael Syrus, but not
by Ephraem, see H. J. W. Drijvers, op. cit. (n. 34), pp. 180ff. For the hymns o f
Gregory o f Nazianzus and o f Synesios of Cyrene and the later Byzantine poetry,
see W. Christ and M. Paranikas, Anthologia Graeca Carminum Christianorum
A further problem lies in the fact that although the practice

o f singing o f Christian songs in the family or at festive meals is
well attested, one cannot deduce from these situations the
existence o f an analogous use o f song in worship. Tertullian
reports that at the end o f the agape - which was by then
separated from the eucharist - ‘each person was encouraged
to sing praise o f God before the others, as he or she was able
to, from the Bible or through one’s own ability’ . Perhaps the
Egyptian Church Order o f Hippolytus contained an indication
o f the singing o f psalms at the agape.51 The Carthaginian
Montanist, for whom the agape had become too opulent and
therefore suspect, addressing the catholic psychikoi noted
critically in De ieiunio 13.7: ‘You can only sing’ the passage
(1921), pp. 1-32. Gregory: M P G 37, pp. 397-1600, cf. M. Geerad, Clavis
Patrum Graecorum, II (1974), Nos. 3034-37; Synésios de Cyrène, I. Hymnes, ed.
C. Lacombrade (1978). For the content o f the hymns, see S. Vollenweider,
Neuplatonische und christliche Theologie bei Synesios von Kyrene, FKDG 35 (1985).
For the Latin poetry, see J. Fontaine, op. cit. (n. 1), passim; W. Fauth, Der
Morgenhymnus Aeterne rerum conditor des Ambrosius und Prudentius, Cath. 1 (adgalli
cantum), JAC 27/8 (1984/5), pp. 97-115; A. Michel, In Hymnis et cantids, PhMed
20 (1976), pp. 15-51. For Ephraem, see B. Altaner and A. Stuiber, Patrologie
(91980), pp. 373ff. and H. J. W. Drijvers, op. cit. (n. 34), pp. 127ff.
50See A. v. Harnack, op. cit. (n. 34), 1.2, pp. 605ff. In the list o f his works on
his statue line 21 is O A A I:C = 200 songs (609), about which we know nothing
more (642, No. 42). For the problematic statue, see M. Guarducci, ‘La statua di
Sant Ippolito’, in Ricerche su Ippolito, Studia Ephemeridis ‘Augustianum’ 13
(1977), pp. 17-30.
51Apol. 39.18 (C C 1, 153: ut quisque de scripturis diuinis uel de proprio
ingenio potest, prouocatur in medio Deo canere). For the agape according to
Tertullian, see K. Völker, Mysterium und Agape (1972), pp. 148-53. For Tertullian
in general, see F. Leitner, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 88f. Unruly song and music were
looked down upon, seej. Quasten, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 173-9 and for ‘Christian
devotions at home’ 158-65. Tatian, or. 33.2: in contrast to the love-sick Sappho
and her songs Christian girls sing songs in praise o f God as they spin; according
to Const. Ap. 3.7.7 (197 Funk) widows at home should pray and sing 0£$
navxoTe npooopiÀoüoa cpÔaïç Kai üpvoiç. Tertullian, ad ux. 2.8.8b reports that
married couples sang together: sonant inter duos psalmi et hymni, et mutuo
prouocant, quis melius domino suo cantet. Cf. or. 27.28.4; spect. 25.3; in virg.
rel. 17.4; de anima 9.4; exhort. 10.2 mentions separate private devotions o f a
man with prayer, scripture reading and singing o f psalms (si psalmum canit,
placet sibi). See the Ethiopie version o f the Egyptian Church Order o f
Hippolytus. B. Botte, La tradition Apostolique de Saint Hippolyte, L W Q G 39 (1963),
pp. 65-6 (ch. 25) and G. Dix, The Treatise on the Apost. Trad, o f St. Hippolytus . . .
( 21968), pp. biff. (ch. XXXVI, 28-31), cf. 83: The children and virgins should
sing psalms. The congregation should respond to the psalms spoken by the
in Ps. 132:1 ( ‘behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers

dwell in unity’) ‘when you have dined well together with several
others for a length o f time.’ In private singing and in the agape
as in worship the traditional psalm dominated.
As on the one hand the singing o f Christian songs in
pagan metric and with common melody was looked down
upon in Christian worship, so on the other hand the pseudo-
Clementine text De virginitate 2.6.3 forbade the singing o f
psalms in the presence o f pagans: ‘Dei laudes celebramus cum
omnimoda disciplina . . . Propterea non psallimus Gentilibus
neque Scripturas illis praelegimus, ut ne tibicinibus aut
cantoribus aut harriolis similes simus.’ There are Christians,
who for a piece o f bread or a glass o f wine ‘cantant cantica
Domini in terra aliéna Gentilium (Ps. 137 [136] :4) . . . quod non
licet. In this case, too, it is a question o f the singing o f psalms
that were new and different to pagans. On the other hand
Tertullian cannot belie the fact that many Christians strove
for ‘poetic-musical cultural enjoyment’ , for example, by
attending the theatre. However, he sharply reprimands them:
The Christians should be content with their own intellectual
possessions, their own spiritual wisdom and beauty: ‘I f the
cultural offerings o f the theatre are attractive - we have
enough works o f literature, enough poetry, enough wisdom
sayings and enough songs, enough (good) voices ( satis
uersuum est, satis sententiarum, satis etiam canticorum, satis
uocum), not fables, but truths, not ambiguous plays on words,
but clear speech’ (de spect. 29.4). With this, Tertullian states
an early Christian consensus.52
deacon, elder and bishop with ‘halleluia’. The text, that is in part difficult to
understand, gives the impression that it was expanded and - in comparison
with the description o f Tertullian - the liturgical situation appears to be more
established. ‘Testamentum Domini nostri’, which is dependent upon the
Egyptian Church O rder o f Hippolytus, and the ‘Canones Hippolyti’ (see
B. Altaner and A. Stuiber, op. cit. [n. 49], p. 257) each bring a briefer
equivalent note.
52 Cf. Cyprian, ad Donatum 16 (CSEL 3.1,16): ducamus hunc diem laeti nec
sit vel hora conuiuii gratiae caelestis inmunis. Sonet psalmos conuiuium sobriurm ut
tibi tenax memoria est, uox canora. adgredere hoc munus ex more. Ps. Clement,
de virg., Patres Apostoliä, ed. F. X. Funk, II (1901), p. 39. For Tertullian and the
condemnation o f the theatre, see W. Weismann, Kirche und Schauspiele, Cass. 27
(1972).
Clement of Alexandria documents that musical accompani

ment could be added to singing when the agape was held in a
less-structured context. After rejecting the use o f noisy pagan
music at banquets and making reference to the word o f the
apostle in Col. 3:16, he does, however, concede: ‘I f you want
to sing or play to the accompaniment o f a zither or a harp, it
is no disgrace, since you will be imitating a king o f the
Hebrews who is just and thankful to God.’53 ‘Love-songs’ are
strictly forbidden, ‘ the songs should be hymns to God’ .54
In the Stromateis Clement complains that most Christians
‘without a sense o f fine culture’ , plug up their, ears to the
‘rhythm and melody’ like the companions o f Odysseus as they
neared the sirens. In contrast to that, one should ‘occupy
oneself with music to improve one’s character and to attain
inner peace’ . David is the Biblical example ‘who sang psalms
and prophesied at the same time’ and ‘praised God in
beautiful melodies’ .55 ‘So we call upon one another when we
are drinking to sing psalms and through singing to quiet our
passions and praise God for the rich gift . . .’ On the other
hand, ‘every music which crosses over the right bounds, which
weakens our soul and sets us in changing moods . . .’ is to be
rejected.56 This criticism shows that Clement was an outsider
with his love o f music and beautiful songs and that his intent
was to tear down the wall separating Christian faith and the
educated o f his time, who - if at all - more readily turned
toward the Gnostic teachers. Several times in his ‘Exhortation
to the Greeks’ he calls Christ ‘the new song’ , who (surpassing
even Orpheus) ‘makes humans’ out o f ‘stones’ and ‘animals’,
53 Paed. 2.43.3: the description is appropriate for private meals and for agapes.
After he earlier (40-42) rejected pagan music instruments and permitted as
‘only instrument . . . the word that brings peace with which we praise G o d’
(42:3), he then accepts nevertheless stringed instruments quoting Ps. 32:1-3 as
authority, s e e j. Quasten, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 103-9. In opposition to temple
worship and the heavenly cult in Revelation (see above, p. 228, n. 3) instru
mental music was banned - similar to the synagogue - from Christian worship.
O ne wanted to distinguish onself in this matter in principle from all pagan
custom. Cf. for Clement, W. Caspari, op. cit. (n. 1), 29, pp. 453ff.
54 Paed. 2.44.4.
55 Strom. 6.89.1, 3; 88.3.
56 Strom. 6.90. If. All o f life should like a festival be adorned with hymnic praise
o f God. Psalms and songs should be sung daily during the meal and before going
to bed, strom. 7.49.3f.; cf. 7.35.6 and paed. 3.101.1.
but who at the same time fills the world and humanity with
harmony ‘and with this polyphonic instrument (i.e. creation)
praises God and thereby sings to humans’ . At the end o f the
‘Exhortation’ Clement lets the Logos join in the praise to
which the choir o f the righteous dances around the throne
o f God.57 Clement is the first Christian author, after the
apocalyptic seer John, who consciously integrates melody and
rhythm into Christian faith.
It may be that Clement permitted his beautiful hymn about
Christ, which in several manuscripts stands at the end o f the
Paidagogos, to be sung at the agape or at the worship service o f
the students o f the catechetical school:58
Bride o f colts untamed
wings o f unerring birds,
true rudder o f ships,
shepherd o f royal lambs,
collect your
simple children
so that they extol with holiness,
praise guilelessly
with innocent mouth,
Christ, the Teacher o f children,
King o f the holy ones,
all-conquering Word
o f the highest Father,
Master of wisdom,
This hymn in anapestic monometers, that is, in the usual

hymnic verse o f the period o f the Roman empire, is the
earliest example o f ‘ catholic poetry' which no longer follows the
form o f traditional Jewish-Christian psalms which themselves
- as Jerome later noted in his introduction to Isaiah in the
Vulgate - must have appeared to the Greeks and Romans as
prose without metrical structure; Jerome therefore wrote in
his translation o f prophetic texts as in those o f Demosthenes
and Cicero ‘per cola . . . et commatà' in order to make the text
57Protrept. 1.4.5; 5.3; to $opa to kcxivov: 2.4; 4.5; 6.1, 3; 7.3; auvupvoüvTOç
qpïv toö OsoC Àoyou: 12.120.2; cf. 119.2.
58 Paed. 3.101.3; see T. Wolbergs, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 10ff., 83-99 (lit.); A. Kehl,
op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 101-9. See the motto above, p. 227.
more understandable to his readers.59Nevertheless, although

this song about Christ is adapted to contemporary taste, its
content is consistent with the style o f a psalm:
A choir o f peace
are those begotten by Christ
As a people with understanding
let us sing united (ipdAAcDjjiev ôjjloü)
to the God o f peace!
With reference to its metaphoric, Wolbergs emphasizes
correctly the specifically Christian character o f this poem,
which in some o f its parts has ‘neither in Semiticnor in Greek
poetry real parallels’ . ‘In terms o f its metre as well as in
individual predicates the poem is formally the same as
contemporary pagan hymns, its overall structure is, however,
unique.’60
A singular text, in which Greek hymnic and traditional
psalmic style are unified, is to be found in Protreptikos 11.113.3.
In this text Christ himself is asked - in dependence on Ps.
21:23 - to proclaim the Father in hymnic praise and to lead
the one praying to him. The last four cola are formulated in
anapestic metre. Clement may have formulated the text ad hoc,
but we may presuppose similar metric structure in the ‘psalms
about Christ’ in Alexandrian worship.61
From the time before Clement o f Alexandria we have as
examples o f songs in metric form only the two well-known
59 Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem II, ed. R. Weber (Stuttgart, 21975),
p. 1096 in the prologue to the prophet Isaiah.
60T. Wolbergs, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 84f.
61 upvrjoov Kai ôiqyqoai poi
xöv naxépa oou xöv 0eöv*
ocooEi oou xà ôu]yi)paxa,
naiôeuoei pe r\ cpÔq.
(bç péxP1 v^v ènÀav(opr|v
Çï]xcl!>v x ô v 0e6v,
é n à ôé pe (jxdxaycDyeïç, Kupie,
Kai xöv Oeôv eùpCoKG) Ôià ooû
Kai xöv naxépa änoXapßdvw n a p à ooû,
yivopai oou ouyKÀrjpovôpoç,
énei, xöv àôeÀ<J)ôv oûk énj)oxuv0ï]ç.
See E. v. d. Goltz, Das Gebet in der ältesten Christenheit (1901), p. 138. For the
metre, seej. Kroll, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 12, n. 1.
Gnostic hymn fragments: The hymn o f Valentinus, with its

enigmatic cosmological content, and the Naassene Hymn
concerning the fate o f the soul that is to be saved.62 The
two hymns to Attis,63 that are included in the Naassene
sermon, are older pagan compositions and illustrate the
syncretistic character o f these texts. They make intelligible
why Gnostic teachers were accused o f falling away to
paganism. It is characteristic that, according to Wolbergs, the
hymn o f Clement is ‘less oriented on the example o f Greek
poetry than the Gnostic psalms o f Valentinus and o f the
Naassenes’ .64
The fact that Gnostic teachers in their hymns, which
they understood to be in competition with the psalms o f
the Church, preferred as the first ones the classical Greek
form, confirms the observation o f Harnack which he
made following Overbeck, that ‘an acute secularization or
Hellenizing o f Christianity’ was at work ‘in the Gnostic
poetry’ ,65 to which the ‘rejection o f the Old Testament’ also
belonged.
Like the song about Christ o f Clement, the acrostic ‘Song
o f the Virgin’ at the end o f the ‘Symposion’ o f Methodios of
Olympos (d. 311 as martyr) was also not sung in worship itself.
This song with twenty-four strophes, which based on Matt.
25 praises Christ as the coming groom, has its literary place
in the context o f Methodios’ Symposion. It was sung by a virgin
62 Hippolytus, ref. 6.37.7, see above, n. 34; T. Wolbergs, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 5,
7.23-36 (lit.); J. Kroll, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 87f. Hippolytus, ref. 5.10.2, see
Wolbergs, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 6, 37-59 (lit.).
63 Hippolytus, ref. 5.9.8, 9. T. Wolbergs, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 8f., 60-82 (lit.).
64 Op. cit., p. 84. But see above Markschies (n. 35).
65 Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (41909; repr. 1964), I, p. 250, cf. 251: ‘They are
those Christians who tried with haste to win Christianity for Hellenistic culture
and vice versa; in the process they abandoned the O ld Testament in order to
facilitate the alliance between both powers . . . ’ To this ‘abandonment’ belongs
also the rejection o f the Jewish-oriented ‘type o f psalm’ and the acceptance o f
the Greek metric type o f song (including the melodies that belonged to them).
An analogy is to be found in the fact that Gnostics - contrary to the prohibition
o f making images - were the first to produce pictures o f Christ, thus according
to Irenaeus, haer. 1.35.6 and Hippolytus, ref. 7.32 the Carpocratians. Eusebius,
H E 7.18.4, still rejected such as a pagan custom: seej. Kollwitz, ‘Christusbilder’,
in R AC 3 (1957), p. 3.
and the others in the circle responded with the refrain.66

An old song about Christ, that was sung at the time o f the
lighting o f the lights in the evening and which Basilius
designated as apxata (jxovrj, is the hymn (Jxoç iAapov àyiaç
ôoï;i]ç, which goes back to the third century or even, as
Dölger presumes, to the second century. The first and third
strophes praise Christ, the middle one is dedicated to the
Trinity Father, Son and Spirit.67 The hymnic praise o f the
‘Trinity’ is not necessarily post-Nicaenian; here as in other
places it prepared the way for the Nicene Creed. The song
about Christ, that is documented for the first time in a papyrus
fragment o f the sixth or seventh century has had a place in
the Byzantine liturgy down to the present.68
The trinitarian praise o f Father, Son and Spirit appears also
in the final doxology o f a hymn from third-century Egypt o f
which the end is preserved.69In this text the melody is notated
66 Symp. 11 (GCS 27, ed. N. Bonwetsch, 1917, pp. 131ff.). Text also in W. Christ
and M. Paranikas, op. cit. (n. 49), 33-7 for iambic (and dactylic) metre, see the
introduction XIV-XVIII and A. Dihle, Hermes 82 (1954), 197. For the attribution
to Methodios, see V. Buchheit, Studien zu Methodios von Olympos, T U 69 (1958),
pp. 153-60; the model o f the Christians’ acrostic poems were the relevant texts
in the Hebrew Bible which were - like, for example, Lamentations and Ps.
118(119) - also underscored in the LXX, see ed. Rahlfs II, p. 776 and idem,
Psalmi cum Odis Sept. Gott (21967), p. 287, cf. A. Kurfess and T. Klauser, RAC 1
(1950), pp. 237f. A detailed commentary is provided by M. Pellegrino, U in n o del
simposio di S. Metodio (Turin, 1958). Responding with a refrain also had its origin
in the singing o f psalms. Methodios calls it imctKoueiv and in Const. Apost.
2.57.6, according to Chrysostom among others as ûnoipctÀÀeiv (or ùnr]X£îv).
67Text in W. Christ and M. Paranikas, op. cit. (n. 49), pp. 40.XXIIf. Basil, de spir.
s. 29.73 (M P G 32, p. 205). For this history o f the tradition and the later influence,
see E. R. Smothers, R S R 19 (1929), 266-83; F. J. Dölger, AnJ 5 (1936), pp. 11-26.
68 P. Lond. Lit. 244 =J. van Haelst, Catalogue des papyrus littéraires j u i f s et chrétiens
(1976), No. 942. See A. Tripolitis, ‘O O E IA A P O N , Ancient Hymn and Modern
Enigma’, VigChr 24 (1970), 189-96. For the difficult problem o f the metre, see
J. Kroll, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 32f.
69 POxy 15.1786, J. v. Haelst, op. cit. (n. 68), No. 962 on the back o f a bill for
grain from the first half o f the second century. Basic is E. J. Wellesz, ‘The Earliest
Example o f Christian Hymnology’, CIQ 39 (1945), 34-45; Cf. idem, A History of
Byzantine Music and Hymnography (1949), pp. 125-9. Critical A. W. J. Holleman,
‘The Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1786 and the Relationship between Ancient Greek
and Early Christian Music’, VigChr 26 (1972), 1-17. Text and commentary in
T. Wolbergs, op. cit. (n. 1), 13f., 100-11 (lit.). W. proposes that the hymn belongs
‘to the celebration o f the eucharist’ (102). A more extensive text reconstruction
in E. Heitsch, Die greichischen Dichterfragmente der römischen Kaiserzät, AAWG.PH 3.F.
49 (21963), I, pp. 159f.
for the first time. It is thus ‘the oldest example o f Christian

music’ (Wolbergs, p. 101 ). The hymn - as was that o f Clement
-was composed in contemporary anapestic metre; Wellesz was
o f the opinion that, at the point at which the traditional
doxology was utilized, the poet left the anapestic metre and
approached the rhythmic prose o f a psalm.70To the contrary,
A. Dihle emphasized the precision o f the metre: ‘To all
appearances the word-accent played no role in the structure
o f the verse’ , a characteristic that it has in common with
Clement’s hymn about Christ. ‘The beginnings o f Christian
hymnography therefore do not fall out o f the bounds o f the
rest o f Greek lyric.’71Dihle is right. Only in the case o f the
double àpqv, ctprjv, to which Greeks were unaccustomed, one
can question whether it entirely fits the metre; in the case o f
‘barbaric’ words, however, the poet certainly had a degree o f
freedom in determining the length o f a syllable. The ‘ Christian
psalm' had thus accommodated itself almost entirely to the foreign
‘rules of poetry'. In spite o f opposition, this process - which is a
sign that Christians had overcome ‘ the cultural dividing line’
- was completed by the end o f the second century. The
traditional quantified metre, that as a result o f the change to
the undifferentiated pronunciation o f long and short syllables
became obsolete, did not predominate; the victory went to the
accentuated form o f verse with an established number o f
70 E. J. Wellesz, op. cit. (n. 69), p. 41. Cf. E. Pöhlmann, Griechische

Musikfragmente (1960), p. 47. A. W. J. Holleman, op. cit. (n. 69), 3ff., 9ff. calls
attention to the fact that not only the church fathers harshly rejected the
popular Greek and Roman music with its emotional, even erotic impact, but
that also Seneca (dial. 10.12.4) or Ps. Plutarch, de musica 27 (1140 DF) 38f.
(1145 A -D ) complained about its ‘theatric’ excesses; he comes to the
conclusion: ‘It goes without saying that the exciting beat-rhythm o f the pagan
music was experienced as instrumental for losing one’s Christian soul and
salvation’ (9f.). Cf. for the time o f Marcus Aurelius the Christian 8 Sib. 113ff.;
Clement o f Alexandria, paed. 2.4 (GCS 1, pp. 181f.); Ps. Clement Recog. 4.13,
seej. Quasten, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 81ff.; G. Wille, Musica Romana. Die Bedeutung
der Musik im Leben der Römer (1967), pp. 37lf. I doubt that one should claim as
does Holleman, op. cit. (n. 69), 13f. that ‘the most characteristical. . . feature o f
early and real Christian music was the absence o f rhythmical structure’. The
point o f origin and the continuing centre was the accentuated psalm that came
from the Jewish heritage, which we can no longer reconstruct.
71 A. Dihle, ‘Die Anfänge der griechischen akzentuierenden Verskunst’,
Hermes82 (1954), 181-99 (189f.).
syllables, which reproduced the popular way o f singing and

which we find in the Byzantine church poetry. But with this
the boundaries o f our sketch are by far exceeded.
An acrostic didactic ‘Memorierlied’ (Wolbergs), De moribus
christianorum, which is preserved on a papyrus from the end
o f the third or the beginning o f the fourth century, was
probably sung by neophytes and belongs to the early part o f
the third century, that is, the time o f Clement.72Christ appears
here as saviour and as ethical teacher. The next to the last
verse dedicated to the letter W begins VdÀÀJcov tjjaÀjaoùç peO’
ayicov . . . It shows that the song itself, in spite o f its relatively
strict anapestic form, was sung as a ‘psalm’ .73An acrostic song
with a mixed metre, o f which unfortunately only the last six
lines are preserved (T -f2 ), may come from the same period;
it praises Christ utilizing Ps. 23, Luke 15:5 and John. 10:11 as
the good shepherd and mixes thereby motifs from the psalms
with Platonic ideas.74
A note o f Dionysios of Alexandria (d. 264/5), that has been
preserved by Eusebius, permits one to draw the conclusion
that the production o f psalms was blooming in Egypt;
Dionysios indicates that bishop Nepos of Arsinoe, who was
72 P. Amherst 1.23, J. v. Haelst, op. cit. (n. 68), No. 844; T. Wolbergs, op. cit.
(n. 1), pp. 16-20, 121-35. For anapaestic metre, see A. Dihle, op. cit. (n. 71),
184, 187. E. Preuschen, ‘Eine altchristlicher Hymnus’, Z N W 2 (1901), 73-80,
draws attention to the didactic monition in acrostic wisdom-psalms such as Ps.
119. Based on content we would ‘never . . . go past the early Christian period’,
so that ‘one could date the composition in the second century’: Wolbergs
conjectures the early part o f the third century (126).
73 Hippolytus calls ref. 6.37.6 the fragment o f Valentinus and 5.10.1 the
Nassene Hymn, in opposition to all Greek usage, but in continuity with the
Biblical tradition, ijjaÀpoç nevertheless with the qualification: Ôi* ou . . . t a xfjç
nÀdvr|ç puoxqpia ô o k o û o iv ùpvcpôeïv oüxax;. When quoting the two hymns to
Attis. 5.9.8 and 9 he avoids this term.
74 P. Berol. 8299 - BKT VI, 125f.; J. v. Haelst, op. cit. (n. 69), No. 728.
T. Wolbergs, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 15.112-120. E. Heitsch, op. cit. (n. 69), I, 160f.
For the interpretation, seej. Quasten, Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, I (1946), pp.
404-6. For the metre, see A. Dihle, op. cit. (n. 71), 188. The conclusion o f the
hymn about Christ is also characteristic; it reverts back to the doxological style
o f the traditional psalms:
WaAxqpia ooi ctvEyeipo
àyfou[ç] ôè xopoùç xopEuoco
’O Aöye naxpôç àneipftou
ooi ôoÇa, Kpàxoç eiç auovcu;.
suspected o f having chiliastic tendencies, not only was

knowledgeable in scriptural matters but also was a poet who
composed many psalms (noÀÀqç ipaApcpöiac;) ,75 ‘with which
right up until now (that is, long after his death) many
brothers find enjoyment’ . Arius is said to have composed songs
in the style o f secular ones (çtopaxa vauxiKà Kai ênijjiuÀia
Kai ôôom opiKa); probably these were utilizing popular-
rhythmic melodies which the listeners found attractive. It is
no surprise that Athanasius, who oriented himself entirely on
the conservative style o f the canonical psalter and the odes,
rejected such a style.76 Origin too, presupposes that hymns
were sung in worship. In contrast to the demand o f Celsus
that Helios and Athene should also be praised in song,
the Christians praise only ‘God and his only begotten Son’ .
They unite themselves thereby with the stars to a ‘divine
choir’ , so as to sing praise to God and his Son. It must be
acknowledged that the emphasis lies on the Old Testament
psalms and songs. He quotes no ‘modern’ poetical works
in his extensive writings. This is all the more notable because
o f the fact that he wrote an impressive tractate nepi euxHÇ
75H E 7.24.4 qjaAp<pöia means here with J. Kroll, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 26, n. 4,
poetry and not simply the singing o f O ld Testament psalms.
76 Philostorgius, H E 2.2 (GCS 21972, ed. F. Winkelmann 13). According to
Socrates, H E 1.9.16 (ed. R. Hussey, Oxford 1853, I, p. 64) and Sozomenus,
H E 1.21.3 (SC 306, 1983, p. 208), Arius wrote his work Thalia xoïç
ocoxaötou; qtopaoiv qxoi pexpoiç, napanAqoioc; (i.e. in the metre o f the
Alexandrian scoffer Sotades), cf. above, p. 241, n. 35. For Athanasius, see
W. Caspari, op. cit. (n. 1) 29, pp. 143ff. Athanasius explained in his letter
to Marcellinus, M P G 27, pp. 12-45, his understanding o f the singing o f
psalms. Cf. the well-known judgem ent o f Augustine, conf. 10.33.50, to
whom euphony, with which the psalms o f David were sung, was too tempt
ing, and who drew attention to the example o f Athanasius in Alexandria
‘qui tam modico flexu vocis faciebat sonare lectorem psalmi, ut pronuntianti
vicinior esset quam canenti’; see H.-J. Sieben, ‘Athanasius und der Psalter’,
ThPh 48 (1973), 157-73 (169ff.). For the problem, see E. Pöhlmann, op. cit.
(n. 70), p. 31 n. 3: ‘All music, that has its origin in songs o f work, dance
or marching, must necessarily be rhythmic.’ Similarly, engaging melodies
may have already been used by Bardesanes, see above, pp. 240f., nn. 34, 35
and A. W. J. Holleman, op. cit. (n. 69), 8ff. and above, p. 255, n. 70 the criticism
o f the church fathers o f secular pagan music. Apollinaris o f Laodicea accord
ing to Sozomenus, H E 6.35.4f., see E. Mühlenberg, TBE 3 (1978), p. 367,
supposedly composed popular songs. See above, p. 245, n. 43 the polemic
against Paul o f Samosata.
and that in his commentaries and homilies he often utilizes

the language o f prayer and doxology.77
It can be that the ‘heretical’ poetry which was blooming in
Alexandria encouraged and assisted the use o f the free song
in ‘orthodox’ congregations. There was always the possibility
o f a double reaction: Either - as was later the case o f Ephraem
in Syria - one offered one’s own creations as an alternative to
the creativity o f ‘heterodox’ teachers, or one drew back to the
‘canonical’ psalms and odes. Both tendencies were operative
concurrently.
An indirect indication o f the latter tendency can be
found in the fact that we have a relatively large number o f
biblical papyrus fragments from the time before Constantine,
not the least o f which are those from the psalter, however,
there are only a very few texts o f new songs. This is in
obvious contrast to the large number o f liturgical-hymnic
fragments from the Byzantine-Arab period after the fifth
or sixth century. Under the title ‘Prières liturgiques et prières
privées’ van Haelst lists 343 papyri and ostraca, o f which not
a few - such as amulets - were used for magical purposes.
O f all these, eleven include musical indications or nota
tions for singing. O f these late texts a number could naturally
be significantly older. Several had the traditional ‘character
o f a psalm’ and were not equivalent to the later Byzantine
poetry with a specific number o f syllables and accents.
Unfortunately they cannot be dated.78 The widely attested
magical use shows that the liturgy was always open to
syncretism and magic in spite o f all attempts to the contrary.
77 C. Cel. 8.67; cf. T. Schermann, Ägyptische Abendmahlsliturgien des ersten

Jahrtausends, SGKA 6.1.2 (1912), pp. 21 If.; W. Schütz, Der christliche Gottesdienst
bei Origenes, CThM 9 (1984), pp. 141f., 136ff. For the language o f prayer, see
A. Hamman, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 81-90.
78 Op. cit. (n. 68), pp. 263-330 Nos. 720-1063. Cf. 84-98 Nos. 83-251 texts o f
psalms and odes, the canonical psalms and hymns o f well-known authors Nos.
681, 698. Musical notation are present in Nos. 109,176, 212 (?), 223. The share
o f liturgical texts among the Christian papyri increases - as far as I can judge -
in later times, whereas the share o f Biblical and literary papryi decreases. For
Egyptian ‘psalms’, see L. Koenen, ‘Ein christlicher Prosahymnus des 4.Jhdt.s’,
in Antidoron Martino David, P. L. Bat. 17 (1968), pp. 31-52, which consists o f a
widely known Trishagios-hymn and a chairetismos which was inserted into it.
The former is as follows:
In addition to biblical texts, references to the Trishagion

and the heavenly liturgy as well as trinitarian formulas
were popular because o f their magical properties, similar
to the Kedushah and the Hekhalot-texts in Jewish magic.79
One o f the earliest liturgical texts from the third century
contains a npooeuxq tcdv ànooxoÀcov néxpou Kai xöv aÀAoov,
a morning prayer and an expanded version o f a hymn that is
also found in the Hermetic tract Poimandres.80
It is no accident that from the fifteen texts that van Haelst
dates to the second century, four fragments are codices of
psalms. The form o f the codex is a sign o f the fact that they are
all Christian texts and the arrangement o f the lines a sign o f
âyioç ô 080Ç
âyioç ô ioxupoç
âyioç ô ccOâvaToç
ô oapKoOeiç ôi* rjpâç
éÀéqoov qpâç.
Further materials and extensive literature in H. Quecke, Untersuchungen
zum koptischen Stundengebet, P IO L 3 (1970). See also the many texts that
are difficult to date in A. Hamman, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 124ff. Nos. 98, 98a, 100,
103-5, 108.
79 See J. v. Haelst, op. cit. (n. 68), p. 414 Index s.v. Amulette: p. 127 passages
with Biblical, liturgical and magical texts. See PGM II (21974), pp. 209-35 and
particularly P. 3.5abd; P. 7, 10, 12, 13, 15abc, 18, 23 o. 3. Cf. J. v. Haelst, op. cit.,
Nos. 1058/9. Cf. the Jewish (?) text No. 911 (end o f the first or beginning o f the
second century), ‘Fragment d ’une prière contre les esprits impurs’, RB 58
(1981), 549-65; also the great magical payri PGM I ( 21973), Nos. I-V I and II
(21974), XII, 245ff. (ou to övopa to evôoÇov oi âyyeÀoi ùpvoüoi (257); cf. XIII,
786f.; XXX, lOff. etc. contain manyJewish-Christian liturgical-hymnic elements
in addition to pagan hymns, cf. II, 237ff.
80 P. Berlin 9794 = BKT VI, llO ff.; J. v. Haelst, op. cit. (n. 68), No. 722
third century; cf. C H 1.31; R. Reitzenstein and P. Wendland, Zwei angeblich
christl. lit. Gebete, N G W G .P H (1910), p. 324; idem and H. H. Schaeder, Studien
zum antiken Synkretismus . . . , (1965), pp. 160f. (new text); French trans.
A. Hamman, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 116ff., 467f.: Nos. 89-91. The earliest
‘Christian’ magical text is probably P. Harris 55 = J. v. Haelst, op. cit., No. 1076
from the second century, which has an affinity with Matt. 5:34 and quotes Isa.
66:1. P. Fay. 2 = v. Haelst, op. cit., No. 1066, E. Heitsch, op. cit. (n. 69), 1, pp.
276ff.; second/third century, is on the other hand not a ‘psaume des
Naasséniens’ with a description o f Christ’s descent to hell, thus O. Swoboda,
in WSt 27 (1905), 299-301, but a pagan descensus poem, which has only the
anapaestic metre in common with the Naassene Hymn, see J. Kroll, Gott und
die Hölle (1932), pp. 76f. n. 3 and the introduction by D. L. Page, Select Papyri
///( 1950) (L C L ), No. 94.
the fact that they were sung as psalms.81 Next to Isaiah

the psalter was not only - from the beginning - the most
important Old Testament prophetic text, which was inter
preted as statements about the person and work o f Christ, but
it was also the hymnbook o f the Church. On the other hand the
term ‘psalm’ disappears almost entirely in the Gnostic-Coptic
texts o f Nag Hammadi. One could interpret the ‘Biblicism’
which regrettably resulted in the suppression o f the oldest
poetry o f the Church, as a return to (or a preserving o f) the
very earliest ‘beginnings’ . The first songs o f the early Christian
congregation were the ‘messianicly’ interpreted psalms o f the
old covenant.82
In the dark second century we have only a few ‘ traces’, since
the blooming Christian literature o f this period has with some
exceptions been lost - they were not ‘orthodox’ enough for
the later fathers. The christological fragments o f a Melito of
Sardis, which were often formulated in crass antitheses83 and
81 Op. cit. (n. 68), pp. 409f. No. 151: Oxford Bodl L, Gr bibl g 5 (P ), ed. J. W.
B. Barns and G. D. Kilpatrick, PBA 43 (1957), pp. 229-32 (= K. Aland,
Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri I, PTS 18, 1976, p. 136, AT 68);
P. Alex. 240, ed. M. Norsa, BSAA 22 (1926), pp. 162-4 = PSI Nr. 921 (= K. Aland,
op. cit., 146, AT 77); P. Antinoopolis 7, ed. C. H. Roberts, The AntinoopolisPapyri
1 (1950), pp. lf. (= K. Aland, op. cit., 146, AT 78); P. Leipzig 170, ed. C. F. G.
Heinrici, Die Läpziger Papyrusfragmente der Psalmen (1903), pp. 29f. and col. 35/
36 (= K. Aland, op. cit. 155, A T 86). The text o f this papyrus, which is dated by
the editors in the second or second/third century is already written in stichoi;
cf. C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt, SchL 1977,
p. 53: ‘O f the earliest fourteen texts no less than three are o f the Psalter, and the
Psalter, more used and read than any book o f the O ld Testament,. . . , was as a
rule o f no particular interest to Gnostics.’ The high esteem in which the
Christian congregations in Egypt in the second century held the psalter,
demonstrates that the congregations were not entirely Gnosticized.
82 See below, p. 290. For the term ‘Biblicism’, seej. Kroll, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 38;
cf. W. Caspari, op. cit. (n. 1), 29, pp. 151, 441 ff. This restrictive position cannot
have arisen only in the middle o f the third century, but was effective in the
different regions o f the church in the second century, to be sure with very
different intensity. For N ag Hammadi, see F. Siegert, Nag-Hammadi-Register,
W U N T 26 (1982), p. 326: ‘Psalmos’ occurs twice N H C II, 133, 16; 137, 15 = the
exegesis o f the soul; in both passages it is related to the canonical psalter, which
in addition to Isaiah, the gospels and the Odyssee are also quoted.
83 For the antithetical Asiatic style in the sermons o f the early church, see
E. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa (51958), 2, pp. 562ff., for Gregory o f Nazianzus,
who according to Jerome, vir. ill. 117, imitated the great rhetorican Polemon
(ca. 90-145) who probably influenced the style o f Melito. The most important
rhetorical figure was ‘the antithesis in the form o f the isocolon with
which ‘sound hymnic’ , prove - following the discovery o f the

Passover Homily - to be artistic Asiatic prose which expresses
the paradox o f the incarnation and the crucifixion o f the Son
o f God in an impressive fashion.84 This hymnic style is also
present in other texts, which are preserved only in Syriac and
perhaps also in Georgian fragments. However, on the reverse
o f the last page o f the Passover Homily there is a real fragment
o f a song with six lines. It begins with the imperatives:
ùjavqoaxe xôv naxepa oi âyioi
qtoaxe xfj }ii]xpi napOevoi
ùjivoûpev unepuij/ouêv äyioi
i)\pco0rjx8 v\3p4>ai Ka'1vujMjrfoi
oxi ijeöpaxe xöv vupcjnov ùjicdv Xpioxöv
etc; oïvov mexe vujjkJxxi Kai vujatjnoi. . .
According to the editor, O. Perler, the text was written by

Melito and is a hymn-like dialogue which was sung anti-
phonally at the Quartodecimal Easter vigil. In contrast to the
text from the Acts o f Thomas (see above, n. 38) not the oo(J)ia
but rather the Church is designated as ‘mother’ .85
There remains Justin. The christologically interpreted
psalter is central.86 His choice o f words demonstrates that:
homoioteleuton’ (p. 565). For many examples from the acts o f the apostles and
early Christian sermons J. Kroll, op. cit. (n. 1), 50ff., 62ff.: ‘we have here an
established style, which was developed for the christological hymn’. In such
hymns antitheses ‘were natural in light o f the contradictions that were present
in the figure o f the Kyrios himself (63). See below, pp. 287f.
84 Melito o f Sardis, On Pascha and Fragments, ed. S. G. Hall, O E C T (1979);
Méliton de Sardes, Sur la paque et fragments, SC 123 (1966). P. Bodmer XII is from
the third/fourth century. For the fragments, see S. G. Hall, fr.13*, 16* and New
Fragments I—III, pp. 80-96; and XXXVI, cf. M. van Esbroeck, ‘Nouveaux
fragments de Méliton de Sardes’, in AnBoU 90 (1972), 63-99. For the style, see
J. Kroll, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 21f. The anonymous Passover homilies, that were in
part attributed to Hippolytus, were formulated in the style o f a prose-hymn, ed.
P. Nautin, Homélies pascales, I, SC 27 (1950), and II, SC 36 (1953). Nautin
surmises a dependency upon Hippolytus, dates them in post-Arian times. Cf.
also the description o f Christian life in hymnic prose in sixteen parts with subject
and predicate with end-rhyme o f Theophilos, ad Au toi. 3.15, cf. R. M. Grant,
After the New Testament (1967), pp. 60f.
85 Ed. O. Perler, ‘Eine Hymnus zue Ostervigil von Meliton?’ FrSch (1960),
128f.; S. G. Hall, op. cit. (n. 84), p. 85: fr. 17* and XXVIII, XXXVIIIf.
86See the index in E. J. Goodspeed, Die ältesten Apologeten (1914), pp. 372ff.
Some psalms stand out: 2; 19; particularly 22 (cf. dial. 97—106) ; 45; 72; 96; 110.
ipaÀpoç appears thirty-four times, upvoç by contrast only

three times, specifically once as a quote o f Ps. 72:20 (dial.
34.6) and once o f Isa. 42:10 (65.5). Only once (apol. 13.2) is
it placed in relation to the praise o f God in worship.87Similarly
a op a : It appears twice as a quote o f Ps. 95:1: ’ A ioaxe tco Kupicp
qcopa Kaivöv (dial. 73.3; 74.2). Any indication o f ‘new songs’
are not to be found. That may depend on the scholastic form
o f argumentation in the Dialogus. It is at the same time char
acteristic o f the prosaic character o f the author. A text that is
attributed to him and that is preserved by Eusebius has the
title ijrdAxqc; ‘the psalm-singer’; its content is, however, entirely
unknown.88
4. Indications o f the Singing o f Songs and Psalms

in the Earliest Christian Worship
It cannot be doubted that in spite o f the later apologetic-
antiheretical attempts to reduce the poetry to the psalms and
in spite o f the paucity o f indications in references to worship
in the earliest Christian congregations, people sang and
composed songs for singing. The most important witness is at
the same time the earliest reference o f a pagan to Christians,
the well-known letter o f Pliny the Younger, who as legate o f
Caesar for Bithynia and Pontus took legal action against
Christian in Pontus in 111/12 and reported to Trajan about
it.89 The passage about early Christian worship, o f which the
New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers report so litde, is o f
inestimable value. People who had been Christians reported:
quod essent solid stato die ante lucem convenire carmenque
Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem, seque sacramento non
in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne
adulteria committerent. ..
87 Cf. E. J. Goodspeed, Index Apologeticus (1912), s.v.; apol. 13.2: ekeivc») ôè
eûxapiorouç ovxaç Ôià Àoyou nopnàç Kai üpvouç népneiv. Dial. 117.2 (cf. apol.
13.1 and 67.5 at the celebration o f the eucharist) only mentions £\!>xai Kai
euxapioxiai. The language o f apol. 13.2 is directed to the pagan reader.
88 H E 4.18.5.
89 Ep. 10.96.7. The literature is vast. The most important information is in
the commentary by A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters o f Pliny (1966; 31985), pp.
702-8 (lit.); see also the survey o f the literature by F. Römer, ‘Plinius der
Jüngere, III. Bericht’, AAW 2S (1985), 185-8. Fundamental still is in my opinion
F. J. Dölger, SolSalutis (1925; 31972), pp. 103-36.
On a certain day prior to sunrise they were accustomed to gather,

to sing antiphonally about Christ as their God and to bind
themselves with an oath not to commit any kind o f crimes, not to
commit theft, robbery or adultery . . .
From this follows that former Christians considered the sing

ing o f a song about Christ as one o f the most important parts
o f their worship. This apparently clear passage is not un
problematic: based upon the following oath, Lietzmann90
concluded that the occasion was a baptismal celebration and
that therefore the carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum
invicem is to be understood as the baptismal confession that
was recited in the style o f question and answer. The earliest
interpreter, Tertullian,91 interpreted the event as a song about
Christ and as a sermon that exhorted ethical behaviour: ad
canendum Christo ut deo et ad confoederandam disciplinant;
Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (3:33. 1) is dependent
upon Tertullian: xöv Xpioxöv xo\5 0£oü ôiKqv ùjavsïv. One is,
therefore, inclined to suppose that the celebration is the
regular ( essent soliti stato die) worship service on Sunday
morning, as a part o f which a song about Christ was sung in
which predicates o f God were applied to Christ. This would
be similar to the prologue o f the Gospel o f John ( kcci 0£0ç rjv
ô Àoyoç) or the hymn in Philippians (oç év pop(|)f] 0£ou
unapxcov) .92
With this we recognize a basic characteristic o f the New
Testament and early Christian ‘hymnic’ passages or fragments:
90 Kleine Schuften III, T U 74 (1962), pp. 48-53, 54f.
91Apol. 2.6; cf. F.J. Dölger, op. cit. (n. 89), p. 124: ‘We have no reason to doubt
this interpretation.’ For ‘carmen’, seej. Quasten, in RAC 2 (1954), pp. 901-10
(905ff. to ep. 10.96). For ‘carmen dicere’ = to sing, see Horaz, carm. saec. 8: di s. . .
dicere carmen, cf. v. 75; carm. 1.32.3f.; 4.12.9f.; Livius 39.7.3: carminaque a
militibus . . . in imperatorem dicta. Many further examples in J. Kroll, op. cit. (n.
1), 18f. n. 3: ‘carmen dicere is equivalent to Greek üpvouç Àéyeiv’ (19).
92John 1:1; Phil. 3:6. A few, but old and good manuscripts as well as the old
traditions have in 1 Tim. 3:16: oq etfxxvepwOi] £V oapKi. In the Byzantine text a
Oeoç. . . was substituted. The mistake may go back to the second century. Instead
o f the simple O C one wrote 0 C . For Christ as ‘G od’, see John 20:28; Tit. 3:4; 2
Pet. 1:1; Ignatius, Eph. insc. 1:1; 15:3; Trail. 7:1; Rom. 3:3; Smyr. 10:1; Pol. 3:3; 2
Clem. 1:1, cf. 13:3f; 12:1-3. Most o f these texts come from the same time and in
part the same region as the letter o f Pliny (John and Ignatius). F. J. Dölger, op.
cit. (n. 89), p. 128: ‘The carmen is completely consistent with the natural
development o f Christian liturgy.’
They are almost exclusively hymns - or more exactly psalms -

about Christ and no longer to God and in this sense they
are really a ‘new song\ They distinguish themselves in
content from the Jewish psalmic poetry upon which they
nevertheless are formally dependent.93 That Pliny reports
specifically this aspect o f worship may have something to
do with the fact he is conducting a hearing. Presumably
the Christians were accused o f committing serious crimes.
The accused on the other hand assert that their worship
includes commitment to ethical living. Perhaps in this
context the Christians were accused o f magic (necromacy or
the like) and therefore they defended themselves with the
fact that they did not sing magical incantations ( carmina),
but rather antiphonally a song about Christ as God. Perhaps
it was the singing o f a psalm at the beginning o f the
worship service. Pliny therefore cannot find any such flagitia
among them, but only rampant superstition (superstitio prava
et immodica). The worship o f the crucified criminal illustrates
this. The double maledicere Christo and the carmenque Christo
quasi deo dicere which precede are closely related. He or
she who curses Christ is healed from this crazy superstition;
for that person ‘detur paenitentiae venid (96.2, cf. 97.1) is
recommended. Characteristic are the manifold similarities to
Livy’s description o f the scandals o f the Bacchanalia
(39.18.3).94
That people sang in the earliest Christian worship is
confirmed also by the apostolic father, Ignatius, and by a
Pauline and a Deuteropauline text in the New Testament. In
addition there are a few indirect statements.
93 R. Deichgräber, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 60: ‘The pure hymn to God was almost
entirely supplanted by the hymn about Christ, or, more generally formulated, a
praise o f God, that leaves Christ out, is almost inconceivable.’ Cf. J. Kroll, op.
cit. (n. 1), pp. 17ff., 41ff.: ‘We have reason to assume that the hymn to Christ
goes back to the earliest congregation.’
94For the accusation o f magic (cf. Suetonius, Nero 16.3 the Christians as genus
hominum superstitionis novae et maleficae), see F. J. Dôlger, op. cit. (n. 89),
pp. 113ff.; for Christ as ‘biothanatos’ and the accusation o f necromany, see
M. Hengel, La crudfixion dans Vantiquité\ LeDiv 105 (1981), pp. 69ff. For the
scandal o f the Bacchanalia, see A. N. Sherwin-White, op. cit. (n. 89), p. 705;
R. Freudenberger, Das Verhalten der römischen Behörden gegen die Christen im 2. Jh.,
MBPF52 (1967), pp. 165ff.
One cannot overlook the fact that in comparison references

to personal prayer and prayer in worship in its manifold
expressions are much more common - the borderline
between song and prayer was perhaps in part fluid (see above,
pp. 238f.). Even 1 Clement, which is a treasure-chest o f
originally Jewish prayer texts,95does not speak o f singing. The
twelve joyous virgins in the Shepherd of Hermas, who amuse
themselves with the amazed shepherd, when they ‘danced or
sang in dance-steps’, and who then pray with him throughout
the entire night, cannot with certainty be set in relation to
worship practices.96 It is, therefore, all the more significant
that 1 Clem. 34:6-8, like Rev. 4:8, quotes the Trishagion in a
new form as the liturgy o f the angels and encourages the
participants, ‘gathered together in unanimity (év opovoujt)’ ,
to join ‘as out o f one mouth ((bç éÇ èvoç oxopaxoq)’ in the
heavenly praise o f God in the expectation o f participation in
the heavenly glory. In dependency upon the use o f the
Kedushah in the synagogue this is pointing to the ultimate
unity between heavenly and earthly worship.97The Àeixoupysïv
(Dan. 7:10) and the unison call o f angels (Isa. 6:3: éKÉKpayov)
becomes the example for the worship o f the earthly con
gregation which is gathered together in unanimity for calling
upon God. Jewish-Christian dialogue today should perhaps
begin at this point o f ultimate unity. This important hymnic
element, that has a central role in the eucharistie celebration
and that perhaps goes back to the liturgical custom o f the first
century in Rome can be further followed in different steps. It
95 See particularly the great congregational prayer in 1 Clem. 59-61, and E. v.
d. Goltz, Das Gebet in der ältesten Christenheit (1901), pp. 192-207, cf. pp. 135,
147f., 157f., 246-8.
96 Hermas, sim 9.11 = 88.3-7. See M. Dibelius, Der H irt des Hermas, H N T Suppl.
Vol. IV (1923), pp. 618f.
97See I. Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entxvick-
lung ( 31931; repr. 1967), pp. 61ff. cf. 67, for its peculiar significance in the
‘mystic’ Hekhalot-texts, see I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mystiäsm,
AGAJU 14 (1980), Index, p. 245: Song o f Quedushah/Sanctus; I. Heinemann,
op. cit. (n. 24), pp. 231ff. For ‘unity’, see Paul, Rom. 15:6; Ignatius, Eph. 4.1;
Asc. Jes. 7:15; 9:28 (151, 185 Tisserant); see J. Quasten, op. cit. (n. 1), pp.
90-102 and T. Wolbergs, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 105f.: also POxy 15, 1786 (see
above, p. 254, n. 69) has this motif at the begining o f the fragment. Cf.
A. Dohmes, Die Einstimmigkeit des Kultgesangs als Symbol der Einheit, LuM H .l
(1948), pp. 67-72.
appears in the offertory prayer o f Bishop Serapion o f Thmuis

in a version similar to that in 1 Clem. 34 where it is connected
with the idea o f oratio infusa: ÀaÀi]odT(o év fjpïv ô Kupioç
’Iijooüç Kai otyiov nveCpa Kai i)pvi]odxcD oè ôi’ rjpcav, after
that follows the mention o f the choirs o f angels in Dan. 7:10
and the Trishagion.98
The m otif o f unanimity appears almost concurrently with
1 Clement in Ignatius, Eph. 4.1f.:
ôià xoOxo év xrj ôpovoiqc ujjuSv Kai oujjujxovcp ayany]

’Iijoouc; Xpioxoç çtÔ£xai. Kai oi Kax’ avôpa ôè x°pdÇ yiv£O0£,
ïva o\3p(J)covoi ôvx£ç év ôjxovoCç, xp&Fa Oeoö Xaßövx£c; èv
évoxqxi, çtÔ£X£ év <j)CDVf| jiiqt ôià ’Iqooö Xpioxoü xq> naxpi. . .
Therefore your accord and harmonious love is a song aboutJesus
Christ. One and all, you should form yourselves into a choir, so
that you sing in perfect harmony with one voice through Jesus
Christ to the Father . . .
In context this is metaphorically related to the relationship

o f bishop, presbyter and congregation; it presupposes, how
ever, certainly the liturgical custom o f the unison singing o f
the entire congregation in praise o f Christ.99
The church historian Socrates in the fifth century reports
that antiphonal singing o f hymns had been practised since
Ignatius and was introduced by Ignatius on the basis o f a
vision in which he saw angels ôià xö v avxi(J>covcov upvcov
(cf. Isa. 6:3: £X£poç npoç xöv ëx£pov) praising the Trinity;
this is presumably a later apologetic legend, which served to
justify the fact that in Antioch there was an old tradition o f
singing hymns in a form that departed from the normal
98 Cap. 13 ed. F. X. Funk, Didascalia et Const. Apost. II (1905; repr. 1970), p.

172 = A. Hänggi and I. Pahl, Prex Eucharistica, SpiFri. 12 (1968), p. 130, cf. the
liturgical fragment from Dêr-Balyzeh, op. cit., 124 = J. v. Haelst, op. cit. (n. 68),
No. 737; idem, ‘Une nouvelle reconstitution du papyrus liturgique de Dêr-
Balizeh’, EThLAS (1969), 444-5 = A. Hângi and I. Pahl, op. cit., pp. 124ff. or the
Alexandrian Liturgy o f Mark, pp. 11Off. See p. 120 = P. Rylands 3.465, sixth
century = J. v. Haelst, Nos 976 and 977. For the Kedushah in Jewish worship, see
above, n. 97.
99W. Bauer and H. Paulsen, Die Briefe des Ignatius . . . , Ap. Vater II, H N T 18
( 21985), p. 31: ‘’IqooCq Xpioxoç; çtôexai proves, even in its metaphorical
language, the custom in the church o f singing praise to Jesus Christ.’
custom.100 The legend may have been influenced by the

hymnic enthusiasm o f the letters o f Ignatius.
The m otif o f the hymnic praise o f God in unison appears
for the first time in Paul; at the end o f Rom. 15:5f. Paul prays
to God for the unanimity o f the recipients o f the letter: i'va
ôpoÔupaôôv év évi oxopaxi ôoÇaÇqxe xöv 0eôv Kai naxépa
xoö Kupiou qpcov Tijooü Xpioxou. The m otif goes back
certainly to the Jewish idea that ‘ the angels praise God in
unison’ ; the earthly praise o f God should model itself on the
heavenly.101
The only detailed discussion o f the correct form o f worship
in the New Testament, 1 Cor. 14, suggests that this is more than
a superficial formulaic statement and that Ôo^dÇeiv means the
praise o f God in song. It is also the earliest text on this subject
that we have.102 In 1 Cor. 14 Paul has occasion to speak o f
singing in worship only because the Corinthian enthusiasts
threaten to transform worship into chaos through their
preference for glossolalia. This situation alone - similar to the
problems at the eucharist - is the reason that we learn specifics
about the ‘Spirit filled’ worship in the Pauline church. This
demonstrates how much our knowledge o f the beginnings o f
Christianity are dependent upon external superficialites. The
apostle differentiates praying (npooeuxeoGai) and singing
(i{/àÀÀ£iv) both in glossolalic manner xcp nveupaxi and in
intelligible language xcp voi (14:15).
100 //E 6.8.11 (ed. R. Hussey, Oxford, 1863,2, p. 685). According to Theodoret,
H E 2.24.9 (GCS 44 ed. L. Parmentier and F. Scheidweiler, 21954, p. 154) it
was two monks at the time o f Constantius, Flavian and Diodor, who intro
duced antiphonal singing in Antioch in the fourth century, see W. Caspari, op.
cit. (n. 1), 29, pp. 127f.
101The term ôpoGupaôov is preferred by Luke, see above, pp. 238f., for Acts
4:24. Many examples from Judaism in Spicq, Notes de Lexicographie Néotestamentaire
O B O 22.2 (1978), pp. 619-20. The ‘liturgical’ use originated in the language o f
the synagogue: Judith 4:12; T.Naph. 6:10; Sap. 10:20, etc. For the worship o f the
angels, see O. Betz, art. ‘<})0)v q ’, in T h W N T 9 (1973), p. 279 1. 28 with reference
to 1 En. 47:2; 61:7, 9, 11; Apoc. Abr. 18:2; 2 En. 19:6; see the Talmudic and
mystic texts quoted by K. E. Grözinger, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 90f. in particular Pes.
R. 20 §11.4 (97a): bepah ’ähad ’ôm'rîm: quote Exod. 15:18 and Ps. 146:10. I.e. the
kingdom o f God is proclaimed in unity.
102See M. Hengel, op. cit. (n. 28), If. For the phenomenon o f glossolalia, see
G. Theissen, Psychologische Aspekte paulinischer Theologie FRLANT 131 (1983), pp.
289-340. G. Dautzenberg, Art. ‘Glossolalie’, R A C 11 (1981), pp. 225-46.
1 Cor. 13:1 permits the supposition that the Corinthians

considered glossolalia to be the heavenly language o f the
angels, that is, that they thereby participated xcp nvcojiaxi in
the heavenly worship. According to a Hellenistic Jewish text,
the Test. Job. 48-50,103 the daughters o f Job speak the
language o f the angels; the first sends a hymn to God like the
heavenly song o f the angels (upvov àvanéptjjaoa xcp 0£cp
Kaxà xrjv xcov àyyéÀcov upvoÀoyiav). Presumably ipdÀÀeiv xcp
nvsupaxi is to be understood similarly. Glossalia speaks and
sings not for humans, but rather for God (14:2): nv£Ûpaxi ôè
ÀaÀEï puoxqpia. According to 2 Cor. 12:4, Paul in an ecstatic
state heard in third heaven or in paradise äppqxa pqpaxa.
The new song o f the saved 144,000 (Rev. 14:3) before the
throne o f God could be understood by no one other than they
themselves. Nevertheless, in earthly worship Paul permits only
understandable singing and praying év vot, both o f which are
almost interchangeable because only so will the congregation
‘be edified’ . When one praises God év nveupaxi the others
cannot respond with amen in total conviction. Glossalia is
therefore valuable for private edification, in worship, however,
only if at the same time someone has the gift o f èppi]V£ia to
interpret this angelic speaking in tongues.
With the goal o f edification the apostle seeks to bring order
into the chaotic worship in Corinth and he orders (1 Cor.
14:26):
öxav oi)V£pxi]o0£, ëitaoxoç ij/aAjiöv £X£i, öiöaxqv £X£i,
ànoKâÀuij/iv £X£i, yÀwooav £X£i, èpjx£v£iav £X£i*
navxa npoç oiKOÔonqv yivéoGco.
Several points are noteworthy:

1. A song stands at the beginning. One might ask whether
the worship opened with such.
2. The apostle does not mention a prayer. The preceding
words npoo£\3xeo0at, £UÀoyeïv, £i>xapioxia are missing. Is it
self-evident that he does not mention it again or is it more or
less subsumed under song?
103 48:3: irj ayyeAiKfj <j>a>vft; 50:2; 49:2: rj ôiâÀeKTOç t ö v apxovxtov; 50:1: èv
pipei; 50:2: t ö v xepooßip; see G. Dautzenberg, op. cit. (n. 102), 233ff. with
further examples.
3. The apostle speaks - parallel to the verb ipaÀÀeiv in 14:15

- in a non-Greek fashion o f i|/aÀpôç.
For the Greeks ipaÀÀeiv and ipaApoq mean touch, pluck, twitch
with the fingers, primarily in relation to playing harps or similar
stringed instruments (among other things with a plektron), but
never in relation to singing.104The development to the meaning
‘sing’ , ‘song’ took place in the LXX where the Hebrew verb
zimmer [pi], which means singing, praising and playing a stringed
instrument, was primarily rendered by tjiaAAeiv and the
corresponding noun mizmor, that usually appears in the
superscriptions of the psalms, by ipaÀjxoc;. In this way the
collection of songs in the Hebrew Bible which is called fhillîm,,
songs of praise, received the designation ipaApoi or ipaAxqpiov
which for Greek ears was misleading; the latter certainly is
secondary since in the LXX it still means a stringed instrument.105
Since the hymnbook of the old covenant was for early Christianity
the inspired prophetic text that was most frequently quoted -
even more than Isaiah - one may assume that the Old Testament
104See Stephanus and D in dorf IX, s.v.; Liddell and Scott, Lex. p. 2018.
ipaÀÀeiv ‘sing to a harp’ appears for the first time in the LX X; in early
Christianity this became singing without any musical accompaniment.
Analogously ipaÀpoç originally meant ‘twitching or twanging with the fingers’
specifically ‘mostly o f musical strings’ and also in Pindar, fr. 11 (Schroeder),
Phrynichus tragicus 11 (B. Snell, Trag. Gr. Frag. I, 1971, p. 76) ‘the sound o f the
cithera or harp’. We find the change o f meaning for the first time in the LX X to
‘song sung to the harp’ and in the New Testament ‘psalm’ in the sense o f
religious song in general. See G. Delling, art. ‘üpvoç . . .’, T h W 8, 497f. for the
‘shift o f meaning’ in the LXX; the thorough investigation o f H. Roberson, ‘The
Meaning and Use o f psallo', RestQG (1962), 19-31, 57-66. Josephus, ant. 11.128
calls the singers in the temple IspoijmAxai; Test. Job. 14 still has the traditional
usage: Job has six harps (ijiaÀpoi cf. Job 21:12; 30:31; LX X ) see B. Schaller,
JSHRZ III, 3 (1979), p. 336: After feeding the widows eAapßavov xqv Kiôâpav
Kai 8i|/aÀÀov aûxoîç, Kai aùxai üpvouv. Kai sk xoö ipaAxrjpfou (the playing o f a
stringed instrument) ctveplpvqoKOV aùxàç xoö Oeoû ïva ôoÇàoooiv xöv
Kupiov. It is, therefore, misleading when W. Bauer, ‘Der Wortgottesdienst der
älteren Christen’, in Aufsätze und kleinere Schriften (1967), p. 171, says that in
1 Cor. 14:26 ‘the ipaÀpôç - this word was used by the Greeks since Pindar and
Aeschylus - is not an O ld Testament psalm’. In opposition to the traditional
Greek meaning ‘play’ it is here a song and thus the word points to the Old
Testament Jewish tradition. When W. Bauer following E. Norden and J. Kroll
concedes that ‘the Christian prose-hymn is an inheritance o f the Orient’, one
must primarily think o f the Jewish psalm-poetry which developed over centuries.
105For the inscription, see A. Rahlfs, op. cit., 81: Cod. B: ipaÀpoi; cf. Luke
24:44: év . . . ipaÀpoïç; Luke 20:42; Acts 1:20: év ßtßAcp ipaApöv; Cod. A.;
ij/aAxqpiov expanding Rs.
psalter was also the primary moving force behind early Christian
hymnody. This unusual terminology became astonishingly wide
spread in the Church whereas Hellenistic Judaism only adopted
it hesitantly.106 It does not appear in the works of Philo. He can
describe the joy of Alexandrian Jews, who during the Feast of
Tabernacles received news that their arch-enemy Avillius Flaccus
had been arrested, in an entirely Greek fashion: ‘They raised their
hands to heaven and sang hymns: they also raised their voices in
paians to God, who looks upon humans’ (npoxeivovxeç xàç
X^ïpaç etc; oupavöv üpvouv Kai naiâvaç êÇfjpxov) . 107Conversely,
the equivalent terminology which had been taken from paganism
is almost non-existent in texts of Christian authors. The new
terminology which had its origin in the LXX remained - even in
Gnostic groups - dominant (see above, n. 73). Even Methodios
of Olympos (around 300) calls his song of the virgin a Koojaicoç
ijmÀÀsiv and the term ipaÀpoç appears more commonly than
(pÔrj and üpvoç together, although the form of the song is Greek
through and through (see above, pp. 253f.).
VdÀÀeiv and ipaÀpoç characterized originally the way in
which a song is sung: Because the number o f syllables per
verse was not fixed this was singing not to a composed melody
but rather in the form o f a (slightly accented?) chant - typical
for the Jewish tradition - which permitted only at the
beginning and at the end o f the stichoi melody-like tonal
movements.
4. The question must remain open whether the apostle is
thinking o f a psalm from the Old Testament or o f a song that
106In Josephus there is the meaning: (harp-) playing ant. 6.214; 7.80; 9.35;
12.323 üpvoiç Kai ipaÀpotç xöv pèv Oeöv xijaöv (with hymns and harp-playing)
= 1 Macc. 4:54 év cpôaïç Kai KiOâpaïc; Kai KupßaÄoic;. O n the other hand in
3 Macc. 6:35 év éÇopoÀoyqoeoiv iÀapaîq Kai ipaÀjioîc; one could think o f singing
o f psalms. Cf. Judith 16:1 évappôoaoGe aûx<p ij/aApöv Kai aivov; Ps. Sal. 3:2
and the superscriptions to the psalms; see 2 Macc. 1:30 oi Ôè iepeîç énéij/aÀÀov
xoùç üpvouç: They accompanied their hymns with the playing o f stringed
instruments. In the temple every Levitical singer also played a stringed
instrument.
107 In Flacc. 121; see on the other hand the negative use Leg. ad C. 96. Philo
quotes the psalms more often than all o f the other books o f the O ld Testament,
if you ignore the incomparable significance o f the Pentateuch; Léisegang,
Philonis Alex. Opera, VII, 1 (1926), p. 43 lists in the index (nineteen) quotations
from the psalms over against twelve from all o f the prophets and eighteen from
the historical works beginning with Joshua, Nevertheless he avoids the term
ipaÀpôç. It is not Greek enough.
was composed ad hoc or o f a ‘Christian psalm’ with which

the congregation was already acquainted. I think that a new
poem is most probable, but they will also have sung Old
Testament psalms. The eKaoToq E\ei indicates in addition that
such songs were primarily sung by individuals; this would
make an antiphonal singing, as mentioned in Pliny’s letter,
improbable. Supposedly such songs were sung in every service
o f worship.
5. Like other contributions to the common worship - the
teaching (ô iS ax ^ ), which was probably based upon the LXX,
and the revelation (ànoKaÀuijnç) , which was related to the
gift o f npo4>r]X8ia, and the glossalia including its translation -
the ipaApoq was also considered to be a gift o f the Spirit. They
were all together manifestations of Christ as the wisdom of God
(1 Cor. 1:30; 2:6f.; 12:8). Paul, who himself was a spiritual
person with ecstatic experiences, was no opponent o f these
proclamations o f the eschatological Spirit. Whereas in Corinth
he tried to direct the enthusiastic chaos, he exhorted the
recently converted Christians in Thessalonica with rhetorical
vigour (1 Thess. 5:19ff.):
to nveöjaa jarj oßevvuxe,
npo<}>i]T8iaç jaq éÇouGeveïxe,
navxa ôè ôoiapaÇsxe,
xö ôè KaÀov Kaxéxexe.
Two Deutero-Pauline texts, Col. 3:16-17 and Eph. 5:18b-20,

substantiate this judgement:
Col. 3:16-17 Eph. 5:18b-20

16 ô Àoyoç xoû Xpioxoû 18 Kai jxrj ji£0\3ok8o0£ oïvcp,
évoiKSixco év i)jxlv év <î) éoxiv àocoxia,
nÀouoicoc; àÀÀà nÀi}poôo0£ év
év ndofl oo<j)iç, nv£i3jjiaxi,
ôiôdoKOvxeç Kai 19 ÀaÀoûvx£ç éauxoïç
vouOexoôvxec; éauxoùç év ipaÀjjioTç Kai üjxvoiç Kai
ipaÀpoiç ôîvioc; cpôaïç cpôaïç nv£t)jjiaxiKaî(;
nveujiaxiKaïç aÔovx£ç Kai ijfàÀÀovx£ç xfl
év xf\ xapm, Kapôia i)jicov xç> KDpicp
qôovxeç év xaïç Kapôiaiç
XCp 0£<p*
17 Kai nav o xi éàv noiqxe 20 8Ûxapioxo0vx8ç navxoxe

év Aoycp q év ëpycp, ùnèp navxcov
navxa év ovopaxi év ovöpaxi xoO Kupioo
Kupioi) ’Ir]ooO rjpcov ’Iqooö Xpiaxou
8\JXaPlcrco^VTe<^ Oecp xcp Oecp Kai naxpC.
naxpi ôi’ auxoü.
The text o f Ephesians is clearly dependent upon that in

Colossians and is its first commentary: In contrast to the
punctuation o f the text o f Nestle and following the text
o f Westcott and Hort, Lightfoot,108 Lohmeyer,109 Percy,110
and Deichgräber111 the words ipaApoïç upvoiç cpôaïç
nveupaxiKaïç are to be taken together with the preceding
participles ôiôdtOKOvxeç Kai vouGexoüvxeç. The text was
understood thus by the author o f Ephesians who combined
both o f the participles as AaAouvxeç. The objection which is
often made, that song in worship could hardly have served
teaching and exhortation, is not convincing. On the contrary
it is the ‘poetic’ passages in the letters which have the specific
character o f teaching112and which at the same time serve the
parenesis. This unity o f parenesis and song-text(s) is
exemplified by 1 Peter.113 It is particularly characteristic o f
fragments o f christological songs and was also earlier
characteristic o f the Old Testament and the Jewish psalms. An
argument for the grammatical understanding which I am
advocating is the fact that in Colossians the participles which
rule a sentence are placed at the beginning whereas the
adverbial modifiers and objects belonging to them usually
follow.114The exegesis must, therefore, begin with Aoyoç xo\3
Xpioxoi).
108J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistles to Colossians and to Philemon (1975), pp.
289ff.
109 E. Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper, Kolosser und an Philemon, KEK
( 101954), pp. 150f.
110E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Ep heserbriefe, SHVL 29 (1946), pp. 395,
416f.
111 Op. cit. (n. 1), p. 188.
112 Deichgräber, loc. cit., calls attention to ‘the didactic argumentation
inherent in the quotation o f the hymn to Christ’, Col. l:15ff.
1131 Pet. l:18ff.; l:24f.; 2:21ff.; 3:10ff., 18f.
114 W. Bujard, Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief als Beitrag zur
Methodik von Sprachvergleichen, S U N T 11 (1973), pp. 60f.
The author is speaking in the larger context not o f worship

but parenetically o f the vita Christiana in the different areas o f
life. In v. 16 he returns to the worship gathering as the centre
and the source o f Christian life. There the Àoyoç t o ü Xpiorou,
the witness o f the salvation event that was revealed in the life
and work o f Christ, should be central. Significant is the fact
that - in contrast to the repeated use o f the formulas Àoyoç
t o ü 0soü or to o Kupiou in the New Testament - in this passage
only Àoyoç t o ü X pi 0T0ü appears.115 Apparently the author

wants to emphasize the christological determination o f the
word that is effective in worship. It should nÀouoioaç ‘richly’
and év ndoi] oocjna ‘in all wisdom’ dwell (évoiKeïv) in the
congregation. For the interpretation o f our passage one could
make reference to 1:9 where the expression év ndoi} oocjnqt
that stands at the end is supplemented by the interpreting Kai
ouvéoei nveupaxiKfl,116or to év nveupaxi Eph. 5:18b.
For the author the word o f Christ in richer, ever new form
and as the wisdom that is inspired by the Spirit is given its concrete
form in worship through the variety o f songs, which serve the
teaching and exhortation in the congregation. Its duty is -
entirely consistent with Paul’s own position - to build up the
congregation with the help o f various charismatic composers
and singers. Examples o f such songs as a ‘word o f Christ’ can
be found in Paul, in the Deutero-Pauline letters and in par
ticular in Ephesians and Colossians. The hyperbolic liturgical
style o f both letters makes it probable that the authors knew
o f a number o f ‘psalms’ which indirectly influenced the
choice o f words and the content o f the letters - even if one is
not inclined to discover in every chapter hymns, baptismal
liturgies or fragments o f songs.
The three terms ipaÀpoi, ôpvoi, cpôai are an expression o f
this fullness; they are not indications o f different genres o f
songs, but mean one and the same thing. The author is only
repeating the three most important terms o f the LX X (and
thus also o f the Hellenistic-Jewish and Christian worship
service) for the religious song. All three are interchangeable,
115Sin*, 1 ,1175, pc, bo have therefore Kupfou; A, C*, 33, a few miniscules 0eoO.
116Similarly Col. 1:28:... Kai ôiôaoKOvxeç navxa âvGpconov év naof] oo<j>{<jt
cf. Eph. 1:8.
a development already visible in the LXX. In contrast to the

various names o f genres for the Greek hymns to the gods,
the L X X uses in addition to the three named only the
relatively seldom designation çop a, which is missing both in
the New Testament and in writings o f the Apostolic Fathers,
perhaps because it has the strongest secular associations. It
is not by coincidence that ipaÄpöc; is named first as the most
important term.117 Apparently the plerophoric expression
illustrates the richness o f the word o f Christ that is sung. The
following adjective nveupaxiKoc; does not intend to
distinguish cpôat nveupaxiKai as ‘spiritual song’ from secular
song - this distinction would be introducing later usage into
the text - but characterizes the song in worship as a song
that is brought forth by the Spirit. As the gift o f the Spirit
the songs are not ‘ human precepts and doctrine’ (2:22),
such as the demands o f the ‘heretics’ in Colossae, but are a
‘word o f Christ’ that is filled with the divine wisdom.
The phrase év xrj x^pra which follows means neither as
Luther translated ‘lieblich/sweet’ songs (an aesthetic judge
ment is not intended) nor ‘in thankfulness’ (there is mention
o f thanksgiving in v. 15c and then again in v. 17), but is intended
to underscore that such a presence o f the word o f Christ in a
‘spiritual song’ is a sign o f being in the state o f grace.
This last part o f the sentence cxôovxeç év xaïç K apôiaiç
ùpcov xcp 08CO designates the song in worship as singing for
the praise o f God which comes from the heart. One should
not, as does Lohmeyer, weaken the term ‘singing’ and under
stand it to mean ‘at the same time silent praying and singing
which shrinks back even from the sound o f language’ and
which could be compared with ‘ the silent song o f the heart in
the mystic o f all generations’ .118The text contains the state-
117Clement o f Alexandria, who was the first to exegete our text in detail,
perceived this connection: ‘psalm is a harmonious and intelligible song o f
praise; the apostle called the psalm a “spiritual song’” (paed. 2.44.1). See above,
p. 248, n. 51 for Tertullian, uxor. 2.8.8, who alludes to our passage. For the
earlier attempts at interpretation which claim to have discovered various genres,
see F. Leitner, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 77f.
118 Op. cit. (n. 106), p. 151 with reference to N. v. Arseniew, ‘Das “innere Lied”
der Seele’, A K W 22 (1923/4), 266-83. See J. Quasten, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 75, and
the reference to Porphyrius, de abst. 2.34 for the highest God ‘neither the outer
ment that the Spirit which gives this song as a gift moves not
only the lips, but primarily and principally the heart as the
innermost part o f the human; it was already interpreted thus
by Theodoret o f Kyros: to ôè év tcxïç K a p ô iaiç, àvTi t o u , p.rj
povov t <£ OTÔpaTi.119 The goal o f the ‘word o f Christ’ , which
brings forth the song through the Spirit for the edification o f
the congregation, is the praise o f God. It is internally con
sistent when the ‘hymn’ in Philippians, which is in terms o f
content a pure song about Christ, closes with the sentence: ‘to
the glory o f God the Father’ .120
For the author o f Colossians, as for almost all o f the authors
o f the New Testament, the unity between God and his Christ
is in spite o f all subordination o f the latter an internal neces
sity. The thanksgiving to which one is called upon at the end
o f our passage in 3:17 is directed to ‘God the Father’ and is
made ‘through him’ , that is, through ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ .
Our interpretation finds confirmation through the use o f
Col. 3:16 in Eph. 5:19. In place o f ‘let the word o f Christ. . .’
stands the simple imperative ‘ be full o f the Spirit’ a com
mand that in connection with pf] peOuoiceoOe oivco . . . under
scores the crass distinction between Christian worship and the
drunken-like debauchery o f some pagan cults (5:18a) and at
the same time emphasizes that the song in Christian worship
is a gift o f the Spirit. The following teaching and exhortation
is summarized with ‘addressing one another’ and the singing
is supplemented by ‘singing in psalms’ . The word i|/dÀÀovT£ç
is thereby an explication o f the preceding cxôovteç.121
word o f the voice nor the inner is suitable, if it is polluted by the agitation o f the
soul, but rather we venerate him with pure silence and pure thoughts about
him’. This is what is not meant here.
119M P G 82, p. 620.
120 Phil. 2:11 cf. the hymnic conclusion o f the heavenly worship Rev. 5:13, but
also o f the christological-soteriological part o f Rom. 11:36 aikcp rj ôoÇa dç xoùç
aiôvaç, àpqv. The doxology is the goal o f all christology and theology. That the
conclusion o f Phil. 2:11 is an original part o f the hymn, has been convincingly
demonstrated by O. Hofius, Der Christushymnus P h il 2,6-11, W U N T 17 (1976),
pp. 8f., 50-5, 64f.
121 See here the prototypes in the psalter: 26:6 çioopai Kai ipaAci) xâ) Kupicp cf.
56:8; 104:2; 107:2; originally singing accompanied by playing stringed
instruments was meant; see above, p. 270, n. 106.
Most notable is the fact that in Eph. 5:19 at the end o f

the verse xcp 0e# is replaced by x # Kupicp;122 because
immediately afterward in 5:20 the text speaks o f ‘our Lord
Jesus Christ’ this is with certainty to be christologically inter
preted. This change confirms the observation that - as the
majority o f the songs and song-fragments in the New
Testament prove - even in the earliest worship the ‘song about
Christ’ was more common that the ‘ hymn to G od’ . This
differentiation should not lead to false consequences. In
v. 20, similar to Col. 3:17b, thanksgiving follows the singing
in honour o f the Lord as an additional fruit o f the Spirit.
This continues to be directed to ‘God the Father’ but ‘in the
name o f our Lord Jesus Christ’ . The unbreakable unity
between God and his Christ, which the later dogmatic
theology formulated in the formula which achieved
ecumenical acceptance, that the ‘opera Trinitatis ad extra
indivisa',123 relativizes the heuristically necessary separation
between the two forms o f song.
Let us try to summarize what has preceded:

1. The song had a peculiar significance in the services o f
worship in early Christian missionary congregations and was a
constitutive part o f such gatherings.
2. The songs were not only traditional psalms but also
spontaneous poetic creations. They were considered to be the
work o f the Spirit and the gift o f divine wisdom.
3. The song in worship was primarily determined by the
salvation event that was brought about through Christ, that is, it
manifested itself principally as a hymn about Christ.
122In Col. 3:16 the Byzantine text C2D 2 VF * as well as Bohairic and Vulgate
manuscripts have Kupko. From the beginning there was a tendency toward a
christological reference.
123The so-called ‘régula Augustini’, that did not appear until the twelfth
century, was quoted approvingly by Luther (W A 49.239.3f.; 54.57.35f.). It is
quoted in the Reformed confession o f Erlauthal from 1562, BSRK 265.35f.
and in the dogmatic works o f the old-protestant theologians, see H. Heppe and
E. Bizer, Die Dogmatik der ev.-refKirche (1958), pp. 89, 98, n. 14; H. Schmid and
H. G. Pöhlmann, Die Dogmatik der evAuth.Kirche (91979), pp. 99, 107f.; cf. C. H.
Taschow, Lutherische Dogmatik zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung II (1966), pp.
155-7, 160f. For all o f these references I thank D r A. Drewes.
4. In its poetic form it was - in spite o f the many possibilities

- dependent upon the ipaÀpoç in the LXX, that is, it stood
in the Old Testament Jewish tradition o f song and was bound
in its musical presentation to the form o f psalmody that
was represented there. One should therefore speak more
precisely about an early Christian ‘psalm’ rather than about a
‘hymn’ .
5. Psalms about Christ and Fragments o f Psalms

in the New Testament
For early Christian worship, at the latest from the establish
ment o f congregations in the Pauline mission, probably,
however, from the very first beginnings, we must assume that
people sang psalms and composed psalms that were inspired
by the Spirit; nevertheless in the New Testament poetic
compositions such as psalms, songs or hymns are never quoted
with reference to their genre or their intention. Apart from
the texts that have been named one never speaks explicitly
about song in Christian worship. The explanation for this lies
in the fact that in Acts and in the letters we hear very little at
all about the course o f worship specifically because it was - as
the generally accepted foundation o f the entire life o f the
early Christian congregation - not problematic. Only because
there were significant conflicts in Corinth do we hear about it
at all. In addition we learn in the entire New Testament
nothing about readings from the Old Testament in Christian
worship with the exception o f the brief and indirect note
1 Tim. 4:13.124
In other words, all o f the so-called ‘hymns’ and ‘fragments
o f hymns’ , which have been ‘discovered’ , are strictly speaking
124 We have only allusions to Jewish worship Luke 4:16ff.; Acts 13:15, 27;
15:21. We have to assume that in Christian congregations there was usually
a scripture reading. Only on this assumption is the argumentation o f Paul
based on the O ld Testament understandable. See R. Knopf, Das nachapostolische
Zeitalter (1905), pp. 233f. Cf. 2 Clem. 19:1 and Justin, apol. 67.3. The reading
o f Christian texts is mentioned in Rev. 1:3 and Mark 13:14, see M. Hengel,
Die Evangelienüberschriften, SHAW.PH (1984), 3, pp. 33f. See now j. C. Salzmann,
op. cit. (n. 29), pp. 68f., 72ff., 416ff., 441ff., see also index, Schriftlesung,
p. 534.
hypothetical. Exegesis up until the beginning o f this century

did not - with one exception - even see the problem. That
should make one pause. The early catholic Church did not
introduce these texts into its liturgy. The number o f such
hymns and fragments o f hymns is also controversial. A scholar
such as G. Schille125 tries to identify over thirty hymnic
passages in the New Testament - which he then divides into
various genres such as saviour-song, initiation-song, baptismal-
song, awakening-song, epiphany-song, etc. - in spite o f his
reservation that ‘ the uncertainty in this area is much greater
than anywhere else’ . Speculative fantasy finds no boundaries
here. In the case o f several well-known passages such as Phil.
2:6-11, Col. 1:15-20 or the prologue o f the Gospel o f John
some have even speculated that here originally Gnostic (or
Hellenistic Jewish) hymns to wisdom were secondarily
Christianized.126These theses for some time fashionable have
in the meantime lost much o f their conviction. We therefore
do not need to discuss them further.
There are also great methodological difficulties. E. Norden’s
stylistic observations, the form-critical investigation and the
research on creeds searched in the letters for units o f tradition
125Frühchristliche Hymnen (1965), p. 14.

126 Cf. for John 1:1-18. R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, KEK
( n 1950), pp. 1-5. The source that the gospel author used was the song o f a
Gnostic baptismal congregation, cf. pp. 12ff. For Phil. 2:6-11 see E. Käsemann,
‘Kritische Analyse von Phil 2,5-11’ in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, 1
( 21960), pp. 51-95 (69, 71, 80-3, 92) cf. K. Wengst, Christologische Formeln und
Lieder des Urchristentums (1972; 21973), pp. 153-6. D. Georgi, ‘Der vorpaulinische
Hymnus Phil 2,6-11’, in Zeit und Geschichte. Dankesgabe an R. Bultmann z. 60.
Geburtstag (1964), pp. 264-93 surmises a wisdom-hymn from Jewish Hellenistic
groups as a basis. For Col. l:15ff. see the summary o f research in H. J.
Gabathuler, Jesus Christus. Haupt der Kirche - Haupt der Welt, A T hA N T 45 (1965),
pp. 131-45 (139f.); see E. Käsemann, ‘Eine urchristliche Taufliturgie’, in op.
cit., pp. 34-51 (37ff.). The existence o f pre-Christian Gnostic hymns, which were
reworked in early Christianity, cannot be demonstrated in any o f these cases. It
is necessary to distinguish clearly between hypothetic ‘attempts at
reconstruction o f earlier sources’ and the question o f the traditio-historical
origin o f motifs. ‘Gnostic hymns’ as the basis for New Testament texts are
entirely products o f fantasy. The claim that there was a - temporally - pre-
Christian Gnosticism prior to Paul is still pure speculation, for which there is up
until now no textual basis. It would be a sign o f ‘Geistlosigkeit’ if the earliest
Christianity felt it necessary for its ‘psalms’ in praise o f Christ to utilize primarily
entirely foreign, syncretistic poems.
which came from the oral tradition and which had a fixed
formulation; some scholars discovered all kinds o f formulaic
material, particularly the so-called ‘creedal formulas' .127 The
most well-known is 1 Cor. 15:3-5. In addition one could name:
short prayer elements; eulogies, like those that were common
in Judaism and which Paul occasionally wove into his letters
(Rom. 1:25; 2 Cor. 11:31; Rom. 9:5); xâpiÇ-formulas (1 Cor.
15:57, etc.); doxologies (Rom. 16:27); but also more extensive
prayers.128 Both in the case o f formulas with the character o f
creeds and in the case o f larger prayer compositions,
particularly when they are formulated in the third person and
had a doxological character, it is occasionally difficult to
decide whether they were merely prayers which may have been
composed ad hoc by the author or whether they were sung as
ijiaÀpoç or upvoç. An example is the ‘hymnic’ prayer at the
end o f 1 Tim. 6:15,16. Deichgräber, who wrote the best study
on this subject, notes: ‘The passage could be called a small
hymn to God’ ; he rejects, however, the speculation o f various
authors that this is a song coming out o f worship because the
entire hymn is only ‘an ad hoc composition o f the author’ .129
This is in my judgement not probable, for the author o f the
Pastoral Letters does not demonstrate any creativity o f a
linguistic or liturgical bent. In addition he is much too
prosaic. He utilizes traditional liturgical formulas coming
from the worship o f his congregation. The hymn could be
strictly Jewish. It is made up o f eight stichoi, three clear
parallelisms and ends in a traditional doxology. On the other
hand K. L. Schmidt130 speculates that ‘Jesus Christ’ is praised
‘similar to the hymnic style o f Revelation’ .
127 E. Norden, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 143-276; A. Seeberg, Der Katechismus der
Urchristenheit (1903; repr. 1966), with an introduction by F. Hahn, TB 26 (1966);
W. Kramer, Christos Kyrios Gottessohn, A ThA NT 44 (1963); K Wengst, op. cit. (n.
126).
128 R. Deichgräber, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 24-44; see E. v. d. Goltz, op. cit. (n. 95),
pp. 124-61; G. Harder, Paulus und das Gebet, NTF 10 (1936), pp. 4-79.
129Op. cit. (n. 1), p. 29 n. 4; 60. The attempt o f W. Metzger, Der Christushymnus
1 Timotheus 3,16. Fragment einer Homologie der paulinischen Gemeinden, AzTh 62
(1979), to piece together the various ‘liturgical sounding’ passages in 1 Timothy
into a unified hymn about Christ is an exercise in fantasy, which cannot be made
without doing violence to the texts.
m T h W N T l , p . 579.
The four part eïç Geoç-formula 1 Cor. 8:6 has creedal char
acter. Paul quotes it because the Corinthians apparently are
acquainted with it; perhaps it even stood in their letter to Paul
(8:1):
àÀÀ’ f\\iXv eïc; 0eoç naxqp
eÇ ou xà nàvxa Kai rjjisïç eiç aûxov,
Kai £iç KUpioç ’Iqooôç Xpioxoç
ôi* ou xà nàvxa Kai q p â ç ôi’ auxoô.
This creed is notable because o f its strict parallelism and is

theologically interesting because here apparently for the first
time Christ is described as the one who mediates creation.
Does it come from a song that was sung in Corinth, or from a
baptismal creed or did Paul formulate it in ‘hymnic prose’ just
for the occasion? We have a number o f similar Christian and
Jewish ‘ heis-theos-formulas’ . Their ultimate origin is the
Shema‘-prayer o f Judaism.131 The Pauline formula is, however,
notable in that the confession to Christ is made strictly parallel
to the confession to God, and beyond that is integrated into
it. The binary formula is the first step on the way to the
doctrine o f the Trinity.
The only ‘hymn to G od’ - other than the song o f the
martyrs Rev. 15:3 - that Deichgräber132 recognizes without
reservation stands at the end o f the ‘dogmatic’ part o f Romans
and praises the unfathomableness o f the divine will, which has
the salvation o f all in mind: Rom. 11:33-36. After the praise o f
the groundless wisdom o f God there follows a three-part
parallelism o f which one is modelled on the LX X version o f
Isa. 40:13 and another is a free rendering o f the Masoretic
text o f Job 41:3 (the first person o f the original text is
transformed into the third person style o f a hymn). At the end
there is a formula that is related to 1 Cor. 8:6 - and which
131 Eph. 4:5f.; 1 Tim. 2:5 cf. Gal. 3:20; Rom. 3:30; Jas. 2:19; 4:12; John 10:16;
Deut. 6:5; Zech. 14:9; Mai. 2:10; Sir. 1:8. Josephus, c. Ap. 2.193 cf. 179; Sib. 3:11;
the Jewish origin o f these formulas seems to me to be certain, over against
E. Peterson, E IE 6 E 0 E , FRLANT 41 (1926), who overestimates the pagan E I£
© E O Z formulas. The acknowledgement o f the one God was similar to the
philosophical concern o f Xenophanes o f Colophon: Diels and Kranz11, 1,135 fr.
23.
132Op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 61-4.
since E. Norden has often been understood as an example o f

Stoic influence (cf. Marcus Aurelius 4.23)133- followed by the
obligatory concluding doxology. But who can be sure that the
hymnic verses which fit so well into the context were not
composed ad hoc by Paul himself so that they never had more
than a literary life and never were sung in worship?
Ephesians, which is permeated with literary language and is
thus exuberant, quotes in 5:14 a further enigmatic passage
which is introduced with ôià Àéyei. This led early exegetes in
the right direction; Origen 134cites the opinion that it is a word
that the apostle had read in one o f the prophets; he indicates
as another possibility that Paul ‘quotes a saying inspired by
the Spirit as encouragement to conversion’ . Severian o f
Gabala,135 who emphasizes that this quotation can be found
neither in the Old nor the New Testament, proposes that its
origin is év evi xouxcov x ö v nveupaxiKöv ipaÀpôv qxoi
iïpooeuxcov which at that time, because o f the pervasive
presence o f the Spirit, were richly present; the apostle quoted
from memory. As explanation he refers explicitly to 1 Cor.
14:26. Theodore o f Mopsuestia136 theorizes similarly that it is
a Christian psalm composed by an inspired poet in the time
o f the apostles. The majority o f earlier exegetes searched for
a passage in the canonical Old Testament or in the Apocrypha
as its origin; the possibility o f an inspired psalm in early
Christianity was hard for them to accept.
I f it is really the fragment o f a song, the question needs to
be asked: What was its content and to whom was it addressed?
It is not directed to God or Christ, but is addressed to the
listener, whether that be a pagan neophyte, a candidate for
133Op. cit. (n. 1), 240ff. cf. Marcus Aurelius 4.23: éK ooö navxa, év ooi navxa,
dç oè navxa. Stoic formulas about the universe found their way very early into
Palestinian Judaism, see Sir. 43:27, see M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus,
W U N T 10 ( 21973), pp. 264, 266f. My colleague O. Hofius told me in
conversation that he doesn’t recognize even here a ‘hymn’.
134J. A. Cramer, Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Nov. Test. VI (1842; repr. 1967), p.
197 ad loc.: xöv ’AnooxoÀov npoocononoelv xivà ek xoö Flveupaxoç Àeyopeva
dç npoxponqv xqv ém pexavoiav.
135K. Staab, Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche (1933; repr. 1984), p.
311.
136 Theodori Episcopi Mopsuestini in epistolasB. Pauli Commentarii, ed. H. B. Swete
(1880), I, pp. 180f. ad loc.
baptism or a baptized Christian. Christ is in it, the one who

brings enlightenment. Current research postulates that it is
part o f a baptismal liturgy and refers for support to the earliest
use o f the text in the Protreptikos o f Clement o f Alexandria .137
In this passage there is, however, no word o f baptism:
The Lord never tires o f exhorting, frightening, encouraging,

awakening and disciplining. He awakens from sleep and raises up
those who have been led astray by darkness:
Awake, he says, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ the Lord shall give you light,
the sun o f the resurrection,
who was conceived ‘by the morning star’ (Ps. 110:3 LXX ),
who grants life through his own rays.
No one should mistreat the word (or ‘the Logos’ ) , so that he may
not, without noticing it, mistreat himself.
There follows a quotation from Heb. 3:7-11 = Ps. 95:8-11

(LX X ). The passage as a whole is a reprimand which should
serve to convert pagans; it does not mention baptism and we
also do not know whether there was already at the time o f
the composition o f Ephesians an extended baptismal liturgy,
that could be quoted as a word o f God. Clement adds
several christological predicates in ‘hymnic prose’ . Because
there is demonstrably in Clement’s work liturgical poetry, it
is well possible that this passage from Ephesians in an
expanded form was used in the liturgy o f the Alexandrian
congregations.
These three enigmatic lines repeatedly inspired additions.
Epiphanius138 understood the three lines as a prophecy which
137 Protr. 9.84.1-2 (GCS 1, p. 63):

Ô KUplOÇ . . .
ëyeipe, <j>i]o(v, ô KaGeûôoov
Kai à v à o ia £K tö v vsKpöv,
Kai ém<j)ai3o£i aoi ô Xpioxoç KÛpioç,
ô xfjç àvaordoeox; qÀioç
ô npo è(D0 <J>ôp0 i) yevvcopevoc;
o Çrjv xapioâp£vo<; ôkxïoiv lôiaiç.
138Panarion 64.71.19. The expansion presupposes the Christian legend that
Adam was buried on Golgotha.
spoke o f Adam who was buried on Golgotha. The word is

spoken to him:
Awake, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ shall give you light
who was crucified above you (ô énavco oou éoxaupcojiévoç).
These additions have parenetic or dogmatic grounds; they do

not prove a continuous liturgical use since the first century, as
for example Schille presupposes. He goes even further and
postulates a specific genre o f ‘awakening-song’ or more
exactly a ‘liturgical awakening-call’139 which he - as do many
other commentators - associates with the hymn to Dionysos
in the Frogs o f Aristophanes (340ff.): eyeipe 4>Àoyéaç
Àapnâôaç év X£P°* Y&P n K81 xivaoocov ‘Awaken! He comes
holding burning torches in his hands . . The coming o f the
god as (|)coo<|)ôpoç àoxqp accompanied by nocturnal dancing,
at which time the god himself stimulates even the old to dance
such that they throw o ff the cares and the burdens o f the years,
has little to do with the resurrection o f the spiritually dead.
The comparison demonstrates - in spite o f the similarity o f
individual metaphors - the deep difference between the hymn
(or the parody o f a hymn) out o f the classical period and the
spiritual religious language o f the Greek-speaking Christian
congregation.
More significant is the observation o f Wettstein that the
unusual word éni(})ai3ôKC0 appears as a function o f the god
in the Orphic hymn to Dionysos:140 oîç éOéÀeiç Ovijxcdv
q ö ’ àOavdxœv éni(J)at3oKcov. We find the word, however,
also three times in the poetry o f Job in the L X X for moon,
sun and the mythical dragon Leviathan (25:5; 31:26; 41:10).
Both the idea that life in sin (or dependency upon the
material world) can be understood as spiritual death or
sleep, as well as that conversion can be understood as
enlightenment, belongs to the religious koine o f late
139Op. cit. (n. 125), pp. 95ff.

14050.9 G. Quandt, Orphei Hymni, 21962, p. 36. The verb appears only here in
the Orphic hymns. For the later Christian usage, see G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic
Greek Lexicon (1961), p. 539 s.v. ém<j>at3cD and p. 540 s.v. éni<j>auoKco.
antiquity.141 There are examples o f this in Judaism,

Christianity, the mystery religions, Gnosis and popular
philosophy. Only the mention o f the ‘resurrection o f the
dead’, a m otif which was unknown in the Greek and Roman
world, is specifically Jewish-Christian. E. Norden interpreted
Eph. 5:14142 as ‘a kind o f Christian formula competing with
the mysteries o f Isis’ , as documented by Apuleius, met. 11.21ff.
This is, however, too specific. The liturgical fragment contains
the ‘syncretistic’ language o f a religion o f salvation which grew
out o f Judaism and which was used in missionary work. It may
come from a baptismal hymn. This supposition is-nevertheless
everything but certain.
In conclusion we take a short look at the so-called ‘hymns
about Christ’ , an area upon which the research o f two
generations spent almost too much time and energy. This
interest was, as I have already said, primarily driven by the
unique combination o f religio-historical and dogmatic con
cerns. With some justification one searched here for the key
to a better understanding o f the development o f christology.
One should more precisely have spoken o f ‘psalms about
Christ’ : on the one hand, because there is an internal
connection with the Old Testament Jewish psalmody and with
‘psalloid’ singing and because o f the significant role o f the
term in early Christian tradition extending even into the
Gnostic ‘psalms’; and on the other hand, because the content
- in contrast to the ‘hymn to G od’ - does not have praising-
doxological character, but rather tells in the style o f a creed
the salvific work o f Christ. These ‘hymns about Christ’ have
thus the specific character o f teaching and o f confession. They
are ‘dogmatic, that is inspired by the Spirit, and are sung’ .
They are limited in number, and their significance is
consequently all the greater. One should differentiate more
than has been done in the past between the widespread
hymnic language and the really provable form o f a hymn.
With relative certainty one can identify six texts as ‘psalms
about Christ’ ; in addition to that perhaps several fragments
141 See F. J. Dölger, op. cit. (n. 89), pp. 364-79, who refers to Isa. 9:lf. = Matt.
4:15f. and its interpretation in the Syriac Didaskalia and Od. Sal. 15.
142Op. cit. (n. l ) , p . 258, n. 1.
and two or three passages in the letters o f Ignatius (Eph. 7.2;

18.2; 19).143 There is a relative consensus in regard to Phil.
2:6-11; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:15-18; 1 Pet. 2:21-25; in
addition perhaps the fragment 1 Pet. 3:18 and as crowning
conclusion, more or less as the climax o f the christological
development in early Christianity, John 1:1-18, the prologue
o f the Gospel o f John. Particularly in regard to the latter, the
question o f differentiating between the original form o f the
hymn and secondary additions is controversial.144 It is no
accident that the high-point o f early Christian christology was
brought to expression in such a ‘psalm about Christ’ : The
language o f poetry which was inspired by the Spirit breaks the
fetters o f theological prose and opens the way for new and
ever more adventurous statements. In particular the pre
existence christology, as also the confession to the godhead
o f Christ, was first formulated in the song about Christ,
whereby the m otif o f divine wisdom is transferred to Christ.145
The ‘discovery’ o f this ‘psalm’ is, however, o f recent date. In
the following only two texts that are closely related to one
another will be discussed: 1 Tim. 3:16 and, as an earlier text,
Phil. 2:6-11.
The indications that these two texts are not simply pas
sages in which the author drops into hymnic prose, but that
they are really songs about Christ can be best presented by
considering the individual texts themselves. The ‘poetic’
hymnic character o f 1 Tim. 3:16 is most obvious. The Pastoral
Letters are late and secondary. Although they were written
about 110 or even later they nevertheless utilize older
tradition and make use o f several ‘poetic’ texts.1461 Tim. 3:16
1431 follow here the thorough, unsurpassed study o f R. Deichgräber.
144Over against the numerous ‘attempts at reconstruction’ I find the clear and
profound interpretation by H. Gese, Zur biblischen Theologie (1977), pp. 152-201,
most convincing. How easily an attempt at the reconstruction o f a ‘hymn about
Christ’ can become a destruction, is shown by the analytic study by C. Burger,
Schöpfung und Versöhnung, W M A N T 46 (1975), which - in spite o f exhibiting much
ingenuity - loses sight o f the limits o f such attempts.
145See M. Hengel, Der Sohn Gottes (21977), pp. 7 8,184ff. and the doctoral thesis
o f my student G. Schimanowski, Weisheit und Messias, W U N T 2.R. 17 (1985). For
the wisdom myth in the prologue o f John, see Ashton, ‘The Transformation o f
Wisdom’, N T S 32 (1986), 161-86. Cf. above, pp. 73-117.
146 1 Tim. 2:5; 3:16; 6 :llf.; 2 Tim. l:9f.; 2:12; 3:4-7; see below, n. 148.
is different from even these. It has no relation to the context:

It follows the announcement o f the arrival o f Paul and
precedes a warning about heretical teachers; it is further
introduced by a peculiar sentence: ôpoÀoyoupévoûç péya
éotiv t ö Trjq euoeßeiac; pu oT q p io v. The mystery is the salvific
event147 which is described in six brief cola that all have the
same structure:
oç 8<})avep(D0q év oapKi,
éôiKauo0f| év nveûpaxi,
ôcj)0q àyyéÀoïc;,
8Kqpi3x0i] év 80v£oiv,
êmoT8\30q év köojko,
àv8Àqp<j)0q
The ‘psalms about Christ’ as a whole are formulated in the

third person and utilize in part peculiar language with shifting
selection and accentuation. They tell about the ‘fate’ o f Christ
that is the origin o f salvation: His pre-existence and mediation
o f creation, incarnation and death on the cross, resurrection
and exaltation, proclamation and completion o f salvation.
The language, that is lively and rich in variety, differen
tiates them from simple creedal formulas; the use o f the
third person, the lack o f any request and the simple ‘report’
about the salvific event differentiate it from prayers. Typical
also is the beginning with a relative clause introduced by
the pronoun oç, the relatively similar cola and some times
the parallelism in participai style or with finite verbs.
E. Norden has established all o f this, and there is nothing
really new to add to it. The hymn in question has those
characteristics. In addition it is further characterized by the
almost uniform parallelism o f the sentences with a passive
verb in the aorist at the beginning o f each sentence - whereby
a consistent homoioteleuton o f the verbs is achieved - and a
dative object following the verb. This relatively strict similarity
o f the cola, which produces the hint o f a rhyme, has its parallel
147 For puoTqpiov as circumlocution for the eschatological salvific event in

Christ, see Paul 1 Cor. 2:1, 7ff.; 4:1 and the Deutero-Pauline letters Eph. 1:9;
3:3f., 9; 6:19; Col. l:26f.; 2:2: t o p. t . 0£oö; 4:3 t ö p. t . Xpioroü; 1 Tim. 3:9 t o p.
ifjç moTecoç.
in literary ‘hymnic’ prose. E. Norden called attention to the

praise o f Eros by Agathon in Plato’s Symposium 197d, where
rhyme is also present with the only difference that the verbs
are placed in final position and the entire passage is more
precisely structured. Nevertheless he denied any connec
tion between the hymns and ‘Hellenistic sentence parallelism’
and argued for the close relation to ‘Hebrew thought
parallelism ’.148 On the other hand, E. Schweizer recognized
in the six verses a ‘strongly Hellenized hymn’.149 Perhaps one
can build a bridge between these alternatives by seeing in this
hymn an impressive example o f the ‘ Hellenistic-oriental
stylistic syncretism’ that Norden, following J. Kroll, con
vincingly described.
In 3 X 2 antithetically arranged stichoi the text describes
the way o f the saviour: First the incarnation is contrasted with
the resurrection and the exaltation - described as the justifica
tion o f the Crucified One (that is, o f the one who according
to Deut. 21:23 = Gal. 3:13 was cursed). In the second pair o f
lines the presentation o f the Exalted One before the angels is
contrasted with the worldwide proclamation among pagans.
In the third the faith o f the world is set over against the
glorification at the time o f the parousia which includes the
exaltation o f the believers. The antitheses are chiastically
ordered (see above, n. 148). The beginning with a relative pro
noun presupposes perhaps a preceding elegy or something
similar which is missing in all o f the comparable passages in
the New Testament. This debate as to whether the six lines are
148 Op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 256f. See J. Kroll, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 15, 20ff. 50ff.;
R. Deichgräber, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 133-7; W. Stenger, ‘Der Christushymnus in
1 Tim. 3,16. Aufbau-Christologie-Sitz im Leben’, T T h Z 78 (1969), 33-48;
J. Murphy O ’Connor, ‘Redactional Angels in 1 Tim. 3,16’, RB 91 (1984), 178—
81: his thesis, that the third verse ô<j)0r] àyyéXoio, is - based on formal
considerations - secondary, is not convincing, because (a) the antithetical
parallelism angels/nations and appeared/proclaimed is destroyed, and (b) the
connection between resurrection and exaltation, which is expressed in lines 2
and 3, is broken. The attempt to reconstruct unambiguous ‘original forms’
appears occasionally almost as an incurable sickness in our discipline! Do we
know, what was left out in each case? Here one often no longer distinguishes
between the possible and the probable. Equations with too many unknowns can
no longer be solved!
149jErniedrigung und Erhöhung bei Jesus und seinen Nachfolgern, A T h A N T 28
( 21962), p. 175; cf. also pp. 104ff., 155ff., 182.
the entire hymn apart from the introduction or only a frag

ment o f a longer hymn is senseless. The line àv£Àrjji(j)0r] év
ôoî] can be understood as the real conclusion.
E. Lohmeyer argued in 1928 for the first time that a ‘psalm
about Christ’ is present in Phil. 2:6-11 150 and he quickly found
followers. E. Norden and J. Kroll had not yet demonstrated
that this passage was an independent entity. There is hardly
another New Testament text about which so much has been
written in the past fifty years as about these seven verses. That
it is an originally independent entity can be seen in the fact
that it interrupts the parenetical context in the letter. In the
first part the participles and finite verbs alternate. At the
beginning there is a relative pronoun. In contrast to the six
strophes o f Lohmeyer which partially destroy the parallelism,
Jeremias, Deichgräber and Hofius have demonstrated that
there are two strophes with a total o f seven double verses
mostly in Semitic parallelismus membrorum. The individual
stichoi have in part very different lengths, but we find that
also in the Psalms. The first ‘strophe’ has four double stichoi,
the second only three but its stichoi are in part somewhat
longer and the parellelism in the second and third stichos is
not as clear. In terms o f cola and commata the printed version
in the 26th edition o f Nestle-Aland - although the edition as
a whole is praiseworthy - is in regard to its unclear division
retrograde.
With Hofius one must not presuppose any secondary
additions o f Paul. The Gavdxou ôè oxaupou at the end o f the
first strophe and the eiç ôôÇav xoû 0eo(5 naxpoç at the end o f
the second is in each case the climax o f the strophe and in the
150 Kyrios Jesus. Eine Untersuchung zu P h il 2,5-11, SHAW.PH (1927/8, 4; repr.

1961). J. Weiss, Beiträge zur Paulinischen Rhetorik (1897), pp. 28f. and T h L Z 24
(1899), 263, drew attention to the rhythmic structure o f the text. For the history
o f research, see R. P. Martin, Carmen Christi. Philippians 11.5-11 in Recent
Interpretation and in the Setting o f Early Christian Worship, MSSNTS 4 (1967), pp.
18-35; J. Jeremias, in Abba (1966), pp. 308-16 (312); Deichgräber, op. cit. (n.
1), pp. 118ff.; O. Hofius, op. cit. (n. 120) passim. A brief summary o f the recent
interpretation is also provided by L. W. Hurtado, ‘Jesus as Lordly Example in
Philippians 2,5-11’, in P. Richardson and J. C. H urd (eds), From Jesus to Paul.
Studies in Honour o f Francis Wright Beare (1984), pp. 113-26. Critical o f the denial
o f the idea o f pre-existence in some recent studies is L. D. Hurst, ‘Re-enter the
Pre-existent Christ in Philippians 2,5-11’, N T S 32 (1986), 449-57.
The Song about Christ in Earliest Warship 289
case o f the first strophe the phrase is an example o f

anadiplosis which is common in the psalms. The rhythm o f
language at the end o f both verses, as also the inner theo
logical logic in the flow o f the entire psalm, is an argument
for assuming that in both cases the conclusions are original.
The text reproduces the entire way o f Christ from his pre
existent being with the Father until the eschatological
completion. Although it has its models in the Psalms, it is
composed in acceptable Greek. In contrast to the prologue o f
the Gospel o f John which was written about forty years later, it
is almost impossible to translate it back into a Semitic
language. The ‘psalm about Christ’ is translated neither from
Aramaic nor from Hebrew. Unlike other ‘psalms about Christ’
in the New Testament, only the descent and exaltation o f
Christ is described, albeit in a radical way; although the
soteriological consequences are not mentioned they were in
the minds o f the singers and listeners similar to 1 Tim. 3:16.
The psalm is important for the history o f christology because
it is the earliest witness to an explicit formulation o f pre
existence and kenosis. One cannot prove - as is often claimed
upon stylistic grounds - that Paul cannot have composed the
hymn, since for a song one usually chooses another language
than is used for prose.
One may hypothesize that the christologLcal confession o f the
early Christian congregation was advanced by such inspired
songs about Christ. Early Christianity was from the beginning
an eschatological-enthusiastic movement that lived from the
certainty that with the resurrection o f Jesus it had received
the eschatological gift o f the prophetic Spirit. It was the Spirit
that moved one to the acclamations such as ‘our Lord, come’ ,
‘Jesus is Lord’ - or also ‘abba’/ ‘dear Father’ (through Jesus,
the Son) - and which at the same time inspired an entirely
new kind o f ‘messianic psalmody’ . The point o f origin was
probably the congregation in Jerusalem itself; after the experi
ences o f the Resurrected One the Christians in Jerusalem
could do nothing other (Acts 4:20) than to praise the
peyaÀeïa t o ü Geoü through his Anointed One Jesus o f
Nazareth (2:11, 32, 36) and to extol it at the celebration o f the
breaking o f the bread in eschatological àyaÀÀiaoïc; (2:46f.).
The praise o f Christ as ‘the wisdom o f God’ was already to be

heard in the streets and houses o f Jerusalem :151 oo(jna év
é^ôôoiç upveïxai (Prov. 1:20). Where daily the psalms from
the ‘hymnbook o f Israel’ was intoned in the temple, there the
Spirit brought about the new messianic-eschatological inter
pretation o f these old and well-known songs such as Pss. 2; 8;
22; 45; 69; 78; 89; 110; 118 (see above, pp. 244ff.): Thus
interpreted these psalms were sung as psalms of messianic
fulfilment - more or less as a ‘new song’ (Isa. 42:10; Rev. 5:9;
14:3) - and one imitated them in new compositions inspired
by the power o f the newly given gift o f ‘prophetic wisdom ’.152
The inspired messianic psalms and the christological creeds
developed parallel to one another whereby the song about
Christ precedes the creedal formulation. The most important
christological tides and predications such as ‘Son o f God’ (Ps.
2:7, cf. 89:28: firstborn), ‘Lord’ (Ps. 110:1), even ‘God’ (Ps.
45:7) and the pre-existence (Ps. 110:3 L X X in relation to Prov.
8:22ff.) were already given or prefigured in the hymnbook o f
Israel. These titles and motifs appear then also in the ‘new
messianic psalms’ . Their contribution to the development
o f christological teachings and creeds cannot be overly
exaggerated. Their unique effectiveness is a mark o f the
‘uniqueness’ o f the ‘apostolic age’ . Probably the christological
‘florilegium’ Heb. 1:5-14 and 2:5 - 8,1 If., with a total o f eight
quotations from psalms that are applied to Christ, is a late
reflex o f this early Christian messianic-eschatological
interpretation o f the Old Testament psalter relating the
psalms to the salvific work and position o f honour that is
Christ’s. This happened in a way that for us today appears
problematic, but that was in reality amazingly audacious.
151 Cf. the wisdom sayings in Q: Luke 11:49 = Matt. 23:34; Luke 7:31 = Matt.
11:16-19; Luke 13:34f. = Matt. 23:37f.; cf. 1 Kgs. 5:9-13; Isa. ll:2ff.; 33:6; 50:4;
Dan. 2:23; Ps. 37:30; 49:4; 51:8, cf. above, p. 231, n. 12; see Acts 6:3, 10. In the
letter o f James, which in my opinion goes back to James, the brother o f Jesus,
wisdom takes the place o f the spirit 1:5; 3:15, 17.
152jror jhg messianic psalms, see my study ‘Hymnus und Christologie’, op. cit.
(n. 29), pp. 1-23 (13ff.). For the close relationship, even the partial inter
changeability o f spirit and wisdom, see my lecture ‘Jesus als messianischer
Lehrer der Weisheit und die Anfänge der Christologie’, in Sagesse et Religion.
Colloque de Strasbourg (oct. 1976) (1979), pp. 147-88 (166ff.), = above, pp. 73-
117. Ps. 110 see above, pp. 119-225.
The relative suppression o f this inspired composition o f

psalms about Christ in the second and third centuries is not
to be attributed alone to its misuse by Gnostic and other
‘outsiders’ ; it must be seen also in the context o f the limitation
o f the free charismatics through the development o f the
ecclesiastical offices, the establishment o f the canon, the
formulation o f creeds and the institution o f more fixed forms
o f worship which more and more dammed up this enthusiastic
freedom o f the Spirit. That almost nothing o f this poetry is
preserved is an inestimable loss for our knowledge o f the
development o f early christology. The little that remains
shines forth all the more. It is enough to refer to the high-
point o f the early Christian psalm in the prologue to the
eoayyéÀiov nveupaxiKÖv according to John. In these eighteen
verses New Testament christology reached its goal and pointed
the way for the further development o f doctrine.
5
The Dionysiac Messiah*
In a penetrating article entitled ‘The Glory o f God in the

Fourth Gospel: An Exercise in Biblical Semantics’ (New
Testament Studies 15,1968-9, 265-77), Professor George Caird
once called attention to the important statement in John 2:11,
where for the first time it is claimed that the glory o f the
incarnate Logos is visibly revealed to all in a sign. He wrote as
follows: ‘In the Incarnation God has willed that the eternal
glory o f the Logos should be communicated to the man Jesus,
so that others might see it and draw from it the conclusion
that he was the unique Son o f God (1:14). This glory Jesus is
said to have manifested in his signs (2:11)’ (269). Caird’s
study, typical o f his work in its precision, clarity and insight,
nevertheless did not discuss the wine-miracle o f Cana further
in this connection. This is understandable, for he had
sketched for himself a broad canvas, not to mention the
feeling one gets that this miracle story continues to be some
thing o f an offence to us exegetes. In fact, one may say that
the narrative o f the àpxïl t q v oqjjieicov, the first ‘sign’ o f Jesus
in the Fourth Gospel, has remained until today something o f
a oqpeiov avxiAeyopsvov, although it has attracted specialists
in the field again and again and has put their pens in motion
* Professor Hengel is grateful to his assistant, Ms Anna Maria Schwemer, for

her intensive help in the preparation o f this article. The editors also would like
to thank Mr Gerhard Schmidt o f the University o f California, Davis, who
provided the translation from the German.
293
so often that one might feel a certain restraint in finally setting

one’s own pen to work. I f I do so, it is out o f respect for the
memory o f George Caird, a biblical scholar o f the first rank
who was also so at home in the classics and other ancient
literature that he never shrank from reopening questions
from which some might understandably flee.
A recent investigation o f John 2:1-11 by B. Olsson may well
be said to lay the groundwork for our study (although the
significance o f Olsson’s work is clearly still far from being
recognized). Olsson, calling it ‘one o f the most mysterious
texts in the New Testament’,1 makes an effort to trace and
penetrate the mysteries in a methodically and objectively
impressive way.2
1. The Doubtful Character of a Wine-Miracle
At first glance, one is puzzled by its profane nature, culminating

in the reproach o f the host, which has often caused embarass-
ment to interpreters: ‘Everyone brings out the good wine first
and then the cheap wine when the guests have had too much;
but you have saved the best until now’ ( 2 :10 , cf. below, n. 18).
1B. Olsson, Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Textlinguistic Analysis
of John 2:1-11 and 4:1-42 (Lund, 1974), p. 18. Cf. in this connection below, pp.
309ff.
2Cf. among other things, the reviews o f H. Thyen, SEÂ 40 (1975), 136-43;
E. Ruckstuhl, T Z 31 (1975), 307f.; D. W. Wead, JB L 94 (1975), 616ff., who
remarks in a correctly critical way: ‘However, I would have preferred to see
more precision in Olsson’s handling o f symbolism. While it seems desirable to
have a uniform set o f rules for the interpretation o f symbolism, perhaps we
should realize that this is not possible’ (617f.). R. Schnackenburg, Das
Johannesevangelium: Ergänzende Auslegungen and Exkurse, H T h K 4, 4 (Freiburg,
1984), p. 29: ‘For the Gospel o f John, the work o f B. Olsson is a significant
advance.’ Compare this with the commentary o f J. Becker, Ökumenischer
Taschenbuch Kommentar; 4/1 (Gütersloh and Würzburg, 1979), who mentions it
only as a reference to the literature; and C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to
St John (London, 21978), does not discuss it. R. Kysar, ‘The Fourth Gospel:
A Report on Recent Research’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 2, 25/3
(Berlin and New York, 1985), pp. 2389-480 mentions it only very briefly on p.
2393, a sign that he did not recognize the significance o f the investigation.
J. Breuss, ‘Das Kana-Wunder: Hermeneutische und pastorale Überlegungen
aufgrund einer phänomenologischen Analyse von Joh 2.1-12’, BibB 12 (1976),
critically discusses ‘structural exegesis’ (pp. 51-8), but does not take into
consideration the investigation by Olsson which has the same perspective.
The Dionysiac Messiah 295
‘It has no analogies in the old tradition o f Jesus-narratives

and appears strange in comparison with them,’ remarks
R. Bultmann. For this reason he sees in the reported event
only a ‘ symbol o f that which occurs in the total work ofjesus, in
the revelation o f Jesus’ ööâ’. The epiphany story could only
be a picture {Bild) for it .3
His teacher, W. Heitmüller, had already held similar views.
In accordance with Goethe’s principle that ‘everything that is
transitory [that is, historical] is merely a parable ’,4 the
evangelist understands ‘ the story and its facts’ only as a
‘shadow-reflection or an embodiment o f ideas. It is history,
but it has value and significance only because it presents higher
truths, and only to that extent’.5 In this connection it remains
uncertain whether the narrative as ‘production o f poetic faith’
derives from the evangelist himself or from the tradition o f
the community. That is to say, Heitmüller takes the possibility
into account that the unknown poet (writer) already saw in it
an unhistorical fiction: ‘The question o f historicity, which is
for us in such a case immediately disturbing, did not exist
for him in this sense.’ O f course, the relevant moral mis
givings must not be left out o f account: the narrative does
not ‘ contribute to the passionate, serving love o f Jesus’.6
M. Dibelius judged it similarly.7As a comparison one can then
at best refer only to the casting o f demons into the herd o f
swine Mark 5:11-13 or to the curse o f the fig tree in Mark
11:13f., 20f. The narrative is admittedly not one o f edification.
‘I f one seeks to edify the congregation far more can be said
against our pericope than for it .’8
The critical discussion o f this ‘aggravating’ narrative
reaches much farther into the past, however. D. F. Strauss had
3R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, KEK (Göttingen, 181964), p. 83
and n. 4.
4W. Heitmüller, Das Johannes-Evangelium: Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments 4
( 31918), p. 15; Faust II. 12104: ‘Alles Vergängliche ist nur ein Gleichnis.’
5Ibid., p. 58.
6Ibid., p. 59 [italics mine].
7M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen, 61971), p. 98: ‘It
strikes every reader o f the Bible that this assistance is by no means necessary; it
is indeed even dubious. In any case, it has nothing to do with the Protestant ethos’
[italics m ine].
8J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament (London, 1970), p. 244.
already referred to the problem o f the ‘appropriateness’ o f

the miracle. He was still o f the opinion that the complaint
raised in antiquity (as well as in modern times) ‘ that it was not
in accord with Jesus’ stature’ to be ‘in the society o f drunkards’
and ‘even to encourage their drunkeness through his power
to perform miracles’ is ‘ to be rejected as an exaggeration’ ,
since nothing can be inferred with certainty from the wine-
customs mentioned in v. 10 in connection with the pro
ceedings during the wedding. Yet, with reference to the older
interpreters Paulus, Lücke, and Olshausen, he already found
it quite doubtful ‘ thatjesus met . . . some need, as he was
otherwise wont to do, but brought about a further temptation
to indulge in pleasure; he showed himself not so much as
helpful, but rather as accommodating. He performed, so to
speak, a miracle in the service o f luxury, rather than a really
beneficient one .’9W. Bauer accepts this characterization o f it
as a luxury-miracle and compares it, among other things, with
the ‘deeds o f the young Jesus in the childhood Gospel o f
Thomas ’.10
We can, however, go back much farther in this connection:
according to Ephrem, the Marcionites had already derided
the wedding narrative: ‘They mocked the wedding meal at
Cana’ : ‘ “Far be it from us to believe that our Lord went there! ”
They call the church a bride and our Lord the true bride
groom! And the symbol o f the wine o f the wedding feast is
in their goblets, and the type o f the feast is in their festivals.
This is a divided doctrine, which disproves itself every time
without noticing it.’ In other words, the Marcionites,
according to Ephrem mocked it only because they, struck
with blindness, did not recognize the deeper, symbolic
meaning o f the feast, which is related to the Church and
9 Das Leben Jesu (Tübingen, 1835), 2, 224 [italics mine]: „ein Luxuswunder ”.
10H N T 6 (Tübingen, 31933), 46. R. Pesch, ‘Das Weinwunder bei der Hochzeit
zu Kana (Joh 2,1-12)’, Theologie der Gegenwart 24 (1981), 214-25, again moves in
a similar direction; he sees here a ‘Geschenkwundergeschichte’, which
‘originally belonged to the framework o f the narratives about Jesus as child or
adolescent’ (224), and refers as justification to the Epistula Apostolorum, ch. 4
(15) and to the childhood Gospel o f Thomas (middle o f the second century)
and Ps.-Matthew (eighth/ninth centuries). The Ep. Apost. presupposes, o f
course, both the Gospel o f John and that o f Thomas.
the eucharist, but rather held fast to the external letter o f the
narrative.11
2. The Symbolic Interpretation

W. F. Howard’s basic observation is here valid: ‘When a moral
principle collides with a miracle we feel, by every Christian
instinct, that it is the miracle that must go to the wall. It is not
surprising, therefore, that many explain this story as pure
allegory. ’12 The objectionable axoma o f the narrative, which
had already forced the narrators o f the early Church to
delimit it apologetically,13 and which, o f course, is perceived
in a special way by the ‘enlightened’ modern reader,
accentuates the tendency in principle to interpret it in a
symbolic-allegorical way, and the results (not to say the
suppositions) o f exegesis remain in this connection deeply
divided.
We should not, however, fall into a misunderstanding here.
I am not concerned to throw doubt on the currently popular
allegorical-symbolic interpretation in general; I am rather
dealing with the problem o f taking it as ‘pure allegory’ . The
latter leads, in view o f the narrative to an aporia as much as
does a one-sided clinging to an apparently simple verbal
meaning and to the bare facticity o f the miracle, an attitude
11 Hymnus 47.3 CSCO 170 (77), ed. E. Beck (Rome, 1957), p. 163; cf.
A. Harnack, M aräon: Das Evangelium vom frenden Gott (Leipzig, 21924, repr. 1960,
T U 45), p. 249, n. 1.
12 The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation (London, 1931), p. 192.
13A. Smitmans, Das Weinwunder von Kana, BGBE 6 (1966), pp. 74ff. This
concerns the historical-chronological problem o f the contradiction between the
forty-day temptation o f Jesus in the desert and the six days between the baptism
and the wedding in John. Origen already recognized the impossibility o f a
solution which would harmonize the contradiction: ‘The fact that a historical
solution to these Aporien shows that only a spiritual interpretation can disclose
the meaning intended by the evangelist’ (76). Cf. pp. 89fF. - a defence o f Jesus’
participation in a worldly wedding festival. Cf. also Petrus Chrysologus (d. ca. 450),
Sermon 157, P L 52, 616 B/C: ‘That Christ was present at the wedding was to
serve as a demonstration o f his power, not for the sake o f pleasure. It was not an
expression o f human feeling, but o f power. It happened for the sake o f the sign,
not for the sake o f the stomach. It did not produce drunkenness, but revealed
the deity.’ Regarding the ‘wine-rule’, cf. pp. 143ff.: here the drunkenness o f the
guests was controversial. Theodore o f Mopsuestia criticized the presentation in
2:9f. as inexact.
which today can hardly be found anymore among exegetes.14

The seven Johannine orjjjieïa refer beyond themselves to a
much greater degree than do the synoptic ÔDvdpeiç,15 but not
to ideas and higher truths, as Heitmüller thought;16 they refer
rather to one truth, which the Son, sent into the world by the
Father, presents in his person. This results from the christo
logical ‘monomania’ o f the Fourth Gospel, which resists the
(still popular) moralizing approach. The word oqpeiov, which
John uses exclusively, brings this ‘referential’ quality
emphatically to the fore .17
While the author develops this deeper significance again
and again in the orjpeia after chapter five by means o f the
dialogues, controversies, and revelation speeches which
follow, the first two numbered Galilean miracles are merely
‘told’ , without directly disclosing to the reader the christo
logical meaning behind them. He is to discover it for himself.
In this context, the second miracle in 4:46-54 clearly has a
secondary significance over against the dpxq xcov oqpeicov o f
chapter two, which is expressly referred to in connection with
the second stay in Cana (4:46). Should this be understood in
such a way that, in these two cases alone, the ‘ sign’ produced
real faith ?18 Wholly in opposition to the later miracle stories
from chapter five onward, the objectionable, vulgar conclusion
14Smitmans, op. cit., pp. 37ff. Cf. J. D. M. Derrett, op. cit., n. 8 above, pp.
228-46, who tries with imagination and erudition to grasp the original historical
event and recognizes the significance o f the later symbolic interpretation o f the
evangelist in relation to his Church as well (pp. 245f.).
15As Luke ll:20/Matt. 12:28 shows, these also have a ‘reference-character’: to
the presence o f G od’s rule which is now beginning (cf. Matt. 11:1-6; Luke 7:18—
23). A symbolic interpretation here would, o f course, miss the point.
16Op. cit., n. 4 above, 58.
17Only in the refusing answer ofjesus (4:48) during the second Cana miracle
does he have the O ld Testament formula orjpeîa Kai xepaxa.
18Cf. the double émoxsuoav in 4:50 and 4:53; and 2:11 in opposition to the
questionable faith o f the crowd in Jerusalem in 2:23. The enumeration o f the two
miracles isjustified by the emphasized geographical location (cf. 4:54 and 2:1,11)
and their meaning. It is absurd to construe an opposition to 2:23 and 3:2 here
and to build the very questionable existence o f a Semeia-source upon it. The effect
o f the oqpeïa ofjesus in Jerusalem to some extent ‘loses its power’ through the
previous demand o f the Jews in 2:18 for a legitimating sign (cf. 6:30). They do not
lead to authentic faith (cf. 2:24f.). This explains the reproachful answer ofjesus
in 4:48, to which the ‘royal official’ replies with authentic faith.
o f 2:10 (which, already on the level o f narration, signifies more

than merely a ‘humorous observation’,19 since it realistically
illuminates the whole wedding festival) is in contrast to the
strong pathos o f the christological conclusion o f 2:11.20 This
glaring contrast is consciously intended by the evangelist. One
might actually think that he had had some pleasure in telling
the miracle story, since it ends almost as a farce, in order then
to conclude the whole thing with a deeply theological statement
about the faith o f the disciples, a statement which is in the true
sense o f the word ‘foundational’ and sounds entirely different
from what precedes. He is a master o f dialectic and contrast
and can, when he wants to, describe things in a completely
realistic way.21
19R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium,, HThk 4, 1 (Freiburg, 51981), p.

337. It is similarly interpreted by most exegetes. In reality the bridegroom is
criticized!
20 Cf. M. Dibelius, loc. cit. He sees in v. 11 an ‘interpretation o f the evangelist’
superimposed onto the ‘novella’. Bultmann, Becker, and other friends o f the
ominious Semeia-source must, to the contrary, at least in part attribute even
2:11 to it. The evangelist becomes thereby a foolish editor. W. Nicol, The Sëmeia
in the Fourth Gospel NO VTSup 32 (1972), asserts that ‘S(emeia source) would
have contained v. l i a (cf. 4:54) and probably also v. 11c (the typical miracle-
theology). But in l i b <j>av£poöv is a Johannine style characteristic, and ôoÇa
also seems to be used in a typical Johannine sense, referring to the deeper
meaning o f the miracle (cf. 1:14 . . .). Thus l i b is probably J.’ (31). Here it is
clear that if we hold fast to a Semeia-source, we must tear this sentence apart in
a correspondingly complicated way. Against the probability o f a Semeia-Source
see now M. Hengel, Die Johanneische Frage, W U N T 67, 1993, p. 476 index, s.v.
Quellenhypothesen. Semeiaquelle.
21The ‘very vulgar remarks o f the master o f ceremonies’ (Derrett, op. cit., n.
8 above, 245), presumably gave rise to the objection o f Tatian with his encratic
disposition: The Kai öxav psGuoGcooiv is missing in the Diatessaronic
commentary o f Ephrem (cf. L. Leloir, Ephrem de Nisibe, Commentaire de l'évangile
concordant ou Diatessaron, 5.8, SC 121 (1966), 110). Ephrem cites the text in a
shortened form which destroys its point: ‘Everybody serves the sweet wine first,
and then any other wine.’ Since Ephrem himself stresses in a wholly realistic way
that Jesus ‘gladdens the guest with sweet wine’ and thereby had saved the
threatened social festivities o f the wedding (op. cit., 5.9.11, cf. also 5.1.107: ‘The
guests were drunk’), this change might well be attributable to the text o f Tatian
(cf. A. Smitmans, op. cit., n. 13 above, pp. 143f.). Already in the ancient Church
a realistic exegesis, which took account o f the drunkenness o f the guests as
wholly self-evident and for that reason excluded them as witnesses to the miracle,
stood in opposition to a ‘spiritual’ and transposed interpretation (Smitmans,
op. cit., n. 13, p. 144, cf. n. 3; cf. further H. Olshausen, Biblischer Commentât über
sämmtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Königsberg, 1832), 2, 70f., and C. K.
Barrett, op. cit., n. 2 above, p. 193, regarding 2:10: ‘There is, o f course, no
The interpretation beginning with the Valentinians and

Irenaeus already shows that the narrative had been inter
preted allegorically without any qualms whatever. Even more
so than others, the narrative itself invites that this be done .22
Irenaeus, adv. haer. 3.11.5, contrary to the Gnostic exegesis,
takes the report as an actual historic event. The wine, as it was
consumed first during the wedding by all the guests, and by
Jesus himself as well (!),23 was good and no one found fault
with it, since it had grown in a natural way as a gift o f the
ground here for conclusions regarding the degree o f intoxication o f the guests
at this wedding.’ The interpreters o f the early Church were in part closer in this
connection to the real content o f the narrative. In the case o f a Galilean
wedding, sobriety was difficult to imagine even for the one who reported it. Many
examples could be given, but cf. T. Sabb, 7, 9, ed. Zuckermandel, page 188: 4A
deed o f R. Aqiba: he set up a wedding banquet for his son. In opening each
amphora he said “the wine for the life o f the rabbis and for the life o f their
pupils”.’ Cf. also m. Ber. 1, 1 concerning the sons o f R. Gamaliel II, when they
returned from a wedding, and b. Bex. 9a concerning the wedding o f the son o f
R. Yehuda b. Levi. The pronouncements o f the architriklinos, for which no
ancient parallel has yet been found (despite H. Windisch, ‘Die johanneische
Weinregel’, Z N W 14, 1913, 248-57) originates from a folk-milieu which cannot
definitely be determined in terms o f literary form. One could, perhaps above
all, expect to find something like that in the ancient mimus, but o f this only a
very few fragments remain.
22The Excerpta ex Theodoto 65 (GCS 17.2.128) identify the ‘architriklinos’ o f
2:9 with the friend o f the bridegroom (3:29). The bridegroom himself is Jesus
as the otoxqp (cf. Irenaeus, adv. haer. 1.7.1). The friend might then correspond
to the demiurge. The wedding itself becomes the image o f the ‘fullness o f joy’
and o f the anapausis (cf. A. Smitmans, op. cit., n. 13, pp. 207, 141f.). For
Heracleon the Kaxaßavm v o f Jesus from Cana to Capernaum (John 2:12)
meant the descent o f the redeemer into xà eoxaxa xoö KÖopou, i.e. the material
world. ‘For the Naassenes’, on the contrary, ‘John 2:1-11 was an area o f the
darkest allegories’, as W. v. Loewenich says (Das Johannes-Verständnis im zweiten
Jahrhundert, B Z N W 13, Giessen, 1932, p. 66).
23Sed dominus accepit de eo (i.e. de vino). This idea that Jesus himself had
drunk wine at the wedding probably has an anti-encratic significance (cf. his
judgement o f Tatian 3.23.8 and 1.27.3). Does the narrative have an anti-ascetic
tendency already in John? H. Olshausen, op. cit., n. 21 above, 2, 71, suspected a
conscious opposition to the asceticism o f the disciples o f the Baptist here (cf.
Mark 2:18ff.): ‘What a contrast this was for them (the former disciples o f the
Baptist), since it was the Messiah, to whom the Baptist himself had referred
them, who first took them to a wedding. While John ordained them to a life o f
renunciation, Jesus led them to the enjoyment o f pleasure. This contrast
required for them an adjustment which was mediated precisely by the miracle.’
K. Barth, Erklärung des Johannes-Evangeliums ( Kapitel 1 -8 ), Gesemtausgabe II.
Akademische Werke: 1925/1926 (Zürich, 1976), p. 197, as an ingenious ‘outsider’
creator ('quod per conditionem a Deo in vinea factum esf ),

‘ though the w in e,. . . created by the Logos from water for the
use o f the wedding guests, was better’ .
Irenaeus is not, however, satisfied with simply setting forth
the facticity o f the wedding and o f the miracle. That the Lord
made use o f an existing substance, changing the water into
wine and providing drink for the wedding guests, is simply
a point o f reference. He could have provided the wine by
creating it out o f nothing - without water as a raw material -
similar to the miracle o f the loaves, when he blessed the
pieces o f bread and passed them out. ‘Thereby he announces
that the same God who created the world and commanded
it to bear fruit, who put the waters in order and provided
springs, likewise here gives to mankind in these last days,
through his Son, the blessing o f food and the merciful gift
o f drink.’ That is to say, the ‘gift’ miracle o f transformation,
to which Irenaeus calls attention in its ‘natural-historical
actuality’ , points beyond itself to the gift o f the eucharist in
the last days, as does the later feeding o f the five thousand.
It is precisely for this reason thatjesus must resist the urgent
impatience o f his mother; she - according to a ‘deeper’ under
standing - wants to partake o f the cup o f the eucharist before
the time determined by the Father (adv. haer. 3:16.7).24
commands the attention o f exegetes: ‘Cutting through the middle between

friends and foes o f alcohol, the gospel says clearly and simply: He revealed his
glory, and whoever takes pleasure in, or is annoyed by, the form in which this
took place,. . . thatjesus had in this way been present without reservation, where
people were enjoying themselves . . . should reflect that this presence ofjesus as
well as the form o f the miracle is by v. 4 most definitely placed in the shadow o f
the cross. If he who is here approaching his hour reveals his glory, then there is
no point in weighing what is and what is not moral___ And if it is in his pleasure
to reveal himself in a luxury-miracle, o f what significance should our
acclamations and protest then be?’
24 Properante Maria ad admirabile vini signum et ante tempus volente
participare compendii poculo. With regard to the interpretation o f both
passages, see the commentary o f the editions by Harvey and by A. Rousseau and
L. Doutreleau, SC 210 (1974), 282, 324. Regarding the eucharist itself, Irenaeus
says (adv. haer. 4.18.5): ‘Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis, percipiens
invocationem Dei, jam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus
constans, terrena et caelestia.’ John 2 and 6 are for him not in themselves
directly ‘eucharistic’ miracles, but rather Jesus points thereby to the con
summation o f creation in the eucharist.
The miraculous, creational event is for Irenaeus not an

end in itself, nor simply an evidence o f power; it points at
the same time to the eschatological gift o f Christ in the
eucharist, which becomes an actuality through the death o f
Jesus.
The relation o f the Cana miracle to the eucharist, in
connection with the bread-miracle and the ‘ supper o f the
resurrection’ (21:9-14), with bread and fish (all three occur
ring in Galilee), is certainly to be taken seriously. It is still
being discussed in contemporary scholarship. Consequently,
Irenaeus definitely saw something that is correct, even if he -
in the interest o f the anti-Gnostic struggle and instructed by
his doctrine o f the recapitulation - places too much emphasis
on the relation between a good creation and the Cana
narrative which he equated with the eucharist. In the Gospel
o f John, the creation appears clearly and unambiguously in
1:3 in an anti-Gnostic sense, and the meaning o f the eucharist
in the Gospel25 is clearly stated. Moreover, Irenaeus’ discovery
o f anti-docetic and anti-encratic components in the Cana
miracle has a certain justification: this miracle simply cannot
be reconciled with a dualism that denigrates body and
matter.26 Such an observation applies especially to the
awakening o f Lazarus from the dead, where the narrator (o f
25 Chapter 6; on 6:51-58, cf. P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven: A n Exegetical

Study o f the conception o f Manna in the Gospel o f John and the Writings o f Philo
(Leiden, 1965), pp. 95-7; 188-92. Regarding ch. 15, ‘the true vine’, cf. also
R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, H T hK 4, 4 (Freiburg, 1984), p.
160. Also on p. 163 he says: ‘Just as the verbal figure “bread from heaven”,
which refers in the first place to the person o f Jesus (6:51-53) and is then
transposed upon Jesus’ Eucharistic gift (6:53-58), so also the understanding
o f Jesus as the “true vine” can awaken associations with “fruit o f the vine”
(cf. Mark 14:25), which is taken during the Eucharist.’ O ne need not be so
careful - certainly more than ‘associations’ are awakened here! Cf. John 17:19;
19:34f.; 21:13. Regarding Jesus’ ‘last supper’ cf. E. R. Goodenough, Jewish
Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, v. 1 (New York, 1956), pp. 31-95 about bread
and fish.
26 Cf. A. Schlatter, Der EvangelistJohannes (Stuttgart, 1948), p. 66: Through this
narrative, John makes every idea o f an ascetic opposition against the natural
processes impossible. Not only through the gift o f the wine . . . but already
through the participation in the wedding week, John removes Jesus from every
form o f gnosis, since gnosticism constantly sees a danger for man in natural
processes.’
the Semeia-source), according to J. Becker, moves ‘to the

limits o f tolerability’.27 In my opinion, the evangelist himself
seeks rather - here as well as there - consciously to provoke
and challenge the reader. The ‘doubtful character’ o f both
narratives, expressed by pious as well as by enlightened
readers, is, in other words, intended by the evangelist.
3. The Semeia-Source Theory as a Solution?
If, therefore, the opposition between concrete miracle

narrative and symbolic interpretation presents a false alter
native, then the question of the scope of our interpreta
tion and of its unambiguous criteria must remain controversial.
The time is past for attempts to ‘reconstruct’ the historical
event. In the first half o f this century attempts were still
made 28 in a psychologizing way to seek answers to the
numerous historical questions which the artfully, not
27 O p. cit., n. 2 above, 4/1, 118 with reference to 11:17, 39. This applies
naturally to 2:6-10 as well. Becker says this about the Semeia-source postulated
by him, which in my opinion is a scholarly phantom. Since these objectionable
tendencies are put by the evangelist in such a provocative way and for anti-
docetic reasons, only he is responsible for them in the Gospel. The so-called
Semeia-source is in reality only a consciously made selection from the miracle
tradition within the Johannine circle, which is formed wholly from the
paradoxical, dialectical-symbolic theology o f the head o f the school (cf. below,
pp. 312f.).
28 B. Weiss, Das Johannesevangelium, KEK (Gottingen, 21902), p. 96: ‘In
the memory o f the eye-witness with his impressions o f the life ofjesu s and its
many miracles and in the light o f the meaning which it took on for his
conception o f Christ, the picture o f that miracle o f divine providence was
transformed for him into this picture o f a miracle o f divine omnipotence.’
T. Zahn is less careful {Das Evangelium desJohannes, KNT, Leipzig, 61921): ‘For
the evangelist as for the reader who trusts his testimony, a wonderful
coincidence o f authentic human effects and human struggle for the
knowledge o f the divine will, on the one hand, and o f a superhuman power in
carrying out the known will o f God, on the other hand, shows itself in this first
enactment o f Jesus’ power as also in his last, as reported by John (ch.
11)’ (160). F. Büchsel, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, N T D (Göttingen, 1946),
p. 45, goes still further: ‘His disapproving word to Mary is meant seriously.
The thoughts o f a friendly and caring housewife, who would have liked to see
a painful embarrassment redressed even in a strange house, were not his
own thoughts, even considering the entirely natural qualities o f his
being___ He provides assistance, because G o d ’s will has determined and given
him this occasion. . . .’ Against this, cf. K. Barth (op. cit., n. 23 above), pp.
194, 198.
to say cleverly, constructed narrative itself abandons, and

which all too easily led to the beginnings o f a Jesus-novel.
In their place there appeared the literary-critical, form -
critical, redaction-critical and tradition-critical hypotheses
concerning the genesis and prehistory o f the text. The
question o f the original event and its circumstances is
replaced by that o f the prior strata o f the extant narrative, in
which case the (in part very diverse) attempts at
reconstruction, as applied to the hypothetical sources, are
hardly less imaginative than the older attempts to provide
an explanation.
The desire to reconstruct can here blind one’s exegetical
eye. This is demonstrated by numerous scholars who adopt
the Semeia-source theory. In John 2:3, they declare as original
the longer extraordinarily poorly attested reading oivov
oÜK eixov, cm ouv£T£Àéoôi] ô oîvoç t o û ydpou erca, instead
o f the much better attested and simple (but perhaps more
easily misunderstood) uoTqpqoavxoq oïvou, which receives
the unambiguous meaning o f ‘when the wine gave out’ only
through the wine-rule in 2 :10.29
This is not the place to enter into a detailed discussion
o f the questionable Semeia-source theory and its varia
tions. The self-evident manner with which it is pre
supposed by various authors does not render it the more
29 It is to be found only in the original reading o f Sinaiticus, and, among the
Old Latin, a.b.ff2. j.r, eth and syrhms. It is an ancient correction which seeks
greater precision and goes back to the second century. The reading o f itel
move in a similar direction: factum est per multam turbam vocitorum
vinum consummari. Sin* must then change the saying o f Mary also on
stylistic grounds: oîvoç ouk éoxiv, similarly Tat syrPPa,h. Cf. B. M. Metzger, A
Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London and New York, 1971),
p. 201; R. Schnackenburg, op. cit., n. 19 above, pp. 332, n. 3 and C. K. Barrett,
op. cit., pp. 190f. The shorter reading is represented by P6675 and all the other
Greek manuscripts. At least since the two Bodm er papyri have become
known, we should no longer cling to the clearly secondary, longer version.
The longer version was preferred by R. Bultmann, op. cit., n. 3 above, p. 80, n.
6; R. T. Fortna, The Gospel o f Signs (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 30f.; M. E. Boismard
and A. Lamouille, L ’É vangile de Jean: Synopse des quatre évangiles en Français III
(Paris, 1977), p. 100; H.-P. Heekerens, Die Zeichenquelle des johanneischen
Redaktion, SBS 113 (Stuttgart, 1984), p. 64-5. Heekerens wants to see in the
reading eixa Asyei a ‘typical idiolect’ o f the Johannine redaction (65). It is
that simple. Rearding the older discussion, cf. A. Smitmans (op. cit., n. 13
above, p. 12, n. 3).
convincing .30A foreign body is thereby forced into the Fourth

Gospel, which contradicts the great stylistic unity o f the work,
a point brought out by Ruckstuhl, among others.31 How can
one expect that such a theologically wilful evangelist, who
according to J. Becker ‘develops his theology with pre
suppositions other than the S[emeia] Q [uelle] ’,32 should have
mechanically taken over such statements as 2:11 or 20:30f.
(which are decisive for the construction and structure o f his
Gospel) from a source which was entirely theologically alien?
Is even John capable o f such feats? This does not mean that
the author (or authors) had not made use o f written sources.
He knew Mark and Luke at least, presumably discussed them
30For a more recent example, see H. Köster, ‘Überlieferung und Geschichte
der frühchristlichen Evangelienliteratur’, A N R W 2.25.2, 1477: ‘John most
certainly [italics mine] used a written source for the miracle stories, the Semeia
(sign)-source, as well as for the passion narrative. These two sources are closely
related to the sources o f the Gospel o f Mark.’ Here everything is questionable.
If assuming written sources, one would have to count Mark itself among the
sources o f John in the first place. The assumption o f a ‘sign source’, however,
only causes difficulties for the understanding o f the Gospel. More than that, all
o f the source theories are everything but harmonious - cf. the extensive research
reports in G. van Belle, De semeia-bron in het vierde evangilie: Ontstaan en groei van
een hypothese (Leuven, 1975); R. Kysar, loc. cit. (n. 2 above), 2395-407, and the
short overview in Heekerens, op. cit., pp. Ilf., who assumes a form curtailed to
the three Galilean signs (2:1-12; 4:46-54 and 21:1-14), completely in contrast
to the comprehensive version o f Becker, op. cit., n. 2 above, 1, 112-20), who
wants to attribute almost the whole o f the narrative material except the Passion
story to a Semeia-source. For criticism, cf. F. Neyrinck, ‘De semeiabron in het
vierde evangelie: Kritick van een hypothese’, Academiae Analecta, MVAW.L 45
(1983), no. 1, 1-28; cf. by the same author ‘John 4,46-54 Signs Source and/or
Synoptic Gospels’, E T L 60 (1984), 367-75. Cf. also the proposal o f an
‘agnosticism’ toward literary-critical operations in D. A. Carson, JB L 97 (1978),
411-29 (esp. 428f.).
31 E. Ruckstuhl, Die literarische Einheitlichkeit des Johannesevangeliums, Studia
Friburgensia 3 (Freiburg, 1951); E. Schweizer, ‘Ego Eimi: Die religions
geschichtliche Bedeutung der johanneischen Bildreden, zugleich ein Beitrag
zur Quellenfrage des vierten Evangeliums’, F R L NF 38 (1939) ; but already E. A.
Abbott, Johannine Grammar (London, 1906), in the preface, p. x, says: ‘About
John, I have tried to subordinate strictly to grammatical inferences my
conviction that he, too, is a master o f style and phrase’; cf. also, by the same
author, Johannine Vocabulary (London, 1905); R. Schnackenburg, op. cit., n. 19
above, pp. 94-7; and E. Ruckstuhl, ‘Johannine Language and Style’, M. d ejon ge
(ed.), L ’E vangile de Jean: Sources, rédaction, théologie, BETL 44 (Leuven, 1977),
pp. 125-47; E. Ruckstuhl and P. Dschulnigg, Stilkritik und Verfasserfrage in
Johannesevangelinen, N T O A 17 (Freiburg-Göttingen, 1991). The arguments o f
Ruckstuhl are overwhelming.
32 Op. cit., p. 120.
in the ‘school’ , took some things over in more or less altered

way and, critical on the whole, detached himself from them.
But except for the Gospels which we know already, we can
reconstruct no written sources with sufficient certainty. The
(almost naive) trust in literary reconstruction, which is again
so widespread today and which does not recognize the
difference between the possible and the probable, leads more
and more to games that can no longer be taken seriously.
According to R. Bultmann, who wishes to ascribe relatively
little o f our pericope to the redaction o f the evangelist,33 the
evangelist regarded the whole narrative, as taken from the
source, only as a ‘ symbol o f the revelation o f Jesus’ ôoâ’,
which makes visible to faith ‘not the power o f the miracle-
worker, but rather the divinity ofjesus as the revealer’.34 To
the question ‘to what extent may one interpret the individual
strands o f the narrative from the standpoint o f this under
standing?’ he answers (in a guarded way) that ‘the gift o f thé
wine is not important, but rather the gift ofjesus himself,Jesus
as revealer’ . The water, in contrast to the wine, ‘is an image o f
all that which is a surrogate o f the revelation, all that by
which man thinks he can live, but yet cannot live ’.35The denial
o f the demand o f his mother by reference to the hour has
significance: ‘The event o f the revelation is independent o f
human wishes.’ Accordingly the steward’s ignorance (v. 9)
signifies ‘human blindness in the face o f the person o f the
revealer’.36 The question thus remains: was such an artfully
constructed, exciting narrative necessary, with all its
intermediary steps and with its unusually large number o f
actors, in order to attain this symbolic result? Could the
evangelist not have said everything much more simply - less
disturbingly miraculous and theologically less ambiguous?
Obviously, the prejudicial effect of the source-theory reduces the
33 Op. cit., p. 79: Perhaps that the day is noted in v. 1, the disciples in v. 2,
where they replace the brothers ofjesus; cf. Ep. Apost, ch. 5, where both appear
as well as 2:12, and the ignorance o f the architriklinos in 2:9b and l i b from
scjxxvepoooev.
34 Ibid., p. 83.
35 Ibid., p. 84.
36 Ibid., p. 85, cf. n. 4: ‘One can hardly allegorize further.’
possibilities of a theological-symbolical interpretation. This is all the

more so, since an entirely different theological tendency is
attributed to the author o f the source from that o f the
evangelist. One could also ask: did the Johannine school’s
audience (and later the large church communities) o f the
second century hear this in the story, or is Bultmann’s
‘respectable’ interpretation more related to his sermon
preparations in Marburg than to the first hearers and readers
o f the Gospel? Put differently, is the source-theory not just as
far removed from the very complex history o f the origin o f
the Gospel (which is for us no longer reconstructable) as are
the historically absurd rearrangement hypotheses in
Bultmann’s otherwise theologically impressive commentary?
The same problem arises in an even sharper way in the
commentary o f J. Becker: ‘E[vangelist] therefore appro
priated the S[emeia] Q [uelle] with a minimum o f effort (in
v. 1, 6, 9). This is why his interpretation is hard to make out.’37
Becker can accordingly describe the theological significance
o f the miracle for his Semeia-source in detail: ‘The glory o f the
miracle-worker (and hence his divinity as the one who is able
to perform miracles) visible in the normally unimaginable
miracle is the occasion for the disciples to believe in him. In
this way, all readers o f the source should be led to faith.’ Yet is
it a piece o f writing produced in the interest o f missionary
activity? What sort o f naive readers and mission prospects are
assumed? Are they to be led to faith ‘in the divinity o f the
miracle worker’ by reading unbelievable mirabilia, o f which
there were more than enough in the ancient world? This
divinity, according to Becker, becomes ‘visible to everyone’ in
the miracle narrative, ‘so that faith in Jesus arises’ . Behind
this is said to exist a competition with the cult o f Dionysus
and its wine-miracles.38 Although a bit later it is said o f the
source that ‘ the general Jewish milieu o f the narrative is
beyond question’ and that this source ‘in a certain way
[stands] closer to the Jews than to (the) Evangelist’,39 any
relation o f the Cana miracle to the Old Testament and
37 Op. cit. n. 2 above, 1, p. 107 [italics mine],
38 Ibid., l,p p . 110.
39 Ibid., l,p p . 117.
Jewish wine-metaphors is rejected. Where and when is this

Dionysus legend supposed to have been adapted to
Christianity (cf. below, pp. 326ff.)? The theological motivation
o f the evangelist for the incorporation o f this miracle into his
strongly theological Gospel appears all the more meagre.
Becker does reject Bultmann’s purely symbolic interpretation
on the grounds that the ‘E[vangelist] does not mitigate the
objectionably excessive miracle event’ (although the question
is, o f course, whether he does not increase it through the
presumed ‘additions’ in w. 6 and 9), yet the theological
interest it has is limited to two points. Together with
Bultmann, Becker is o f the opinion ‘that it is not to the point
to attribute a deeper meaning to individual elements o f the
narrative, but to understand the miracle as a whole’ . He
attempts this by seeing in it a justification o f 1:51, which
is due to the evangelist: ‘The heavenly dimension o f the
messenger - just as highly mythic as 2 :lff. is “excessively”
miraculous - is opened up .’40 Is this whole ‘excessive’ effort
necessary and meaningful ‘for demonstrating Jesus’ divine
descent and unity with the Father’?41 This is, however,
precisely not expressis verbis under discussion in the narrative.
What happens in it could perhaps also be expected o f a
magician (cf. below, p. 323).
The second motif is that the ‘E[vangelist] seeks with 2:1-11
to finish the appointing o f the disciples’ . But the disciples are
in the narrative only peripheral figures without any function.
The appointment o f disciples is precisely not what is being
discussed. The exegesis o f the ancient Church already dis
cussed the number o f disciples present,42 a problem that has
remained unsolved to this day. The actual appointment o f the
disciples takes place only after the crisis in 6:66-71 and then
again in 20:19-28: only there are the Twelve mentioned (6:67,
70; 20:24).
In other words, the Semeia-source theory does not
illuminate the interpretation o f this ‘mysterious’ text; it
obscures both it and the understanding o f the whole Gospel,
40 Ibid., 1, pp. 111.
41 Ibid., l,p p . 112.
42A. Smitmans, op. cit., p. 89.
since the miracle occurs in a passage which is decisive for the

entire work. The theory, in other words, only displaces the
problem: what was objectionable to the old interpretation is
now attributed to a written source. Thus, all that was excessive
and miraculous now appears unaltered in the source, while
the profound editorial additions are attributed to the
evangelist.43 Such a procedure keeps us from taking 2:1-11
seriously as a Johannine text. Heekerens justly emphasizes, at
the conclusion o f his (in my opinion not very convincing)
book Die Zeichenquelle der johanneischen Redaktion, that ‘an
“original gospel o f John”, lying behind the dense and
coherent web o f the traditional text o f John 1:21 - 21:25, . . .
[is] not reconstructable’.44
4. John 2:1-11 regarded as a Unity

It is the merit o f the work o f B. Olsson (mentioned at the
beginning o f this study) that it examines John 2:1-11 - in an
unusually penetrating way - in connection with that ‘dense
and coherent web’ which the whole Fourth Gospel presents.
The strength o f his examination lies in that it begins by
regarding the given text as a literary unity without looking for
its historical connections, tradition, or redaction, but yet
subjects the text itself to a detailed linguistic analysis and pays
attention to its stylistic subtleties. His methods are particularly
suited to the esoteric character o f the Johannine ‘special’
language.45 This is hardly the place to describe the ‘wholistic’
method o f the author, which proceeds from thirty-one minute
statement units and analyses these against the background o f
43 Cf. the procedure o f W. Nicol, op. cit., n. 20 above.

44 Op. cit., n. 29 above, p. 131. Cf. also his teacher H. Thyen in Tradition und
Glaube: Festgabe fü r K. G. Kuhn (Göttingen, 1971), p. 356, and in Kirche: Festgabe
fü r Günther Bornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag (Tübingen, 1980), p. 164: ‘But such a
mode o f approach, which analyses the Fourth Gospel as if it were an
archaeological excavation site, should not rule out the fact (that it) is equally a
coherent literary work in its traditional canonical form, that is to say in the given
order o f texts and chapters. It is to be interpreted as a whole and not as a mere
compendium o f Johannine and early Christian traditions.’ ‘In contrast to such
approaches, I regard the traditional text as “the Fourth Gospel” and therefore
its last redactor as “the fourth evangelist” and creator o f this work.’
45 Op. cit., n. 1 above, 1-6 (esp. 5 -6), 15-16.
the language o f the Gospel, in order then to grasp the total

structure o f the text through the presentation o f its very
different reference relationships and at the end to articulate
its ‘message’.46 One would only say here ‘tolle, lege9, and wish
that the other Johannine texts would at some time be analysed
in this thorough and convincing way.47
The whole text shows itself as a ‘symbolic narrative text with
many allusive elements ’,48 from which the author works out a
symbolic significance or allusion for each o f twenty-three
concepts and formulas, differing greatly in content and
intensity, but yet characterizing the whole text as symbolic.49
This means, however, that the evangelist attributed to the
whole narrative in all its parts a deeper theological meaning
with a view o f the whole Gospel, notwithstanding whether or
not he took it from the tradition or form ed it editorially
himself.
I would not, however, wish to go so far as does B. Lindars,
whom the author cites approvingly: ‘ The miracle itself is
46 Ibid., pp. 22-7: Analysis o f the statement units; pp. 77-94: The Structure o f
the Text; pp. 94-114: The Message o f the Text. Regarding his procedure only a
brief example from his analysis o f v. 8a (54f.) is necessary. H e examines the
meaning o f vCv in the general New Testament use o f language. In connecting the
imperative aorist with it (here he could also have referred to the expositions o f
Abbott, op. cit., n. 31 above, p. 319) and in connection with John, he shows that it
is used here in a temporal sense and refers to the fact that the miracle has already
occurred. But in the special application John gives it, vöv is referred to the
statements about the hour ofjesus (cf. v. 4), as is seen in 12:27, 31; 13:31; 16:5, 22;
17:5, 13: ‘For Jn the “hour” is the great N ow ’ (55). This is taken up again in the
structural analysis in the section ‘Temporal Features’ (83f.), with the result: ‘The
three elements o f time mentioned, rj copa pou, vûv and âpxi belong together:
they should . . . be regarded. . . that first the “hour” ofjesus, then the wine is there,
the drawing, the bringing (vCv, apxi) ’ (84). This is then evaluated in a summary
fashion for the total interpretation (100f.): ‘I found that the temporal relations,
unlike the spatial and logical, play an important part o f our narrative . . . Together
they provide a striking temporal pattern with “the hour o f Jesusn in centre . . . This
temporal structure . . . draws attention to rj copa pou in Jesus’ first speech as an
important key to the interpretation of the entire text’ (100).
47The author limits himself to 2:1-11 and 4:1-42 only.
48Ibid., p. 114.
49 Ibid., p. 113: ifj npépqt xrj xpixi], yapoç, K avà xf)ç TaÀiÀaCaç, q pqxqp xoû
’Iqooü yuvai, ï \& pa pou, oi ôicckovoi, ö xi âv Àéyr) ûpïv noiqoaxs, Àiéivai, Kaxà
xöv KaGapiopôv xöv ’Iouöauov, ecoç âvco, ccvxÀqoaxe, àpxixpiKÀivoç, éysuoaxo
xö uôcop, oûk fjôei/fjôsioav noOev éoxiv, oi i}vxÀr]KÔx£ç xô Î3ôwp, vujkJhov, xöv
KaÀov oïvov, àpxriv> oqpEicov, éâvepooosv, ôoÇav, émoxeuoav etc;.
unimportant and all the interest lies in the symbolical

possibilities o f the event.’50 Here a false alternative seems to
be set up: oqjaeïov (n ÎK ) does not mean only the symbolism
o f the sign, since it is at the same time a visible performance
o f a miracle, and one cannot declare the latter wholly
inessential in favour o f the former. Without the ‘deed’ there
is also no ‘symbolism’ . Even in the case o f a parable
(Gleichnishandlung) it is always the action (Handlung) which is
at issue at the same time. It is for this reason that the activity
(Handeln) o f Jesus during his last supper has been important
for the Church. For the evangelist, the concrete deed o f the
incarnate Logos has essential significance: it is the apx*] xwv
oqjjidcov o f the Messiah and the Son o f God (1:41, 49) which
forms the foundation and through which this Logos makes
visible his hidden glory to the disciples for the first time .51
Only because the deed actually occurred for him, can it be
profoundly told again in such a way as to indicate the whole
salvific work o f Jesus and to have it refer to the paradoxical
glory o f the one who was elevated on the cross. Despite all the
theologically reflective freedom in structuring the narrative,
he does not want to write pious fiction, but to re-present
what is for him a highly significant tradition from whose
abundance he can consciously select52 in a form which has his
stamp and accords with the whole. The way we today explain
the miracles which are attributed to Jesus is a completely
different matter (and is in the last analysis also a dogmatic
question).53
Keeping in mind, o f course, the wealth o f attempts at
symbolic interpretation in a history o f interpretation which
spans more than 1,800 years, the problem which remains is to
discover the deeper intention o f the evangelist in saying what
he did; further, if and how his first hearers and readers could
grasp it.
50 The Gospel o f fohn, New Century Bible (London, 1972), p. 123; Olsson, op.
cit., p. 95 [italics mine].
51 1:14, 39, 46, 51. Note the climax.
52 Cf. 20:3f.; 21:25.
53 Olsson, expressly stresses: ‘There is no indication in the text that he himself
does not regard it as historically accurate. It is presented as an occurrence in
Jesus’ historical situation which is a sign o f something else.’ (op. cit., p. 98).
Agreeing with older works by Leroy, Meeks, and others,54

Olsson suspects that the Fourth Gospel is ‘ a book for the
initiated, i.e., it is addressed primarily to those who are already
conversant with its substance and its special linguistic form ’.55
This is certainly on the mark in view o f the history o f the origin
o f this work in the so-called ‘Johannine school’ or ‘com
munity’ a murky and puzzling history which is, just for this
reason, portrayed today often in such fantastic ways.56 The
nearest parallel - not taken from the domain o f the Greek
language, however - would be the genuine Essene texts from
Qumran. They have their own stylistic quality and behind
them, at least in part, stands the Teacher o f Righteousness,
the ‘Principal o f the school’.57 Yet 20:20f. and 21:15-17, 24f.
(cf. also 10:16; 11:52; 12:20; 17:20ff.) point at the same time
to a universal orientation o f the Fourth Gospel which is related
to the greater church and which had left the esoteric circle
o f students behind. It would be interesting to know if, with
the dissemination o f the Fourth Gospel to the greater church,
there was a firm tradition o f interpretation. This dissemi
nation is to be dated shortly after the year 100 at the latest;
one need only think o f its significance for the Church o f Asia
Minor and Egypt in the second century. It would also be
interesting to know if Irenaeus perhaps reproduced an older
tradition o f Asia Minor in his eucharistic interpretation o f 2:1-
11. Since a symbolic-allegorical interpretation o f the Fourth
Gospel immediately suggested itself (and, as our text shows,
54 O p. cit., p. 97; Feine-Behm -Küm m el, Einleitung in das Neue Testament
(Heidelberg, 121969), pp. 157ff.; A. Wikenhauser and H. Schmid, Einleitung in
das Neue Testament (Freiburg, Basel and Vienna, 61973), pp. 342ff.; H. Leroy,
Rätsel und Missverständnis: Ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, BBB 30
(Bonn, 1968); W. A. Meeks, ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’,
J B L 91 (1972), 44-72 (69f.).
55 Op. cit., p. 275, cf. p. 97.
56 Olsson, p. 289, thus dates the analysed texts relatively early (in my opinion,
too early). The Fourth Gospel surely got its present form only after the Synoptic
Gospels, i.e. around the year 90-100 at the earliest. Cf. 21:18-23: the death of
Peter happened sometime earlier.
57 Regarding the ‘Johannine Community’, cf. the research report by R. Kysar
(op. cit., n. 2 above, 243ff.) and especially R. A. Culpepper, TheJohannine School,
SBL Dissertation Series 26 (Missoula, Montana, 1975). For the Teacher o f
Righteousness and the beloved disciple, seej. Roloff, N T S 15 (1968/9), 129-51.
See now M. Hengel, op. cit. (n. 20), p. 469 Index s.v. Johanneische Schule.
was indeed demanded), it is understandable that Gnostic

exegesis, as, for instance, that o f the Valentinians, accepted
it with special enthusiasm, despite its subtle anti-docetic
character.58
This attempt at an almost thoroughgoing symbolic inter
pretation o f the text, which text, as Olsson expressly
emphasizes,59 does not present a strictly composed allegory
(but rather contains many central points and many different
allusions) seems to me the most important contribution to our
understanding o f this puzzling text to have appeared in the
last few decades.
Nevertheless, there are numerous questions to be asked.
Since we are not dealing with a self-contained allegory, it must
be emphasized that the unity o f the narrative is established
through the dramatically described miraculous event in its
three progressive stages.60It is connected with surprising side-
effects and maintains its effect on the reader even without the
more profound ‘symbolic’ intepretation. We are not dealing
with that which is only a parable. It is precisely for this
reason that the Fourth Gospel could be so effective, following
its dissemination among the communities o f the greater
church at the beginning o f the second century, without
‘symbolic-allegorical commentary’ , and, at the same time,
could stimulate exegetes to continually new interpretations,
particularly o f our narrative.
Thus, the ‘novelistic’ and thrilling construction o f the
narrative is to be taken seriously. Note, for instance, the very
striking conclusion in v. 10 b, with which the wedding-narrative
58 Irenaeus, adv. haer. 3.11.7: ‘Hi autem quia Valentino sunt, eo quod est
secundum Johannem plenissime utentes ad ostensionem coniugationum
suarum’, cf. 1.8.5-9.5; see also, n. 22 above. The first commentary on John was
written by Heracleon, a student o f Valentinus, around the middle o f the second
century.
59 Olsson, op. cit., p. 114: ‘The text can not be described as an allegory. There
is no consistent identification o f expressions in the text with a transferred
meaning. . . . ’
60 Cf. Olsson, op. cit., p. 98. Verses 3-5, the lack o f wine and the rebuff o f his
mother: w. 7-8, Jesus’ instructions; w. 9-10 the surprising assessment o f the
miracle by the steward. The whole is given a frame through the theologically
decisive reference to the presence o f Jesus’ disciples and to the effect the event
has (w. 1, 2 and 11).
abruptly comes to a close in order to bring about the the

metabasis o f the disciples’ faith. The same applies to the
objectionably brief introduction in v. 3, which leaves so many
questions unanswered and led to an enlargement o f the text
already in the second century (compare above, p. 304). In
other words, the author was not only a theologian o f some
stature, but also an artist who can hardly take second place to
the other great New Testament author, Mark. His ‘irony’ works
on the aesthetic and theological levels (or more precisely, on
different theological levels at o n ce).
On the other hand, the possibilities o f interpretation (we are
here faced with no necessities) accepted by Olsson seem to
me still too few. A. Smitmans is correct to conclude his presen
tation o f the more recent history o f interpretation with the
remark: ‘The multiplicity o f questions and answers, to which
a report on the interpretation must address itself, is in the
first place a sign o f the uncertainty o f this interpretation. . . .
Yet, this multiplicity need not merely be a matter o f un
certainty or insecurity, but could also have its basis in the
richness of the statement to be interpreted'61John 2:1-11, and the
action described as well, is an all too rich narrative. The
narrative calls forth total astonishment - or annoyance. At the
same time it provokes a many-sided symbolic interpretation
in view o f the whole salvific event told in the Gospel. One
thing, at least, is clear - literary-critical slashing can only
destroy this effect.
In accord with the scholarly investigations o f A. Serra62
and J. Potin ,63 Olsson has called attention to the special sig
nificance o f the ‘Sinai-Screen’ for understanding John 1:19 -
2:11. It is unlikely, however, that the doubtless important
reference to the Sinai-epiphany presents the sole key to a
deeper understanding o f this text. Christ as the incarnate
61 Op. cit., pp. 62f. [italics mine].

62 Here Olsson referred back to A. Serra’s essay, ‘Le tradizioni della teofania
sinaitica nel Targum dello pseudo-Jonathan Es. 19. 24 e in Giov. 1, 19-2, 12’,
Marianum 33 (1971), 1-39. In the meantime, Serra’s dissertation, with its wealth
o f material, appeared: Contributi dell’ Antica Letteratura Guidaica per Uesegesi di
Giovanni 2, 1-12 e 19, 25-7, SPFTM 31 (Rome, 1977).
63J. Potin, L a ß te juive de la Pentecôte: Etudes des textes liturgiques. I - I I (= Lect. Div.
65, Paris, 1971); cf. Olsson, op. cit., p. 12 and passim.
TheDionysiac Messiah 315
Logos and Messiah o f Israel is surely set over against the gift
o f the Law to Israel through Moses in an antitypical way, but
there are other such keys, since the references to Sinai emerge
most definitely in the framework (that is the third day in 2:1
and the revelation o f the ôoâ to the disciples in 2:11). They
emerge only in a completely indirect way in the dramatized
narrative itself.
By an analogy with Christ as the ‘true vine’ (15:1) one
could, on the basis o f 2:10, call Christ the ‘good wine’ (and,
on the basis o f 4:1 Of., ‘the water o f life’ ) . The relation between
the wine metaphor in the first sign and the vine in the last eyco
eipu saying is surely no accident.
The wine and the vine play an important role in connection
with the Jewish expectation o f the Messiah, a role that cannot
be overlooked. One o f the most important Messianic proph
ecies in Judaism was Gen. 49:10-12.64 It is equally instructive
that the wine-cup, pitcher, grape-leaf, and grape appear fre
quently on the coins o f the uprising o f 66-73 and 132-5, which
were motivated by eschatological-Messianic considerations.65
The Messianically interpreted blessing o f Jacob in Gen. 49:10-
12 describes the eschatological ruler in Dionysiac colours:
The scepter shall not move from Judah,
Or the mace from between his feet,
To the end that tribute be brought him,
And to him go the peoples’ homage.
He tethers his ass to a vine,
His purebred to the choicest stem;
In wine he washes his garments,
His robes in the blood o f grapes.
His eyes are darker than wine,
And his teeth are whiter than milk.
(Trans. The Anchor Bible)
64F. A. Serra, Contribute pp. 244-50; R. Borig, Der wahre Wänstock: Untersuchungen
zu Joh 15, 1-10 (Münich, 1967), pp. 100, 104f., 118. A. Jaubert, ‘L ’image de la
vigne (Jean 15)’, Oikonomia: Festschrift O. Cullmann (Hamburg Bergstedt, 1967),
pp. 93-9; J. Jeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender (Gütersloh, 1930), pp. 27-31.
65Y. Meshorer, Jewish Coins o f the Second Temple Period (Tel Aviv, 1967), pp. 154-
69, Plates X IX -X X V III. Prior to this, the grape can be found only in very
individual cases on the coins o f Archelaus and the grape leaf on procurators’
coins: cf. p. 132, nn. 61-2; p. 172, no. 224. Plates VIII and XXIX. Regarding the
Bar Kochba coins, see the foundational work o f Leo Mildenberg, The Coinage o f
the Bar Kohba War, Typos 6 (Aarau, Frankfurt and Salzburg, 1984).
To be sure, rabbinic exegesis reinterpreted the wine-motif

here in terms o f the Torah; but must we presuppose the same
one-sided interpretation for John ?66 It should be mentioned
further that the apocalyptic texts exist which have fantastic
descriptions o f the fecundity o f the vine - compare 2 Apoc.
Bar. 29:5, 1 En. 10:19 and, above all, the Papias text cited by
Irenaeus (with its hyperbolics that seem absurd to us, but
occur not infrequently in rabbinic and apocalyptic texts, and
which also accords in some respects with the Johannine
Gospel - cf. 21:25) .67 ‘Messianic-Dionysian’ allusions may also
be found in the Sibylline descriptions o f Paradise: ‘Angels lead
to the light and to the carefree life, where the immortal path
o f the great God is and three-fold springs o f xvine, honey and
milk.’68
One might further refer to the messianic feast o f joy, where
the wine played a central role and which Jesus anticipated with
tax-collectors and sinners or even in the circle o f disciples. It
was not without cause that the reproach was raised against
him that he was ‘a glutton and a drunkard’ in contrast to
66 Cf. Gen. 27:28f.: Isaac’s blessing on Jacob; the expectation o f eschatological

fecundity: Lev. 26:5; Deut. 28:1-4; Amos 9:13; Hos. 2:24; 14:8f.; Joel 2:21-24,
4:18; Zech. 8:12; Isa. 29:17; 30:23-26;Jer. 31:5; Ezek. 34:23-31; 36:29f.; Hos. 14:8
(L X X diff. from M T ): Çqooviai Kai p£0i)o0qoovxai oix<p Kai éÇavGrjoei ox;
âpneÀoç to pvqpöouvov auxoö, <bç oîvoç Aißävou. To the interpretations of
the Targums referred to by A. Serra (op. cit., pp. 244ff.) are to be added: Tg.Jer.I
= MS. Add. 27031; as for Gen. 27:25; cf. the Targum o f the Pentateuch I Genèse,
SC 245, ed. R. le Déaut, 260f.; Add. 27031 for Gen. 27:25: SODSK J m he
translates ‘caché’, cf. 261, n. 8: ‘Rapprocher peut-être le verbe xexrjpqKaç d e jn
2, 10, E la lumière de Apoc. 2, 17.’
67Adv. haer. 5.33.3-4. O n this cf. U. H. Kortner, Papias von Hierapolis,
FR LANT 133 (Göttingen, 1983), pp. 50, 97, 104. Could John 2:6 possibly be
background here for the number 6 and the Metreteri? Cf. also H. J. de Jonge,
‘BOTRYC B O H C E I: The Age o f Kronos and the Millennium in Papias o f
Hierapolis.’ M. J. Vermaseren (ed.), Studies in Hellenistic Religion, EPRO 78
(Leiden, 1979), pp. 37-49. Papias, for whom the Presbyter John is the principal
informant, is acquainted with the Apocalypse, 1 John (and in my opinion)
also the Fourth Gospel (cf. M. Hengel, ‘Probleme des Markusevangeliums’,
Das Evangelium und die Evangelien, ed. P. Stuhlmacher, W U N T 28 (Tübingen,
1983), pp. 247-51 = Studies in the Gospel o f Mark (London, 1985, translated by
John Bowden), pp. 47-51, 148-55; M. Hengel, op. cit. (n. 20), p. 474 s.v.
Papias. One could cum grano salis call him a later ‘peripheral figure’ in the
Johannine circle.
68 Sib. or. 2, 316-18; cf. 8, 21 If., 3, 621f., 744f. [my emphasis]. The wine stands
in first place in three o f the four instances.
the ascetic Baptist.69 The concluding remark in the Last

Supper according to Mark 14:25; Matt. 24:29 also speaks for
itself.70
In this context, therefore, should not the wine-miracle in
John 2:1-11 be at the same time a symbol o f the ‘fullness’ and
‘j o y ’ which the Messiah brings? ‘I have come, that you may
have life and complete fulfilment (n ep iooöv)!’ (10:10). The
m otif o f perfect joy follows the vine saying a number o f times:
‘This I have told you, that my joy be in you and that your 709; be
perfect [nArjpoOrj] .71 ‘Ask and you will receive, so that your
joy may be perfect .’72 Origen had already emphasized this
m otif in his interpretation o f the Cana miracle.73
One might also here refer to an antitype in the Old
Testament (Jer. 16:8f.): ‘And as for a house where there is
feasting, you are not to go there either, and sit with them
eating and drinking. For this is what Yahweh o f Hosts, the God
o f Israel, has said: See! I am going to banish from this place -
before your eyes, and in your days - sounds o f mirth and
gladness, the voice o f bridegroom and bride.’ (Trans. The
Anchor Bible.) The Johannine Christ acts precisely in opposition
to G od’s instruction to the prophet. For with his coming,
sorrow comes to an end and the time o f joy is at hand. The
witness o f the Baptist (3:29) to the overflowing jo y o f the
69 Luke 7:34/Matt. 11:19.

70Regarding the Messianic meal, cf. H. L. Strack and R Billerbeck, Kommentar
zum Neuen Testament, vol. iv. 2 (Münich, 1956), pp. 1154-9. For the fantastic size
o f the blessing cup, upon which David will pronounce the word o f praise, cf.
1164f.: Yoma 76a; Midr.Teh. 23 §6; in addition cf. in n. 66 the documentation
from the Targums.
71 15:11 [my emphasis].
72 16:24; cf. the prayer o f Jesus in 17:13 and 16:20-22.
75 Johannescommentar GCS 10, 1903, ed. E. Preuschen, 10, 38 (p. 178): pexa
xqv év xcp OMp eùwxiav; 10, 65 (pp. 182f.): ‘T aû xqv âp xnv T<Sv oqpeic&v
énoiqosv ô ’Iqooôç év Kavqi xfjç raÀiÀaïaç’, ou yàp fjv ctpxq xöv oqpeiov xo
év Ka<j>apvaoùp, xcp npoqyoupévov pèv oqpsicov eîvai xoö uioö xoö Öeoö xqv
eijxjjpoouvqv; 13, 391 (p. 287): tv’ 8Ù(J)pdvrj xoùç ouveoxuopévouç; 13, 392
(p. 288): éÇ üôaxoç yivopevov oîvov xopnyoûoa eû<j)pooi3vqv xöv
ouveoxuopévov; 13, 438 (p. 294): psxà xo Àouxpôv q pâç etxfpaivei
ouvÔiaixcopsvouç aûxcp' Kai ôiôoùç xoö éx xfjç ôovotpecaç àûxoô oïvou nieïv.
A. Smitmans, op. cit., pp. 145, 281 thinks Origen’s interpretation is correct. ‘The
wine-miracle is the beginning o f the signs, “because the special sign o f the Son
o f God is joy” (John 10:12 GCS 10, p. 183, 2f.)\ He cites only this passage.
friend o f the bridegroom who hears his voice may in this

connection also be significant.
That the antithesis between the water in the stone jars -
which serve for ritual purification - and the good wine takes
the antithesis in the Prologue 1:17 further, has again and
again been pointed out since the time o f the ancient Church.
It is tempting here to relate the plenitude o f the good wine to
the gift o f the Spirit, ‘whom God does not give £K péxpoi)’,74
which ‘flows in streams’75 and which brings to life, while the
flesh is useless (6:63).
The reference to the eucharist - the relation, o f bread
and wine to the ‘flesh’ and ‘blood’ o f Christ - which become
gifts o f salvation through the atoning death o f Jesus (see
6:31-58 and 19:34f.; compare 1 John 5:6), o f which Irenaeus
knows, is likewise legitimate. The list could easily be
expanded.
I believe that John wishes to have this miracle narrative,
which is programmatic for him, interpreted in many ways -
and this in the sense o f the ‘ multiplicity of approaches' - so
that it can be related to the whole Gospel through a ‘dense
and coherent’ (cf. above, pp. 309f.) web o f references. The
evangelist was, precisely because o f his love o f paradox and
dialectic, a richly variegated thinker, whose subtle and
profound thought is misunderstood by all the primitive,
literary-critical ‘master-tailors’ . This does not in any way
rule out the attempt to discover the multifaceted levels,
breaks, and tensions in the Gospel or the application sources
and the assumption that heated discussions took place in
the school. Scissors are, however, in this effort not the
appropriate instrument by which to comprehend them.
This multifarious nature o f the text may be seen also in
the role which the mother o f Jesus plays. She not only
embodies the old Israel; she at the same time embodies
the family o f Jesus, which at the wrong time makes in
appropriate demands o f Jesus or does not understand
him at all - a tendency which relates John to the Synoptics.76
74 3:34.
75 7:38.
76Cf. Mark 3:31-35; 6:3-6.
The nearest parallel to Jesus’ gruff rebuff o f his mother (ounco

r}Kei rj copa pou) may be found in the similarly structured
rejection o f the demands o f Jesus’ brothers (7:2-8); probably
they were omitted from the wedding itself quite in
tentionally.77 In both cases Jesus refused to consider acting
immediately (see 7:6) for the reason that his time had not
yet com e ,78 although after the refusal, surprisingly, he did
act (o f course, not publicly ).79 Jesus’ reaction in chapter
seven is more negative, however. In 7:5 the faith o f Jesus’
brothers is directly denied by way o f commentary. Over
against this, the directive o f Jesus’ mother (2:5) mitigates the
situation and sets the stage for Jesus’ action. The mother o f
Jesus also appears (19:25) below the cross as witness, while the
brothers o f Jesus, after their dismissal (7:10), disappear from
the Gospel.
In the same way, that at the cross Jesus entrusts his
mother to his beloved disciple is an indirect affront to the
brothers o f Jesus, since caring for their mother was their
obvious duty. Conversely, the beloved disciple, as a trusted
friend o f Jesus and as the one who carries out his bequest,
receives a singular authority, which lends him a distinc
tion not only over against Peter, but also over against the
family relations. The latter were, according to Hegesippus,
still extraordinarily influential at the time o f the origin o f
the Gospel in Palestinian Jewish Christianity.80 By means
o f the references to the family o f Jesus, the Fourth Gospel
deals not only with the basic relation o f Jewish and pagan
Christians, or o f the old to the new ‘people o f G od’ - a
term which does not play an essential role in it; but it also
77We find them instead o f the disciples in the Epistula Apostolorum ch. 5
(ed. C. Schmidt, T U 43, 1919, p. 29). This information may be found also in
John Chrysostom (Horn, on John 21:1, PG 89, 129) and perhaps also in
Epiphanius and Philoxenos o f Mabug. This point stems possibly from a changed
text or from the apocryphal tradition. It is certainly not original. The brothers
o f Jesus have intruded from 2:12. For a treatment o f the whole issue, cf.
Smitmans (op. cit., pp. 84-8).
78 7:6: ô K a ip o ç ô époç ounco nàpsoxiv.
79 2:6 = 7:10.
80 Cf. M. Hengel, ‘Jakobus der Herrenbruder - der erste “Papst”?’ in E. Gräßer
and O. Merk (eds) in: Glaube und Eschatologie, Festschrift W. G. Kümmel zum 80.
Gebürtstag (Tübingen, 1985), pp. 71-104. (Cf. Eusebius, H E 3.20.6).
addresses the relation o f the Johannine group to the Jewish-

Christian relatives ofjesus .81
These examples may suffer to show that the multiplicity o f
attempts at interpretation is not necessarily due to the
bewilderment o f the exegetes; it is intended by the evangelist
himself by the way o f the subtle, many-levelled structure o f his
Gospel in the sense o f a ‘variety o f approaches’ . It is self-
evident that the introitus, the apxi] tcov oqpeicov, must play a
special role here. Similar points may be made also concerning
the highly varied use o f titles o f rank or concerning the éyco
eipi sayings. All approaches come together in this connection
at the same point, in the person ofjesus and in his salvific
work (and in accordance with, o f course, the secundum homines
recipientes, that is, according to the understanding o f the
Johannine community). This unity in multiplicity may well be
called the ‘christological monomania’ o f the Fourth Gospel.
5. The External ‘Colouring’ of the Miracle Narrative
I must now return to the external contours o f the narrative,

which is, in many ways, ‘offensive’ and has precious little to do
with the ‘Protestant ethos’ o f the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. Dibelius is right in this connection (cf. above,
n. 7). It has probably given offence from the beginning -
something we should not hesitate to admit.
J. Gnilka, in his recent, brief commentary, speaks o f
‘ the poor people’s wedding o f Cana’.82 But the wedding
reported by John, in fact, points to the opposite: the
ôidKOvoi, that is, the slaves waiting on the tables, the
àpxvrpiKÀwoç, presumably not one o f the guests but the
81 Àaôç appears only on the lips o f Caiaphas (11:50/18:14) and is replaced

with TEKva xoö 0£ou in the interpretation. Israel appears more frequently
(1:31, 49; 3:10; 12:13)), yet twice by way o f a formula as ßaoiAeix; xoö
’IoparçÀ in the confession or acclamation. The most important ecclesiological
concept is given by the ïÔiot (1:11; 13:1) in connection with the ïôia npößaxa
(10:3f., 12) and with being a child o f God (i£Kva 0£ou: 1:12; 11:52; cf. ljo h n
3:If., 10; 5:2) and points rather to the notion o f the ‘family o f G o d ’. Cf. also
the singular passage 20:17, where Jesus speaks o f the disciples as xoùç
àÔ£À(])Ouç pou.
82 Die Neue Echter-Bibel, pt. I (Würzburg, 1983), p. 22.
‘head slave’83 responsible for all the arrangements o f the
feast, speak o f an entirely different, indeed ‘feudal’ milieu.
The six gigantic stone jars are also a sign o f wealth. Such
very expensive receptacles, made o f soft limestone, have
been found in Jerusalem. They were treasured because, unlike
83 The concept appears otherwise only in Heliodorus (Aethiopika 7.27.7)

together with oivoxooi and there means the head slaves who served at the
table o f the Persian satrap (cf. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English
Dictionary, Oxford, 1961). In Petronius (Satiricon 22.6) there is a triclinarch
as the organizer o f a highly questionable feast. Inscriptions testify o f imperial
freedmen, who administered, among other offices, that o f a triclinarch o f
Caere (early imperial period?) ( C IL 11.3612), o f Rome ( ad 117), C IL 6.1884,
o f Corinth (ca. first half o f the third century, Severus Alexander) ( C IL 3.536).
Cf. The Oxford Latin Dictionary (O xford, 1973), which defines it as ‘a steward
responsible for arrangements in the dining room ’. Three inscriptions o f
honour for priests o f Stratoniceia (Caria) in southern Asia Minor seem more
revealing. At the conclusion o f the enumeration o f other liturgical offices
(Gymnasiarch, sacrificial feasts, offerings for public buildings, etc.),
expenditures for the feasts o f Zeus Panamaros are listed in the Comyrion
shrine. Here one reads o f special, opulent banquets (xpiKÀiviapxiai; the
translation o f Liddell and Scott as ‘directorship o f feasts’ is not correct in
connection with these sources: in B CH 15, no. 144, 183f. it says (1. lOf.) ônèp
xöv èoxidoecoi. . . and exactly parallel to this in 1. 19 ûnèp xtöv xpiKÀivapxiôv;
in addition, the concept appears in the plural in all three inscriptions). With
regard to these banquets, the generous amounts o f wine, donated by the
priests, are emphasized:
(1) B CH 11, 1887, 383f., 384ff. no. 3
. . . énexeÀEoav ôè Kai xà pu-
oxqpia xoö Kopupiou eüoeßtöc; Kai
xoïç pèv ccvôpâoiv év x(j) Kopupi-
(p ôeînva napéoxov Kaxà xpiKÀei-
30 vapxiac; Kai xöv oivov eôooav à-
(})0ôv(oç noAeixaiç, Çévoiç, ÔouÀoiç
36 . . . eOeoav ôè Kai év xfj ôôcp

näüi] rjÀiKUx yÀUKÔv xe Kai olvov à())0ôvcoc;
This inscription is dated in the time o f Marcus Aurelius by G. Deschamps and

G. Cousin (B C H 11,383).
(2) B CH 15, 1891, 185, 186 no. 130
25 . .. ôovxsç Kai ùnsp xwv xpi-
KÀiviapxiwv év aùxaïç xöv
riavapapuDv rjpépaiç év xrj
noÀ i. . .
This incription breaks o ff in 1. 31; the donation o f wine is not retained or was
not mentioned.
clay vessels, they did not become unclean for ritual purposes.84
The Fourth Gospel puts no emphasis on the poor, in
contrast to Luke (who, however, shows ambivalence in this
regard). It shows rather an ‘aristocratic’ character: it does not
hesitate to display wealth and abundance.85 The ‘luxury-
miracle’ o f Cana stands in clear contrast to the early Christian
ideal o f poverty. 1 John 2:16f. and 3:17 as well as 3 John
thereby gain a concrete background .86
Miracles o f gifts or provisions could in a special way
raise the suspicion that magic was at work. In this regard,
G. Theissen remarks that ‘nothing is known o f people who
proposed to increase the amount o f bread or change water
(3) B C H lb , 1891, 204 no. 144:.. .

[ e] ôtDKcxv ôè K(ai) ûnèp tg > [ v i]piKÀiva[p]xiô>v év
20 (v) t cp xoö Kopupioi) Ka[ip](ö näorj xuxtn] Kafi] qAi-
Kia Kai xoïç èniÔq[p]rjoaoiv Çèv[o]i[ç K]ai
OeaxpiKOïç, npoo[an]eöooav [ôè K(ai) à<|)]0<>
vax; Kai (j)iÀoi£ip(o[c;] èv t <$ Kop[upU}>] xöv
oïvov.
In connection with these xpiKÀiviapxiai, we are dealing with cultic feasts, the
special mark of which was a bountiful enjoyment o f wine. They probably were
chaired by a xpiKÀivapxnÇ- The office and the office-holder are not designated
here, but it may be assumed that the priests, who were honoured there, held
‘triclinarchial’ offices. The matter should be investigated further. Regarding the
Johannine ccpxiipiKÀivoc;, one may well suspect, even with these few records,
that the special form with the prefixed apx^-, which otherwise is confirmed only
by Heliodorus, still has a conspicuous emphasis. Also B. Olsson (op. cit., p. 56)
came to this conclusion from a completely different direction. It is further
conspicuous that the triclinarchs in Stratoniceia presupposed a large donation
o f wine.
84 C f.Jerusalem Revealed. Archaeology in the Holy City, 1968-1974 (Jerusalem,
1975), pp. 47f., Plate 48. Regarding the stone vessels see now the thorough
investigation of R. Deines, Jüdische Steingfässe und pharisäische Frömmigkeit. Ein
archäologisch-historischer Beitrag zum Verständnis von Joh 2,6 und der jüdischen
Reinheitshalach zur Zeit Jesu, W U N T II / 52, 1993.
83 Compare the depiction o f John 12:1-8 which reworks the Anointing scene
from Mark 14:3-9. The three siblings (John 11) belong to the upper stratum,
which in general plays a far greater role than in the Synoptics (cf. 3:If., 4:47ff.;
6:15; 18:15; 19:38-41). The social milieu points rather to Asia Minor, where Pliny
(Ep. 10.96.9) complains that (even in the distant Pontus) the new superstition
has reached people omnis ordinis, rather than to Palestine or Syria, where the
great poverty o f the rural communities can be inferred from the Didache.
86 Regarding this problem, see W. Schäfke, ‘Früchristlicher Widerstand, iv, no.
3: Der reiche Christ’, A N R W II.23.550-6. Cf. also M. Hengel, Eigentum und
Reichtum in der frühen Kirche (Stuttgart, 1973), pp. 69ff.; cf. 34ff., 44ff.
into wine. Nothing is known o f magic practices whereby

such miracles could be brought about’.87This, fortunately, can
be corrected. Theissen himself refers by way o f qualification
to PG M l:103f., where the ‘Parhedros’ furnishes ‘wine, bread,
and whatever else you wish’ to the magician, as the latter had
requested. He can even conjure up human beings (1:98). In
the Talmud, the eighty witches o f Ashkelon understand this
art o f ‘ the wishing table’ and conjure up bread, meat, cooked
food and wine one after the other.88
For the opponents o f Christianity, the Cana narrative
could very well be regarded as proof o f the magical art o f
Jesus.89
Likewise, with the charismatic miracle worker Hanina
ben Dosa, a somewhat later Galilean contemporary o f
Jesus, we encounter a series o f miracles o f gifts and provi
sions, something which is not at all rare in the rabbinic
tradition. These legends could also be regarded by non
believers as the work o f Jewish magic, which was considered
as particularly effective. Thus, in time o f great need, the
oven filled itself with bread and the trough with dough, the
leg o f the table transformed into gold - as anticipation o f
the heavenly meal - and the light burned the whole day
in the sabbath-lamp, which had by accident been filled
with vinegar. The vinegar seemed to have changed into
oil, and the light, having burned the whole day, could
then still serve as the Habdala light after the end o f the
87 Urchristliche Wundergeschichten (Gütersloh, 1974), p. 113.

88y. Hag. 78a ii. 5-8: 1DI1 K 'T T ’Dl m DK N T H TO m DK ( ‘she mumbled
something and brought wine’, 1. 8); par. y. Sanh. 23c 11. 58-60; cf. addi
tionally M. Hengel, Rabbinische Legende und frühpharisäische Geschichte,
AH AW .PH (Heidelberg, 1984), pp. 20f. The extent to which even the Rabbis
understood this art is evident in b. Sanh. 65b: ‘R. Hanina and R. Oshaia
engaged in the study o f the book o f the creation (that is a book o f magic), on
every previous evening, and created a ‘third-grown’ calf which they then ate.’
Magical miracles o f transformation are also included: in b. Sanh. 67b, a woman
magician offers Jannai a flour drink which transforms itself into scorpions. As
punishment Jannai transforms the magician into a donkey.
89 Regarding this problem, cf. D. Aune, ‘Magic in Early Christianity’, A N R W
2.23.2 (1980), 1507-57 (esp. 1524f.). O n the reproach against Jesus as
magician, cf. M. Smith, Jesus the Magician (London, 1978), pp. 61-7; S. Benko,
‘Pagan Criticism o f Christianity’, AN R W 2.2S.2 (1980), 1075f., 1091, 1102f.
Sabbath.90 A wine-miracle, on the contrary, was out o f

place with this poor ascetic, who for a whole week was satis
fied ‘with a portion o f carob-bean’.91 There is no room in
these legends for the amusements o f a profane, luxurious
celebration.
The m otif o f transformation appears, o f course, also in a
completely different context: Ephrem had already seen a
connection between the Cana miracle and the miracles o f
Moses in Egypt (Exod. 7-11).92 A homily falsely ascribed
to Maximus o f Turin mentions ‘other creative acts o f power
with water’ , among them the transformation o f thre water o f
the Nile into blood, the first o f the seven (!) miracles o f
punishment (Exod. 7:11-25) .93 Cassiodorus reminds us o f this
in connection with his interpretation o f Ps. 78(77):44; in
contrast to the punishment-miracle, the nations are thereby
changed - for the better.94
In comparatively recent exegesis D. F. Strauss has referred
to this strictly antitypical context;95 and in even more recent
times it has been stressed by M. Smith and O. Betz.96 In this
way the miracle expressed not only the superiority o f the
Messiah and the Son o f God over Moses, but his direct
90 Cf. b. Ta'an. 24b/25a; further G. Vermes, ‘Hanina ben Dosa’,JJS23 (1972),

28-50 (42): ‘The transformation o f vinegar into oil is an additional
embellishment. The only parallel one can think o f without searching is the
conversion o f water into wine in the New Testament narrative o f the wedding
feast in Cana o f Galilee.’ The oil miracle is basically a combination o f the Elijah
miracle (1 Kgs. 17; 16) and the oil miracle at the consecration o f the temple in 2
Macc. l:21f. cf. b. Sabb. 21b; Meg. Ta'an. 9; cf. Billerbeck (op. cit., n. 70) 2. 539.
Compare also increasing the amount o f wheat by Eleazar o f Bartutha in b. Ta‘an
24a and the magical cucumber miracle o f Eliezer ben Hyrkanos in b. Sabb. 68a.
Cf. also the transformation o f water into oil by Narcissus as reported by Eusebius
(H E 6.9.1-3).
91 b. Ta'an 24b below.
92 Smitmans, op. cit., 189f., 226.
9S Ibid., 193, 225.
94 Ibid., 225f., 240.
95 Op. cit., n. 9 above, 2, 234.
96 M. Smith, Jesus the magician, pp. 161, 163; O. Betz and W. Grimm, Wesen
und Wirklichkeit der Wunder Jesu, Arbeiten zum neuen Testament und Judentum
2 (Frankfurt, Las Vegas and Bern, 1977), p. 128. The criticism o f I. Broer,
Zur Religionsgeschichtlichen Ableitung von Joh 2,1-11, Studien zum Neuen Testament
und seiner Umwelt 8 (Linz, 1983), pp. 103-23, 110, n. 28, misses the point
completely.
participation in God’s creative power,97 as the interpretation

o f the early Church since Irenaeus (cf. above, pp. 301f.) never
tired o f stressing. It was precisely this that the ancient critics
regarded as an indication o f especially dangerous magic, in
the same way that Moses was indeed admired or slandered as
one o f the great magicians.98 The Fourth Gospel articulates
this reproach through the accusation in 8:48: ‘You are a
Samaritan and have a demon’ , which probably means ‘you are
a figure like Simon Magus’.99 This ambivalence (or the
doubtful character o f the miracle-narrative and o f the miracle-
worker) speaks against the existence o f a pure Semeia-source
as a collection o f miracles without any reference to the
teaching and Passion ofjesus. Such basically sterile listings o f
Oaupaoia as purported aAqOq ôiqyqpaxa (Lucian) con
cerning a 0£ïoç àvqp were o f little use as ‘missionary writings’
to awaken faith in non-believers. Standing at the end o f the
Passion and Resurrection narrative, John 20:31 was certainly
not the mechanically applied conclusion o f such a document.
Even for the edification o f believers, it would have been
appropriate only in a very qualified sense. The Johannine
school with its high, theological level should not be
understood in the light o f the primitive-romantic milieu
revealed in the later apocryphal Acts o f the apostles. The later
childhood Gospel o f Thomas, teeming with miracles, did not
have a great effect upon the Church and was largely rejected.
Practically all o f the Gospels, even most o f the apocryphals,
are determined by the teaching and Passion o f Jesus. The
collections o f miracles o f healing were interesting as means o f
propaganda in places where new, miraculous cures were
constantly carried out. A Semeia-source would, therefore, be
significant at best as a ‘primer’ or ‘stimulus’ for the miracle-
workers in their own group. But, while testimony o f the
antimontanistic Apollonius 100 even speaks o f an awakening
97 Smitmans, op. cit., 187-94.
98 O n this cf. J. G. Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism, SBL Monograph
Series 16 (Missoula, Montana, 1972), pp. 134-61.
99 Cf. John 7:19; 3:2 and Acts 8:9-13. The history o f early Christianity is
characterized by the attempt to come to terms with magical practices as well as
with the reproach that it, in its turn, practised them.
100Eusebius, H E 5.18.14.
from the dead which was attributed to the Ephesian John,

there is nevertheless much more to be said against such an
independent document than for it.
6. The Religious Background of the Text:

A False Alternative
There still remains a question concerning the history o f
tradition or o f religion: the problem o f the Dionysiac in
fluence. The immediate dependence o f the Cana miracle on
the cult o f Dionysus - a view held by the history o f religions
school and correspondingly also found in the commentary o f
Bultmann - has been rejected by H. Noetzel 101 in favour o f
the Jewish backgrounds o f this narrative. To be sure, in this
view Christ is not to be heralded as ‘Neos Dionysos’ as the
performer o f a wine-miracle ‘imported’ from the world o f the
Greeks; nor was the attempt made to win over ‘Dionysus
initiates’ to the Christian faith by means o f such stories. There
is no doubt that the narrative has a Jewish-Palestinian
background and this is clear on the basis o f its location and
circumstances.
W. L. Knox, in a brief reference, and Morton Smith,
extensively, have called attention to a Phoenician Dionysus
saga o f the second half o f the second century.102 It occurs in
the novel Leucippe and Clitophon by the otherwise unknown
Achilleus Tatius. Smith has thereby brought to light some
thing like a missing link.
It happened at that season to be the festival o f Dionysus Lord o f
the Vintage; for the Tyrians claim him as their own proper deity,
singing on the subject Cadmus’ myth [jiOOov], which they relate
as the origin o f the festival; ‘and this is it. In early days men had
no wine; [all the vines] . . . were derived from Tyrian vines, the
original mother o f all wines being a plant o f their country. There
101 Christus und Dionysos, AzTh (Stuttgart, 1960).

102W. L. Knox, Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (London, 1944),
p. 60 n. 1. Morton Smith, ‘On the Wine God in Palestine (Gen. 18; John 2 and
Achilles Tatius)’, / W. Baron Jubilee, vol. ii (1975), pp. 815-29; cf. by the same
author Jesus the Magician, pp. 120, 163, 200. The most recent investigation o f
I. Broer (op. cit., n. 96 above, pp. 103-23), does not contribute essentially
anything more to the matter.
was a certain shepherd noted for his hospitality... Dionysus once

paid a visit to this herdsman, who set before him the produce of
the earth ... their drink was the same as that of the oxen, since vines did
not yet exist. Dionysus thanked the herdsman for his kindly cheer,
and pledged him in a friendly cup; but his drink was wine.
The herdsman, drinking of it, danced for joy qôovfjç
ßaKxetiexai], and said to the god: ‘Where did you get this purple
water, my friend? Wherever did you find blood so sweet? For it is
not that water which flows on the ground - that, as it descends
into the midriff, affords but a faint pleasure, while this delights
the sense of smell before ever it reaches the mouth; when you
touch it, it is cold, but it leaps down into the belly and there, far
down, lights up the fires of delight.’ ‘This’, said Dionysus, ‘is
harvest water, the blood of the grape’m then the god led the
herdsman to the vine, and took hold of the clusters and squeezed
them; and then, pointing to the vine, ‘Here is your water,’ said
he, ‘this is its source.’ That is the way in which wine came to men,
as the Tyrian story goes.104
This Phoenician etiological saga describes viticulture as a gift

o f Dionysus to the Tyreans. As in the case o f writing and other
gifts o f culture, the Greeks also got it from the Phoenicians.105
The parallel between this story and the Phyrgian saga o f
Philemon and Baucis is striking; there Zeus and Hermes
(among others) likewise perform a miracle, with the excep
103aijia ßöxpuoq; cf. Gen. 49:11; Deut. 32:14; Ecclus. 39:26.

1042.2.1-6. Text according to the edition: Achilles Tatius: Leucippe and Clitophon,
ed. E. Vilborg, S G L G 1 (1955); translation according to the edition by S. Gaselee,
Achilles Tatius, The Loeb Classical Library (London and Cambridge, revised and
reprinted 1969). For the dating o f the novel: Achilleus Tatios: Leukippe und
Kleitophon, K. Plepelits, B G rL 11 (1980), 7-16: third quarter o f the second
century (16). The novel-like narrative itself takes place in Sidon. In 2.3.3 a crater
is described with a representation o f Dionysus as a vintner: ïva xqv apneAov . . .
yecopyfj; cf. John 15:1, likewise the motif o f friendship and joy in 15:1 Iff.
105 O n this, see K. Plepelits (op. cit., n. 104 above, 226f.): ‘Prior to the
narration o f the Tyrean legend, the corresponding saga o f Icarius is here briefly
considered. The saga was generally well known. Icarius was a shepherd. . . . He
took the wine-god Dionysus in as a guest. Dionysus was still unknown in Greece
at the time o f Icarius. In gratitude, Dionysus presented him grape-vines and the
knowledge o f wine production. . . . It is clear what is meant: the legend that I
will now tell is so similar to the Attic sage o f Icarius that it seems to have come
from Attica. Nevertheless it is an original Tyrean legend.’ In the Icarius
narrative, however, it is the very transformation motif o f water to wine that is
missing. Cf. H. Hunger, Lexicon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie (Vienna,
61974), s.v. ’ÏKâpioç.
tion that the two hospitable and poor old people are favoured
with an increase in the volume o f wine rather than with a
transformation into wine, a fact which they recognize with
much consternation.106
In the Phoenician shepherd-Dionysus narrative we have, in
all probability, a Greek interpretation o f an older Phoenician-
Canaanite myth (and, by analogy, in Philemon and Baucis that
o f Phyrgian myth).
In Ugarit and the Amarna Letters we already encounter a
god Tirsu: ‘He signifies inebriating drink or its effect.’ In this
regard we can hardly separate the name o f the god from the
material thing.107Along with this, the wine was also connected
with El (and Baal).108
Morton Smith, who refers to the manifold connections o f
Dionysus to Palestine, Phoenicia, and southern Syria during
Hellenistic times, mentions the south-Judaean hero
as a possible wine divinity.109Herodotus had already identified
the Egyptian Osiris with Dionysus. He was also o f the opinion
that the Phoenician Cadmus and his companions had brought
the cult o f Dionysus to Greece .110 Moreover, the Arabic god
Orotalt is said to be none other than Dionysus (3.8.3). The
Greeks later connected the wine-god with the Arabic Dusares
(who still retained his own character, it should be added ).111
106 Ovid, Met. 8, 679-83:

Interea totiens haustum cratera repleri
Sponte sua per seque vident succrescere vina;
Attoniti novitate pavent manibusque supinis
Concipiunt Baucisque preces timidusque Philemon
Et verniam dapibus nullisque paratibus orant.
107H. Gese et al., Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer, R M 10. 2
(Stuttgart, 1970), p. 111. Gese refers to M. C. Astour, Hellenosemitica (187), who
sees in the word ôtipooç a derivation from the name o f this god. Cf. P. Cornelius
Tacitus, Hist. 5.5 ( Wissenschaftliche Kommentare zu griechischen und lateinischen
Schriftstellern), commentary by H. Heubner and W. Fauth (Heidelberg, 1982), p.
89.
108S. P. Xella, ‘Studi sulla religione della Siria Antica. 1 El e il vino (RS 24.
258)’, Studi Storico Religiosi, 1, 2 (1977), 229-61 (notice by Dr B. Janowski); for
Baal cf. Hos. 2:7, 10; cf. 4:1 If.
109M. Smith, op. cit., n. 102 above, ii, 826ff.; cf. Gen. 14:13, 24 and Num.
13:23f.
1102.49.3.
1,1 C. Colpe, K P 2, 184f.
Not even Yahweh escaped this fate. It may well be that

in early Hellenistic times hellenized Jews also participated in
this long enduring interpretation .112 Tacitus vehemently
rejects the identification ,113 while Plutarch readily discusses
it.114
Raphia, Damascus, and Scythopolis (Beisan), bordering
on northern Galilee, traced their founding to Dionysus.
Scythopolis regarded itself as Nysa and as the God’s place
o f birth and upbringing. The grave o f his nurse was
located there .115 Apart from the cities mentioned, Dionysus
appears in Palestine during the period o f the emperors
also on the coins o f the cities o f Caesarea and Aelia
Capitolina.
It is in many ways possible that motifs o f Semitic vegetation
and wine divinities (who in Hellenistic times were clothed in
the vestments o f Dionysus) had penetrated Judaism since early
antiquity. This was true also o f festivals116 as well as o f miracle-
stories and haggadic legends. For example, the Haggada
reports a miraculous provision o f wine at the meal o f Isaac
before the blessing o f Jacob in Gen. 27:17, which mentions
only the ‘delicacies’ prepared by Rebekah, with the wine
mentioned only later (27:25),117 ‘and who brought him wine?
Michael brought him wine from out o f the Garden o f Eden.
1,2 M. Smith, op. cit., n. 102 above, ii. 822ff.; M. Hengel, Judentum und
Hellenismus, W U N T 10 (Tübingen, 21973), pp. 546ff. at the time o f Antiochus
Epiphanes.
118Hist. 5.5.
114 Quest. Conv. 4.4.4-6, 2 ( mor: 669c-672b) with commentary in M. Stern, Greek
and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism, i (Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 550-62 (no. 258).
115 E. Schürer, G. Vermes, F. Millar, The History o f the Jewish People, II
(Edinburgh, 1979), pp. 51, 143; Raphia and Damascus according to Stephanus
Byzantinus; for Scythopolis cf. Pliny, N H 5.18.74: ‘Scythopolim antea Nysam, a
Libero Patre sepulta nutrice ibi Scythis deductis.’ In more detail still, Solinus,
ed. T. Mommsen (Berlin, 21885), ch. 36. Dionysus appears on the coins o f
Scythopolis; cf. especially G. F. Hill, Catalogue o f the Greek Coins o f Palestine
(Bologna, 1965), pp. 76ff., and H. Kienle, Der Gott a u f dem Flügelrad: Zu den
ungelösten Fragen der ‘synkretistschen ’ Münze, B M C Palestine S. 181, Nr. 29, Götinger
Orientforschungen, Ser. VI vol. vii (Wiesbaden, 1975).
116Cf. M. Smith, op. cit., n. 102 above, ii, 827 and n. 44.
117On this cf. also S. P. Xella, op. cit., n. 108 above, 241, in regard to Gen.
27:25, who presents in detail the background o f this special banquet in
terms o f the history o f religion.
Our teachers said: you find no blessing o f wine outside o f this

one and the one o f Abraham . . . ’ (Gen. 14:18).118
Regarding the water which Moses struck from out o f the
rock, R. Eleazar o f Modaim taught that Moses said to Jethro:
‘In the waters o f this well, which God has given us, we have the
taste o f all the sweet drink in the world .’119 Pliny, Natural
History, 2.106.231, on the island o f Andros said that ‘a spring
with the taste o f wine flows in the temple o f Liber Pater always
around the ninth o f January’ . With its adaptability and its
persistence, the desert miracle was far superior to that o f
Dionysus.120 One could hardly doubt that this haggadic motif
stems from the Dionysiac world o f ideas and imagination. The
same holds for the wine, milk and honey springs in the
Messianic kingdom o f the Sibyllines (cf. above, p. 316).
And finally, the Midrash to Num. reports that the grapes
which the messengers had brought back with them were
gigantic and that the wine was sufficient for all the sacrificial
libations o f Israel during the forty years o f wandering through
the desert!121 According to R. Levi, following R. Jochanan, the
wine came from the well which accompanied Israel, ‘out o f
which came most o f their refreshments’ .
Such wine hyperbolics are to a certain degree a fore
shadowing o f the plenitude foretold in the apocryphal texts
concerning Paradise. The Jewish Haggada could very well
enter into competition with the cult legends o f the Greek
wine-god, no matter from what sources it was fed: Canaanite,
Dionysian, or its own.
Thus, to make a long story short, the old opposition, here
Dionysus, there old Israel and Judaism, had basically become
118 TanchB, Bereschit, Section 3, §16; in more detail still Tg. Yer. 1 on Gen. 27:25;
‘And he ate and had no wine; but an angel prepared it for him from out of the
wine whose grapes had been preserved since the days o f the beginning o f the
world. And he gave it into the hand o f Jacob, and Jacob brought it to his father,
and he drank.’
119 Mek. Exod. 18:9, ed. Lauterbach 2. I74f.
120Cf., however, already Euripides, Bacch. 704-7: a woman strikes the rock with
the thursos and water flows; another strikes the green, fruitful earth and a wine-
spring appears; another divides the earth with a finger and they ‘had plenty o f
milk’; and at the same time honey flows from the thursos-staff in streams. On
this cf. also Goodenough, op. cit., n. 25 above, vi, 185.
121 ShirR 4.12 §3 (for 4:13).
obsolete as concerning the wine-tradition. The motifs

swapped back and forth over contiguous borders even in the
small Jewish territory o f Palestine, ‘Dionysus’ had been at
home in Palestine for a long time. No matter how rigorously
Judaism had marked o ff its veneration o f God from ‘alien
worship’ (especially since the time o f the Maccabees), there
could arise cult-motifs from alien spheres in Palestinian
Judaism as well as in early Christianity. One need not
necessarily have to speak o f a pagan influence directly and
consciously taken over, or o f missionary adaption. In this
context the Palestinian ‘Dionysus’ is again impressed wholly
with the stamp o f the old Semitic vegetation-deities. Tyre,
Sidon, and Scythopolis bordered on Galilee. The m otif o f the
transformation o f water into wine could have already
penetrated in the popular Haggada o f the Galilean rural
population long before the first Christian narrative about a
wine-miracle began circulating. Since the Old Testament-
Jewish miracle tradition had included multiplication and
transformation miracles in great numbers, and since the wine
symbolism played an important role even for the temple cult
and the eschatological expectations, a transformation o f water
into wine would hardly have been seen as an alien element. It
was as suitable for the Messiah o f Israel as it was for the pagan
god.
6
The Kingdom of Christ in John
Eusebius1has preserved for us a unique report by Hegesippus,

the second Christian historian after Luke, that probably
recalls a historical event, since it contradicts the conventional
legendary early Christian martyr tradition. According to this
story the Emperor Domitian (ad 81-96) persecuted the
descendants o f David as possible messianic pretenders. In this
connection two grand-nephews o f Jesus, grandsons o f his
brother Jude, were denounced and brought from Galilee to
Rome to appear before the Emperor. He first questioned
them regarding their Davidic ancestry and personal wealth.
They answered that they farmed an area together o f thirty-
nine plethra [1 nÀéOpov = ca. 100 ft. x 100 ft.] with a tax-value
o f nine thousand denarii ‘on which they paid taxes and lived
on . . . by their own work’ [Euseb. trans. here and elsewhere
by K. Lake, LCL]. As proof they showed him their calloused
toil-worn hands. To the further question about Christ - their
great-uncle - and his kingdom (ßaoiAeia), they answered that,
‘it was neither o f the world nor earthly, but heavenly and
angelic, and it would be at the end o f the world, when he
would come in glory to judge the living and the dead . . .’ .2
Domitian found so little in this answer to excite suspicion that
1Eusebius, H E 3.19 - 20.6. Hegesippus also reports their names, which
Eusebius omits: see E. Preuschen, Antilegomena (21905), III fr. 4b, according to
Philip Sidetes, Zoker and Jacobus.
2 Op. cit. 3.20.2f.: \ . . (be; où Koopucrj pèv oùô’ émyeioc;, énoupdvioc; ôè Kai
àyy£ÀiKf| Tuyxavei, ém ouvteÀEiqc to ô akovoç yevqoopevq, ôn qviK a èÀôcbv év
ôoÇi] Kpiveî Çcdvtec; Kai veKpoüç
333
he dismissed these two kindred o f the Lord contemptuously

as simple folk and sent them home. Indeed as a result o f this,
according to the report, he issued an edict to end the
persecution o f the Church.
This straightforward report is remarkable in many respects.
Firstly, there is the behaviour o f the Emperor. Here, Domitian
is not the wild persecutor o f Christians, almost a second Nero,
as he was portrayed in the later ecclesiastical tradition after
Melito o f Sardis and Tertullian.3 This may have a historical
basis. Apparently the simple Christians in the provinces had
less to fear from his wrath than did the senatoriaLnobility and
intellectuals o f Rome. For example, his close relative Titus
Flavius Clemens and his wife Domitilla, were executed or
banned because o f aOeoxqc; and ‘J udaizing’ (or Christian)
tendencies.4 This emperor with the cruel reputation acted
with astonishing magnanimity towards the kindred o f the
Lord, who, despite their poverty, were still ‘prominent’
Christians - much differently than the ‘liberal’ younger Pliny,
whom fifteen or twenty years later the Emperor Trajan had to
remind that anonymous denunciations contradicted the
‘enlightened spirit o f this age’ .5 According to this report,
Domitian probably regarded the beliefs o f these Galileans as a
species o f the unavoidable superstition o f simple folk, which
would not threaten state policy as long as they paid their taxes
punctually and were not plotting revolution. Whether the
depiction o f the ßaoiAeia o f Christ was formulated by
Hegesippus or taken over from his Jewish-Christian source is
difficult to say. Its apologetic tendency, which emphasizes the
other-worldly, ‘non-political’ character o f this kingdom, is
striking. Accordingly, the ruler - unlike the Jewish and
Christian martyr traditions, the pagan Acta Alexandrinorum or
Philostratus’ report o f the trial conducted by Domitian against
3 Melito o f Sardis, apol., cited by Eusebius, op. cit., 4.26.9.

4Cassius Dio 67.14.1f.; cf. Suetonius, Dom. 15.1; otherwise Eusebius, H E
3.18.4; Jerome, Chron. para. 192 for the sixteenth year o f Domitian. Since
Cassius Dio does not mention Christians at all, it is entirely possible that the
drifting ‘into Jewish ways’ could refer to Christian tendencies.
5 ‘Sine auctore vero propositi libelli (in) nullo crimine locum habere debent.
Nam et pessimi exempli nec nostri saeculi est.’ (P lin . min. 10.97[98]).
The Kingdom of Christ in John 335
Apollonius o f Tyana6 - is neither portrayed as a tyrant, nor

challenged by the aggressive napprjoia o f the defendants.
The dominion o f Christ does not appear - in complete
contrast to the Roman Empire - as an obvious, earthly and
present political power. Thus the earthly power, ruling here
and now, has no need - in its delusion - to feel con
cerned; the ‘end o f the age’ and the coming o f Christ for
judgement can be deferred, as it were, ad kalendas Graecas.
Therefore the Emperor, full o f contempt and unimpressed -
or at most, repelled - by such a superstitio, releases the poor
wretches.
It is noteworthy that we have a report - probably like
wise originating at the time o f Domitian or a little later -
that similarly portrays the encounter between the new faith
and the representative o f the Empire, although here the
question o f the ßaoiÄeia o f Christ is the focal point. This
is the well-known dialogue o f Pilate with Jesus himself as
depicted by the Fourth Evangelist (John 18:33 - 19:16). It
is the last detailed ‘ testimony’ o f Jesus concerning himself
in the Fourth Gospel, and the very heart o f the Johannine
Passion narrative, and, in a certain sense, the counterpoint
to the interrogation o f Jesus by the High Priest in the
Synoptics.
The kingship o f Jesus weaves through this text like a red
thread. The title ßaoiAeüq appears twelve times as the keyword
o f the charge,7and the reference to his ßaoiAeia occurs three
times in Jesus’ answers.8The christological concentration here
o f these two terms is unique in the New Testament and, as
such, poorly suited to the apparently non-political Fourth
Gospel; it is perfectly in accord, however, with its christological
tendency, which in the Triumphal Entry and the Passion
6 Philostratus, Apollonius o f Tyana 7.32ff.

7John 18:33, 37a, 37b, 39; 19:3, 12, 14, 15b, 15c, 19, 21a, 21b. For the follow
ing, see R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes ( 101968), pp. 505ff.; see also
D. Lührmann, ‘Der Staat und die Verkündigung. R. Bultmanns Auslegung
von Joh 18,28 bis 19,16’ in Theologia crucis-signum crucis. Festchr. E. Dinkier
(1979), pp. 359-75, especially 372ff. on Bultmann’s correction o f himself at
19:11.
8John 18:36abc.
narrative itself, emphasizes the kingship ofjesus much more

than the Synoptics.9
The point o f departure, common to all four gospels, is
Pilate’s question to the prisoner, ‘Are you the King o f the
Jews?’ 10According to the Synoptics, Jesus seals his fate by his
affirmation and subsequent silence, in accordance with the
old Roman legal maxim: confessus pro iudicato est, qui
quodammodo sua sententia damnatur;n that is, the one who con
fesses during the trial condemns himself. The Roman prefect
was, strictly speaking, obliged to condemn Jesus to crucifixion
because o f his messianic claim with its possible political
implications. The leaders o f the people were fully aware o f
this when they delivered him to Pilate with the appropriate
charge. The inscription on the cross reiterates this charge
once again.
For John, this simple linearity is no longer enough. For in
his gospel - as in no other - the glory o f the one who has been
raised to God is projected back fully onto the earthly man;
thus, already the man Jesus is identified with the Son o f God
in his glory. In a paradox that for the ancient hearer and reader
must have strained credibility to the breaking point, the one
hanging on the cross in utter human disgrace, is, with an
allusion to Isa. 52:13 (. . . ô naTç pou uqKoOrjoexai Kai
ôoÇ aoO rjoexai o(J)oöpd), treated as him who had been raised
and glorified.12 Indeed, even more so, the Crucified One,
in whom the word o f prophetic scripture is fulfilled,13
accomplishes with the cry xexeAeoxai, the work o f the new
Creation for the world that has fallen under the power o f
Death through sin. The gospel begins with an allusion to Gen.
1:1, and Jesus dies as the same time, about evening o f the sixth
9The inhabitants o f Jerusalem, in accordance with the ancient custom for

receiving rulers (ùnàvTrjOiç, cf. 1 Thess. 4:17), come out to meet Jesus, carrying
palm fronds as symbols o f victory (cf. 1 Macc. 13:51; Rev. 7:9) and acclaim him
as King o f Israel (12:13).
10Mark 15:2; Matt. 27:11; Luke 23:3; John 18:33 [English Bible citations here
and elsewhere from R SV ].
11 Paulus, dig. 42.2.1; cf. Scaevola, dig. 48.4.4.
12John 12:23; 13:31; 17:1; 7:39; also 3:14, 8:28, 12:32, 34 in which ôoÇdÇsiv
refers more to the Father’s action and uipoöv more to human action.
13John 19:28: here only: tva T£À£ico0fj q ypa<J>q.
day, on which, according to Gen. 2:1-3, the Creation was

finished, and this text was recited in the worship service. The
Resurrected One then, as a sign o f the new Creation, breathes
the Spirit into the disciples. The evangelist uses here the same
word (éve<j)i3oqoev 20:22) as the L X X in Gen. 2:7 at the
creation o f Man by God himself.14One could say that the one
‘raised’ on the cross has taken up the function that God
himself had in Jesus’ proclamation o f the Kingdom o f God.
John alludes to this unity o f the Kingdom o f the Father and
the Son at the beginning o f the Passion narrative where he
says in 12:41 that Isaiah ‘saw his glory and spoke o f him’ . He
alludes here to the vision o f Isa. 6, where the prophet had
seen ‘ . . . sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up . . . the
King, the Lord o f Hosts’ . In the second century then, the
Epistle o f Barnabas 8:5 says ‘ that the kingdom o f Jesus is on
the wood [or tree] (era q ßaoiAeia Tqaoü êm ^\3Àou), a n d . . .
those who hope on him shall live forever’ [trans. by K. Lake,
LCL] .Justin knows an expanded version o f Ps. 95:10 LX X that
adds to the ô KÙpioç eßaoiAeuoev an etnö xoö ÇuÀou.15 In
Justin Christ’s kingdom is even more prominent than in John.
The bare fact o f the political charge against the Messiah
Jesus as ‘King o f the Jews’ is no longer sufficient for John;
rather Jesus himself must define the essence o i his ßaoiAeia for
the prefect as representative o f the Empire. We all know these
words, without analogy in Jewish, indeed in all o f ancient
religion, which, to be sure are sometimes today forced out o f
the context o f Church and theology for the sake o f the
unreflected talk o f a ‘political theology’ and ‘ the reign o f
Christ’ - whatever may be meant by this. This is probably
because they inexorably express the separateness, the radical
otherness - and here, then, the absolute, yet paradoxical,
superiority - o f the Kingdom o f Christ over against the
14 See M. Hengel, ‘Die Schriftauslegung des 4. Evangeliums auf dem

Hintergrund der urchristlichen Exegese’, in JBTh 4 (1989), pp. 284ff. Cf. John
4:34; 5:36; 17:4. See below, p. 372, n. 33.
15Justin, Apol. 1.14.1; dial. 73.1; Tertullian, adv. Marc. 3.19.1: ‘Dominus
regnavit a ligno’, probably from a Christian testimony collection. Cf. M. Hengel,
in Jews and Christians. The Parting o f the Ways, AD 70 to 135 ed. J. D. G. Dunn,
W U N T 66, 1992, pp. 58f. and P. Beskow, Rex Gloriae, The Kingship o f Christ in the
Early Church (Uppsala, 1962), pp. 99f.
established political powers. It is worthwhile to dwell some

what on this profound text:
Jesus answered, ‘My kingship is not o f this world; if my kingship
were o f this world, my servants would fight, that I might not
be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the
world.’ Pilate said to him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered,
‘You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have
come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who
is o f the truth hears my voice.’ Pilate said to him, ‘What is truth?’ 16
The dialogue is in its own way highly political and intensely

theological as well. Even as it reflects the Johannine high
christology, so also it seeks to be understood against the
historical-political background o f its time, the conflicts
between Jews, Romans and Christians before and after the
destruction o f the Temple in a d 70.
Jesus’ kingship is in any case o f a completely different
quality. It has nothing to do with the kingdoms o f this
world, completely ruled as they are by calculating political
powers. This is shown by the allusion here to the disciples’
behaviour in Gethsemane. They did not defend the
Master when he was threatened by arrest. In addition to the
dramatic incident with the ‘Temple police’ , John provides
a Roman cohort together with its tribune (18:3, 12), as in
the proverb, ‘ the more enemies, the greater the honour’ .
Jesus faces them alone and, with his divine authority: éyco d p i
(18:5; cf. 8:24-28; Exod. 3:14; Isa. 43:10), forces them all to
their knees before he surrenders to them freely - not,
however, before protectively shielding the disciples (18:6ff.;
cf. 10:18). It is not they who fight for him, but rather he who
takes their part, for it is he who by his death has overcome the
world with its fear: àXXà OapoEîxe, eycb veviKqKa xöv KÖopov
(16:33).
16 36 àneKpiÔr) ’Irjooûç, ‘H ßaoiAeia rj éjirj o û k e o t i v e k t o u KÔopou t o u t o u *

Koojioi) t o u t o u fjv rj ßaoiÄEia r\ épi], oi ùnqpéTai oi époi q y a m Ç o v T O
e! ek t o û
[âv], ïva pq napaôoO ô t o î ç ’Iouôaïoiç* vûv ôè f\ ßaoiAda r\ épi] o û k e o t i v

èvT£ô0£v. 37 EinEv ouv auT<£ ô üiÀâToq, O û k o ü v ßaoiÄEU«; e î ou; ânEKpiOq ô
’Iqooûç, Eù ÀéyEic; ö t i ßaoiÄEuc; Eipi. éyà) eio, t o Ot o yEyévvqpai Kat £Îç t o Ot o
éÀi]Àu0a £iç TÔv KÔopou, iva papTupqoco t i ] aÀrj0Eiqi* nâç ô a>v e k T q ç àÀr|0£iaç
ctKouEi pou T fjq (JxDvfjc;. 38 ÀéyEi a Û T û ) ô riiÀctTOç, T i éoTiv àArjOaa;
By contrast, scoffing at death, the Jewish messianic pre

tenders and leaders o f guerrilla bands fight their battles
together with their followers in the period between the
death o f Herod and the Jewish War.17 For Celsus, as well,
the Passion o f Jesus is a particularly shameful episode
because o f the flight o f the disciples and their refusal to
die for Jesus,18 for neither a ‘good commander’ nor even
a ‘criminal robber captain’ would be betrayed or forsaken
by his own followers.19 In contrast to this natural behaviour,
the one impulsive swordstroke by Peter is sharply rejected by
the Johannine Jesus, not, as in Matthew, for the pragmatic
reason, ‘all who take the sword will perish by the sword’
(26:52), but christologically, by the reference to the way that
the Father has prepared for him: ‘Shall I not drink the cup
which the Father has given me?’20 The background to this is
typically Johannine, radical re-structuring o f the very
different Gethsemane scene in Mark, in which the Fourth
Evangelist alludes to its climax in the prayer ofjesus (Mark
14:36). Already in 12:27f. he had criticized the Markan
report indirectly. The word concerning the more than twelve
legions o f angels that the Father could send (Matt. 26:53), is
likewise inappropriate. The Son takes voluntarily and with
sovereign control the way prepared for him by the Father:
he accomplishes his work (4:34; 17:4; 19:28ff.). Any violent
defence whatever would have hindered the establish
ment o f the ‘ Kingdom o f Christ’ , indeed, would have
made it impossible. Here the unbridgeable gulf becomes
clear between the death-despising Jewish fighters in the
basically ‘ messianic’ revolts o f 66-73, 115-17 and 132-5,
who even impressed their Roman enemies, and the ‘Jesus
movement’ in the Johannine sense. The defenders o f
the Tem ple in the year 70, and probably not only they,
17Cf. M. Hengel, Die Zeloten, AGJU 1 (Leiden-Köln, 21976), esp. pp. 261-77;
329ff.; ET, The Zealots (Edinburgh, 1989), pp. 256-71; 323ff.
18 Origen, con. Cel. 2.45: *. . . oüte ouvanéOavov oüte ùnEpanéôavov
aôxoC . . . ’.
19Op. cit., 2.12, cf. 2.9, 18, 20, 45.
20John 18:11: to noxqpiov ô Ôeôcokev poi ô natfjp où prj mco aïko; cf. Mark
10:38; 14:36.
expected the violent irruption o f God that would turn the

tide.21
Pilate understands Jesus’ statement about his kingdom not
at all. What sort o f kingship is this that refuses to defend itself
effectively against the enemy, that is represented by a single,
powerless prisoner, that will have nothing in common with the
word o f tangible forces and realities which alone is intelligible
to the political and military representative o f Caesar’s empire,
that world where only the strong survive? Incredulous, he asks,
‘So you are a king?’ In reply he receives now not only a clear
‘Yes’ , but also a positive description o f that mysterious
kingship.
Jesus knows that he has been sent into the world to bear
witness to the one, indivisible Truth, that God the Father, in
himself the Son, loves his creatures and has freed them, makes
then free from the slavery o f sin (8:32-36; 1John 3:8) for his
one true Life, indeed, that even here, God’s deepest essence
- Love - is made manifest. His kingship acquires scope thereby
and becomes a reign, so that this one Truth gains a hearing
among men, that is, so it awakes faith, liberates them (8:32)
and thus ‘the king’s men gather around their king’ .22 Several
possible misunderstandings o f his ßaoiÄeia are hereby done
away with. Thus, although it is not ‘o f this world’ it has efficacy
‘in this world’ , as Augustine emphasized: Non ait: Nunc autem
regnum meum non est hic, sed: non est hinc, quia
peregrinatur in mundo. ‘He does not say, “Now, my kingdom
is not here”, but “not from here”. In fact, it is here unto the
end o f the world . . . But despite this it is not from here, because
it is a stranger in the world.’23
One could say that while it is certainly not inexperi
enced in the ways o f the world - naive - , it is indeed
21Josephus, bell. 5.285f. Cf. M. Hengel, Die Zeloten, pp. 235ff.; 278ff., esp. 296-
307 [ET. pp. 229ff.; 282ff., and 290-301]; by the same author, ‘Messianische
H offnung und politischer “Radikalismus” in der “jüdisch-hellenistischen
Diaspora’” , in D. Hellholm (ed.), Apocalypticism. Uppsala Congress Volume 1979
(Tübingen, 21989), pp. 655-86 and Gnomon 58 (1986), 326-331.
22W. Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium (Tübingen, 31933), p. 217.
23Augustine, tract, in loh., 115.2 (236.644); cf. R. Schnackenburg, Das
Johannesevangelium III (21976), pp. 285f. O n the motive o f the stranger see now
R. Feldmeier, Die Christen als Fremde, W U N T 64, 1992.
unworldly, in the sense that it cannot be grounded in

the world, and this alienation manifests itself in the rejec
tion by the powers o f the world. In the Johannine Passion
these powers are represented by the Jewish leaders on the one
hand, and by Pilate as representative o f the Empire on the
other.
By contrast, the apologetic Jewish-Christian depiction o f
Hegesippus has a ‘naive’ character, in that it expressly
emphasizes that Christ’s ßaoiAeia is not worldly but heavenly,
and does not appear in the world until the end o f the age at
the parousia o f Christ. Therefore, Domitian need feel no
concern at all and can, with contempt as such superstition,
send the two defendants home. Pilate, on the other hand, is
deeply disturbed by the dialogue with Jesus, for in the Fourth
Gospel the reign o f Christ - and that means salvation also - is
first and foremost a present power that, in the very moment
thatjesus speaks, calls the hearer to Truth and at the same
time demands and vouchsafes trust. The prospect o f the
future is not completely absent in John, but as the ‘last day’,24
the day o f Resurrection to judgement or to welcome into ‘the
rooms in my Father’s house’ , it represents only a concluding,
final horizon .25 The decisive salvation event is the incarnation
o f the Son o f God, which is consummated in his death on the
cross and in his faith-bringing Word that gives the certainty o f
Eternal Life. That means that the decision about death and
life is always made in the present, in which the message o f the
Father sending his Son for the salvation o f the world is
proclaimed.
Christ’s ßaoiAeia then cannot be understood only as the
completely individual kingly office o f Jesus, but as a world-
conquering power that has already here on earth secured its
own dominion, in that it gains more and more hearers and
effects more and more faith. As such it cannot be compared
with the kingdom o f the wise man in (later) Stoicism, who
24John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48; cf. 14:20; 16:23, 26.
25John 14:2f.; 12:32; 5:28f.; 6:39f., 44, 54; 12:48; 21:22; cf. 3:36; 8:21; 16:13,
16. The futuristic statements cannot be eliminated. They permeate the entire
gospel and are firmly anchored there. See already, ll:25f., which apparently
contains a contradictory promise: to live, though one dies - to never die.
rules himself and is therefore self-sufficient since he has his

part in the rule o f God, that is, Zeus or the Logos .26
Jesus’ lordship claim, his witness to the Truth, applies to
the prefect as well. In his relativizing reply, ‘What is truth?’ ,
he rejects it and thereby - without knowing it - has passed
judgem ent on Jesus and himself. Oswald Spengler - in
Nietzsche’s footsteps - characterized this question as ‘the
only word in the New Testament with any mettle’ (Das eine
Wort in Neuen Testament das Rasse hat), and believed that
herein is 'the fu ll meaning of history, the validity alone o f
deed, rank, state, war, blood, the supremity of-success and
the pride in a great destiny’.27 Clearly Spengler values Pilate’s
question too highly, although he recognizes the special,
exemplary importance o f the episode itself. The represen
tative o f the Empire, dismissing with a sceptical wave o f
his hand the word Truth as meaningless, consequently sacri
fices in the further course o f the trial, the truth concerned in
right judgement - to which he as office bearer is obligated -
and thereby the justice o f the verdict. Step by step he lets
himself be driven into an opportunism ruled by fear. Although
he knows Jesus to be innocent ,28 he allows himself to be
coerced, first sentencing the ‘King o f the Jews’ to be tortured
by flogging, and finally condemning him to the cruel and
shameful servile supplicium o f crucifixion .29 The evangelist
demonstrates by this that the state power, in recognizing no
truth that would place it under obligation, betrays thereby its
own principles o f justice. Likewise, the leaders o f the people,
in appealing to the Law o f Moses - to which Jesus bears
witness30 - thereby deny it (19:7; cf. 5:45-47). Both parties,
the Jewish hierarchy and the representative o f the Empire, are
26 Epictetus according to Arrian, diss. 3.22.49ff., 79ff.; 3.26.32; 4.6.20; 48.34;

cf. also the satirical poem by Horace ep. 1.1. For the groundwork o f these
thoughts in the earlier Stoics, cf. esp. Chrysippus according to Diogenes
Laertius, 7.122 (SVF III, 158,11. 34-9), and according to Clement o f Alexandria,
strom. 2.438 (SVF III, 159,11. 19-26).
27 O. Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes (Münich, 1924/50), vol. II, p.
262; cf. ibid., p. 15.
28John 18:38; 19:4, 6; cf. 19:12.
29 Cf. M. Hengel, Cruäfixion (London, 1977), pp. 51-63.
30John 5:39; cf. 5:45; 1:45.
shown by this to be representatives o f the Cosmos ruled by

Evil.
To be sure, even this is no accident o f fate. To Pilate’s
reference about his authority (éÇouoîa, that is, the imperium
in the name o f the Emperor) to release him, Jesus answers:
‘You would have no power over me unless it had been given
you from above.’ The imperium o f the prefect, which
Josephus describes as éôuoia péxpi xoö Kxaveiv, that is, to
issue the death penalty,31 ultimately rests in the will o f God
and not in the favour o f the Emperor, whom Pilate so greatly
fears (19:12). In contrast to the external, though God-given,
authority o f the representative o f political power, the other
‘ruler’ , the ‘Prince o f this world’ (o äpxcov xou KÖopoi)
xouxou 12:31, cf. 14:30; 16:11), has no right o f disposal over
Jesus whatsoever. He comes to Jesus: ëpxexai ô xoö KÖapou
äpxcov, however: év époi exî otiôév, he cannot lay hold o f
him, ‘He has no power over me’ : the Darkness cannot seize
the Light and overpower it (1:5). In the very moment o f his
triumph, his power is broken (cf. 13:2; 27), he is ‘cast out’
(12:31). The Paraclete bears witness in and through the
believing Church that ‘ the Prince o f this world has been
judged’ (16:11). He is deprived o f his power through Jesus’
victory on the cross.
The apparendy triumphant power o f Evil must also by God’s
will help in the salvation o f the world and bring Jesus to the
end o f his way to lordship. For Jesus’ kingship begins to shine
in the moment o f his death on the cross. His final cry,
xexéÀeoxai, ‘it is finished’ (19:20), does not express, as in Mark
(Mark 15:34), the Son utterly forsaken by the Father, but
rather the completion o f his task as the God-sent ocoxrjp xoö
KÖopou (4:42). G od’s love for the world (3:16), which
31 Bell. 2.117; against H. v. Campenhausen, T h LZ 43 (1948), 387ff.

R. Schnackenburg, op. cit., p. 301, fn. 81, is correct in understanding èÇouoia not
in the sense o f freedom o f decision, but in the sense o f official authority: ‘\fou
would have no (official) authority over me if it had not been given you from above
(to release me or execute m e).’ Indeed, one may not conclude from this that,
‘the authority o f the state does not come from the world but is grounded in G od’
(R. Bultmann, op. cit., p. 512), an opinion that Bultmann justifiably corrects in
the supplement volume, p. 54. Those who exercise the power o f the state are also
dependent on G o d ’s will and authority in their actions. Pilate also - without
suspecting it - serves as a tool in G od’s plan o f salvation.
becomes manifest in the incarnation (1:14), triumphs -

paradoxically - in his death on the cross. It isjust this triumph
o f God’s love, which becomes obvious in the ßaoiAeia o f the
Crucified One, that brings with it - as I have said - the
dawning o f the new Creation. John emphasizes the title on
the cross because, in the three world languages - Aramaic,
Latin and Greek - it visibly proclaims the kingship o f Jesus
worldwide.
In contrast to the ‘peractum esf in Seneca’s tragedy on the
heroic death o f Hercules on Mount Oeta, which shows that
the power o f Fate was decisive for him ,32 the cry TexéÀeoTai
alludes in a most highly original way to the inseparable unity
o f the death o f Jesus with his resurrection and ascension, the
pouring out o f the Spirit, and the Parousia: in short - his
coming to power. Here is the focal point that concentrates all
rays. The dying o f Jesus is in the Fourth Gospel the one decisive
thing, the salvation event that consummates the incarnation.
All actors in the Passion narrative must play their God-
determined roles to this end: Peter, Judas, the High Priests
together with their retinue, even the ‘Prince o f this world’,
who incites Judas, and - particularly highlighted - the repre
sentative o f Roman power, Pilate.
In the further course o f the trial, Jesus is step by step
revealed as the king who consciously moves forward to the
death determined for him. Twice the prefect presents him to
his enemies: the first time, after the flogging, as an anti-Jewish
‘king parody’: streaming with blood, crowned with thorns, and
wearing a purple mantle. The lôoù ô avOpconoç, ecce homo, by
the Roman prefect brings at first a wild cry o f oxaûpcooov,
oxaupcooov, ‘ Crucify him, crucify him !’ (19:5f.). At the
second presentation, when the trial is ended, Pilate provokes,
with an even more strongly anti-Jewish, ïôe ô fJaoiÀeuç ùpcov,
‘Behold your King!’ , not only an aggravation o f the cry for
crucifixion, ‘Away with him, away with him, crucify him!’ , but
also an acknowledgement o f Caesar’s kingship alone, and with
this, the rejection o f the kingship o f God and his Anointed.
For the Roman’s sarcastic question, ‘Shall I crucify your King?’
32 Seneca, Hercules Oetaens, 1472.

elicits a declaration o f allegiance from the High Priest which

ends the trial, ‘We have no king but Caesar.’ We must not
forget that the Fourth Evangelist writes this after the
destruction o f the Temple and the priestly aristocracy. He
recalls to mind that the official revolt against Rome had its
beginning in the Temple .33 This last word, with which the
hierarchy rejects in Jesus’ presence his claim for that o f Caesar,
stands at the same time in direct contradiction to the ‘Zealot’
message o f Judas the Galilean, the founder o f the Jewish
freedom movement, who, when Judaea was made into a
Roman province, raised the demand - in obedience to the
first Commandment - that Israel recognize as ruler no ‘king’
and ‘lord ’.34 The Jewish revolt o f 66-73/4 was also marked in
large part by this ideology.
Christians - including the Fourth Evangelist - felt it
necessary to connect the failure o f this revolt with G od’s
judgement on his people for rejecting Jesus as their true king.
According to John, the representatives o f the Jewish people
themselves chose the yoke o f imperial ruler, under which,
after the destruction o f the Temple, the forced payment o f
the FiscusJudaicus to the Jupiter Capitolinus replaced the taxes
to the Sanctuary, and the quartering o f a Roman legion with
the symbol o f unclean swine among the ruins o f Jerusalem
had to be tolerated .35
The evangelist’s trial narrative as a whole, including the
disagreement between Pilate and the High Priests over the
causa poenae- ‘the King o f the Jews’ (19:19-21) - shows clearly
how the scandalous kingship o f the crucified Galilaean forms
the real point at issue in the conflict between Christians, Jews
and the Roman powers.
This controversy was not dissolved in the Jewish War, but
rather intensified. Here the growing mistrust o f the Roman
authorities over against the Christians since the Neronian
persecution - only two years before the outbreak o f the revolt
33Jospehus, bell. 2.417; M. Hengel, Die Zeloten, p. 368 [ET, p. 361].

34Josephus, ant., 18.18, 23f.; bell., 2.118; cf. M. Hengel, Die Zeloten, p. 93 [ET,
p. 90].
35 E. Schürer, G. Vermes and F. Millar, The History o f theJewish People in the Age o f
Jesus Christ, I, p. 508.
in Jerusalem - may have played a role. They feared Jews and

Christians as a threat to the Empire, the Jews, on the other
hand, saw themselves in conflict with Rome and the Christian
apostates, while Christians felt themselves threatened from
both sides and de facto were persecuted. A note by the
Christian historian Sulpicius Severus, which may originate in
Tacitus’ Histories, states that Titus, in the war council o f a d 70,
recommended the destruction o f the Temple in order to
strike Jews and Christians at the root .36In John, therefore, the
trial before Pilate presupposes knowledge not only o f the
political messianic hope in Judaism, but also o f Christian trials
before Roman authorities and o f Jewish charges.
Besides the trial narrative, one can see that the Fourth
Evangelist himself, is involved in this conflict at 6:15 where he
has Jesus withdraw by himself after the Feeding o f the Five
Thousand to prevent the crowd from making him king. In
positive contrast to this are 1:49, where Nathaniel, the per
sonification o f true Israel, recognizes Jesus as ‘Son o f God’
and ‘King o f Israel’ , and 12:13 (cf. 15), where the Passover
pilgrims, in allusion to Zech. 9:9 and Ps. 118:23, welcome Jesus
as ‘King o f Israel’ . All these ‘king’ texts prepare the way for
the discourse with Pilate about Jesus’ kingship, and bear
witness in their own way to its radical difference. Only
Matthew - at about the same time or a bit earlier (under
Domitian), and in a similar situation (the polemic dissocia
tion from Judaism) - has such an intensive interest in the
‘kingship’ o f Jesus. He connects this closely with the Davidic
sonship, however, which plays no role whatsoever in John,
indeed, according to 7:42, is perhaps even rejected. The
popular kingly-messianic expectation in Judaism, and the
kingship o f Jesus with its witness to the truth, and way to the
cross, are in even more radical contrast in John than in
Matthew. John 6:15 can be seen in this connection as the
Johannine parallel to the older Temptation narrative o f Q.
36 Sulpiciüä Severus, Chr. 2.30, discussed by M. Stern, Geek and Latin Authors
on Jews and Judaism II, 64, no. 282, in the commentary, pp. 65-6. O f course the
question is disputed whether the reference to the Christians derives from
Tacitus. I do not consider it impossible. Perhaps the loss o f the Histories after
Book 5.26 is connected with various anti-Christian statements.
Luke’s Passion narrative as well - composed, in my opinion,

some twenty or twenty-five years earlier, perhaps already in the
time o f Vespasian (before a d 79) - confirms this double
conflict. Thus, the Jewish leaders bring the charge against
Jesus that as ‘King o f the Jews’ he incites the people to
rebellion and forbids - like Judas the Galilean - the payment
o f taxes to Caesar.37 That similar charges were often enough
brought against Christians, can be seen from Acts I7:6f.,
where the Jews o f Thessalonica bring Paul and his companions
before the ‘politarchs’ o f the provincial city with the charge
that, ‘These men . . . have turned the world upside down’ ,
and ‘they are all acting against the decrees o f Caesar, saying
that there is another ßaoiÄeuq, Jesus.’ The so-called ‘anti-
Judaism’ o f the first and Fourth Gospels, which has been
much discussed recently, is closely connected to the situation
in which Christians found themselves, in part, fighting for
their existence in the second half o f the first century after the
Neronian persecution, and which all participants fought on
two fronts. While however Luke in the early Flavian period is
still hopeful that it will be possible to come to an agreement
with the imperium-bearers o f the Empire, the situation in
Matthew and John during the late time o f Domitian and the
early time o f Trajan has been aggravated. Any compromise
has become impossible. The same situation is shown in the
related Apocalypse.
The highly-criticized tendency o f the evangelists after Mark
to exonerate Pilate o f responsibility for the condemnation o f
Jesus, to the detriment o f the Jewish leaders, is also con
ditioned by the dispute at these two fronts: against the Roman
Empire and the Jews. In the face o f pressure from the Roman
authorities, this was an attempt to exonerate oneself from the
charge o f political turmoil, a charge that apparently was also
made by certain aristocratic Jewish circles who were loyal to
Rome (cf. John 11:47-51). It was maintained that the pressure
and false charges from the Jerusalem authorities, rather than
political crimes, moved the representatives o f Rome to crucify
37 Luke 23:2; cf. 23:5; M. Hengel, Die Zeloten, pp. 143ff., 199 [ET, pp. 138ff.,
194].
Jesus. This is apologetic in a time o f threatening political

circumstances. To recast in a one-sided manner this historic
ally conditioned polemic, understandable under those condi
tions, and in which all the participants shared, into a prepon
derant ‘antiJudaism’ , does not serve the - highly necessary -
Jewish-Christian dialogue well. One should differentiate well
between this early polemic in a time when Christians were
completely powerless against Romans and Jews, and were
persecuted by both sides, and the dreadful abuse that was
made o f it at a later time in a completely different situation
when Christianity had become the official religion o f the state.
Justin’s Apology also refers to the fact that the keyword
ßaoiAeia o f Christ was used to make Christians politically
suspect:
You also, when you heard that we are awaiting a kingdom
(ßaoiAeia), assumed without proof that we meant a human
kingdom (ctKpiTGOc; àvGponivov Aeyeiv qjactç ûneiAqâxe), while
we mean a kingdom with God ( tï \v jaexà Oeoü). This is also shown
to be true, in that when we are interrogated by you, we confess
ourselves to be Christians, although we know that this confession
is punishable by death. For if we were awaiting an earthly
kingdom we would probably deny it so as not to be executed . . . ,
because our hope is not in the present, neither do we worry about
the executioner, especially since we must (someday) die anyway.38
In contrast to John, this kingdom is for Justin, as for the great-

nephews o f Jesus - in accordance with early Christian
apocalyptic tradition - a future power. In the Dialogue with
Trypho, chapter 31, Justin cites as illustration almost the
entire chapter o f Dan. 7 (9-28). Trypho heartily approves
this text with the remark that the Son o f Man o f Dan. 7:13 is
a majestic figure who receives an eternal kingdom (ßaoiAeia
akoviov, 31:7) from the ‘Ancient o f Days’ after the destruc
tion o f the kingdoms o f the world, in contrast to the dis
honoured Messiah o f the Christians who, because o f
his crucifixion ,39 stands under the vilest curse o f the Law.
38Justin, apol. 1.11.
39Justin, dial. 32.1: ouxoç ôè 6 ujiexepoc; Àeyopsvoç xpiotoç axipoç Kai
âôoÇoç ysyovev, coç xfj èoxaxr] Kaxàpçt xf| ev xcp vôpcp xoö 0 eoö nepineoeîv
èoxai)p(o0q yap.
Only with difficulty can Justin disarm this argument with

a combination o f Isa. 53; Zech. 12 and Ps. 110. Here it is
clear that, seen as a whole, it was not so much the various
messianic kingdom expectations that were the stone o f
stumbling - for the Christians also expected the Son o f Man
to come with divine power at the end to set up his king
dom 40- but much more the crucified Messiah that separated
Jews and Christians.
In Justin the future ßctoiAaa is defined as eternal ‘king
dom with God’, that is, as the perfect fellowship o f God (cf.
116.2; 117.3). One might ask why the discussion up to this
point has dealt only with the Kingdom o f Christ, when from
the proclamation o f Jesus himself we learn only o f the Kingdom
of God, the ßaoiAeia t o ö 0£oö. T o be sure, the Son o f Man in
the proclamation o f Jesus still has no kingdom o f his own;
for Jesus it is his Father’s Kingdom that comes ‘in power ’.41
Regarding Jesus’ discourse with Pilate in John, although
basically all o f early Christianity can be included, this ques
tion is easily answered. One o f the direct effects o f Easter
is that, in the nature o f things, the Kingdom o f God in the
proclamation o f Jesus is replaced more and more by the
ßaoiÄeia o f the Son, the Christ, who, according to Ps. 110:1 -
the most important christological text in early Christianity -
is raised to be a throne companion ‘at the right hand o f
God’ in whose lordship he participates, indeed, receives as
plenipotentiary (cf. 1 Cor. 15:23-28 and already the hymnic
fragment, Rom. 8:34). In other words, G od’s lordship
becomes visible and efficacious through that o f his cruci
fied and resurrected Messiah. N ot for nothing does John
emphasize, as none other in the New Testament, the
indivisible unity between Father and Son.42 This unity
allows, in a certain sense, the kingdoms o f God and Christ to
40 Cf. for example, Mark 8:38; 9:1; see already the oldest Christian text, 1
Thess. 4:15-18, and the martial picture at Rev. 19:11-21 and the description of
his earthly kingdom at Rev. 20.
41 Mark 9:1; cf. 8:38.
42John 1:18; 3:31-35; 5:19-29; 10:30; 14:9f.; 14:13; 16:15; 17:1, among others.
In particular, Ignatius and later Irenaeus continued this tradition. Cf. esp. adv.
haer. 2.47 fin.; 4.11; 5.1. For John, cf. M. L. Appold, The Oneness M o tif in the
Fourth Gospel, W U N T II/ l (1976). For Ps. 110 cf. above, pp. 119-225.
become one. A statement such as 1 Cor. 15:28, which requires

a preceding apocalyptic drama, is for John no longer essential.
Already the Baptist (!) had expressed the heart o f the matter:
‘The Father loves thé Son, and has given all things into his
hand’ (3:35). While in Matt. 28:18 an analogous formulation
(basically dependent on Dan. 7:14) is spoken by the
Resurrected One to the eleven disciples, appearing again in
Q (Matt. 11:27 = Luke 10:22) in the mouth ofjesus, the Fourth
Evangelist puts it on the lips o f the Baptist as a reply to his
own disciples who are complaining about Jesus’ success, and
connects it with the traditional warning o f judgement in the
Baptist’s preaching in Q: whoever refuses obedience to the
Son, to whom the Father has given all things - that is, all
power, and at the same time, the freedom to give his life for
the sin o f the world (10:17; cf. 1:29, 36; 6:51) - stands
(eternally) under the wrath o f God’sjudgement: q ôpyq t oo
Ô£Oü jiévci én’ auxöv (3:36). It can be seen from this text -
decisive for the Fourth Gospel, and therefore easily
misunderstood - with what bold mastery John theologically
and narratively reforms the traditions before him (cf. 5:20;
17).
The ßaoiAeia t o u 0eo(3 appears as a traditional concept
in the Fourth Gospel only twice, 3:3 and 3:5, and shows
from the context clear compositional parallels to the ßaoiAeia
ofjesus in 19:36. These two concepts meet twice, each time
in a dialogue o f Jesus with a person in authority: at the
beginning o f the gospel with the Pharisee-scribe Nicodemus,
and at the end with the Roman prefect. Both address Jesus
and both fail to understand his answer.
Jesus’ reply to Nicodemus is almost more mysterious
than that to Pilate: ‘Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is
born anew (or, from above: avcoôev), he cannot see the
kingdom o f God.’ At the scribe’s uncomprehending reply,
Jesus formulates his first statement more precisely: ‘unless one
is born o f the water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom o f G od’ . WTiile the formula doepxeoOai eiç xqv
ßaoiAeiav toö 0eoö, ‘ to enter the kingdom o f God’ , is usage
stemming from Jesus and the earliest Church, and originally
meant the future participation in the kingdom o f God to
come ,43 the expression ‘to see the kingdom o f God’ is typically
Johannine. For example, 3:36 is formulated very similarly:
‘who does not obey the Son, will not see life’. The formulation
is positively expressed at 11:40: ‘ if you would believe you
would see the glory o f God’ . It is not the future realization o f
the yet remote joy o f a heavenly kingdom that is intended
here, but an event that is accomplished in the very moment
o f hearing the word o f Christ: the commitment o f one’s
life through trust in the word o f the Son, who has revealed
the Father’s love by laying down his life. Being ‘born again’
(or, from above) corresponds to the ‘new creature’ in Paul
(2 Cor. 5:17), which likewise refers to the present: ‘I f any
one is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old has passed away,
behold, the new has come.’ To be in Christ means to be a
‘member o f his body’ , to have been translated into the
fellowship o f believers. Analogous to this is John 3:5, ‘to be
born anew o f the water and the Spirit’ , a reference to
baptism as an act o f faith, as in Titus 3:5 ‘the washing o f
regeneration’ , which brings one into this fellowship o f
believers as the present ßaoiAeia xou Oeou. In other words:
The Johannine Kingdom of God in the discourse with Nicodemus,
becomes - how could it be otherwise? - identical with the king
ship of Christ in the interrogation by Pilate. The first and last o f
Jesus’ dialogues with the non-believer - who is nonetheless
impressed by him - have a correspondence at a deep level.
The Kingdom o f God and Christ discloses itself in the unity
o f believers with the Son, who mediates their access to the
Father in accordance with Jesus’ word in the farewell
discourses: ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father.’44
Therein all salvation is contained - there are no higher
degrees. Jesus’ cry on the cross, the decisive xexeAeoTai ‘it
is finished’ , is uttered and accomplished from God. The ‘new
Creation ’45 has become reality. The Crucified One has taken
up his kingship. His reign is realized concretely in the
fellowship o f believers where Jesus’ legacy at the beginning
43 Cf. Mark 9:47; 10:24f. par. Matt. 19:23f. par. Luke 18:24f.; Matt. 5:20; 7:2;
18:3.
44John 14:9; cf. 14:7; 16:3.
45 See above, pp. 336f., and cf. John 20:22f.; 7:38f.
o f the farewell discourses is fulfilled, ‘a new commandment I

give to you, that you love one another even as I have loved
you ’,46 and has at the same time overcome Death and Satan,
for God’s eternal future stands open to the believers (12:37;
17:24).
I f one overlooks the fact that John does not use the word
éKKÀqoia, one could say that the Kingdom o f Christ is the true
Church in the Johannine sense, or, expressed in one o f the
evangelist’s metaphors, the fellowship o f the flock with its
Good Shepherd. Cum grano salis, then, the notorious state
ment by Alfred Loisy would be thoroughly Johannine: ‘Jésus
annonçait le royaume, et c’est l’Eglise qui est venue’ , ‘Jesus
proclaimed the kingdom, and the Church came.’47To be sure,
this is not the Church as hierarchical institution, but as the
Spirit-led, living fellowship o f faith and love, holding to the
Word o f Christ, almost enthusiastic in character, that needs
neither the hierarchy o f offices, nor canon law, nor, least o f
all, state protection, because it is guided by the Paraclete, the
presence o f Christ in the Spirit, ‘into all truth’ . It is certain o f
God’s love, both in the present and the future, because the
wall o f Death has been breached and the power o f Evil
banished by the vicarious death o f the Good Shepherd.
For the Fourth Evangelist, therefore, the question o f state
powers, world kingdoms, their necessary functions, their
brutality and their threat to the Church, is no longer vital. He
no longer finds it necessary to portray these as legitimized by
God’s order, or to demand loyalty as Paul does in Rom. 13,
who, as itinerant missionary, experienced repeatedly the
positive side o f the Roman legal system. We seek in vain for
such a statement as that in the synoptic pericope on paying
tribute to Caesar, ‘render to Caesar the things that are
Caesar’s’ . The same is true for the prayer on behalf o f the
secular authorities which, at about the same time, 1 Peter and
the Pastoral letters require (1 Tim. 2:12; Polycarp, Phil. 12:3;
Mart. Polycarpi 10:2), and which already in 1 Clement (60:4;
61:1-3) - deriving from Jewish sources - is cited in polished
form. For the John the Elder, the author o f the Fourth Gospel,
46John 13:34; cf. 15:9-17; 1John 3:23; 4:7f., 10ff., 19ff.; 5:2.
47A. Loisy, L ’Évangile et L ’Église (Paris, 1902), p. 111.
who was at the end o f the 1 st century the major theological

authority, only one thing has validity: a concentration that,
seen humanly and politically, appears to be almost mono-
maniacal, a concentration on the one centre, the revelation
o f the love o f God in the one Son, the Lamb o f God ‘who
takes away the sin o f the world’ (1:29, 36). The Roman and
Jewish authorities are for him the representatives o f the world
that has lost its power, and thereby its fear, through Christ’s
way to the cross, even though it externally still possesses and
retains all power in order to abuse it. For the evangelist has no
illusions about the fate o f the Church. Jesus’ last words to the
disciples before his intercessory prayer are: ‘In the world you
have tribulation; but be o f good cheer, I have overcome the
world’ (16:33). This OÀïtjriq is pictured concretely shortly
before: ‘They will put you out o f the synagogues; indeed,
the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is
offering service to G od’ (16:2). This may have been said
principally with regard to the conflict with mother Judaism
(cf. 2 Thess. 2:14) which, through the teachers gathers in
Jabne, had separated itself more sharply from the apostate
heretics. But the official action o f the Roman government was,
at bottom, also religiously sanctioned: it directed itself against,
among other things, the aOeoxqc; o f Christians and their
refusal to sacrifice to the state deities48and the Genius Caesaris
Augusti
It is the more remarkable then that, to an even greater
degree than in the proclamation o f Jesus and the letters o f
Paul, and in obvious contrast to the apocalyptic writings,
polemic against the political rulers is almost completely
absent; even Jesus’ criticism o f society, currently so well-loved,
is missing. The gospel has, if one may use sociological terms,
rather an elite, aristocratic character. Here, a charismatic
teacher and disciple ofjesus is speaking to a congregation o f
hearers that one could almost describe as a ‘school’.49 The
conflict with the Jewish leaders, who appear to the Evangelist
as representatives o f the Cosmos, is conducted exclusively on
a theological - or more precisely - christological level. The
48Plinius min. 10.97(98). 1.
49See M. Hengel, TheJohannine Question (London, 1989).
temper o f this polemic, which can describe the opponents as

‘children o f the Devil’,50 may today justifiably give us pause,
but it contains such sharpness and inflexibility only because
mother Judaism and the Johannine Church still stand
relatively close to one another. The only point at issue isJesus’
claim to be the revealed Messiah, all else fades into the back
ground. An inner-family conflict that leads to an ultimate
break is by far the most painful o f all strifes. In a certain sense,
one can still denote the very earliest Christian ‘anti-Jewish’
polemic as a special type o f ‘innerjewish polemic’, although
the separation is already complete. However, the teacher and
disciple o f Jesus is certainly a Jewish Christian and probably
comes from Jerusalem .51 Therefore, Jesus’ word to the
Samaritan woman in 4:22, ‘salvation is from the Jews’ , is not
an addition by a narrow ecclesiastical redactor, but the inner
conviction o f the Evangelist himself, who understands the
work o f the Revelator also as a fight for Israel, and who himself
comes from Judaism.52 He can only understand the dissolution
o f Church and synagogue - like other Christian authors o f his
time - in the light o f the prophetic word o f Isa. 6:10.53 Here
also one can refer to Paul and Matthew and their polemic.
The author is still a long way from the polemic irrationality o f
the Epistle o f Barnabas and the fundamentally anti-Jewish
rigorism o f Marcion, who rejects the entire Old Testament.
The Fourth Gospel appears to us today as the most
mysterious book in the New Testament. To a great extent the
author goes very much his own way. This is true for his
depiction o f the kingship o f Jesus in the trial before Pilate, his
reform ing in the discourse with Nicodemus o f the older
tradition o f the kingdom o f God, and his attitude toward the
political authorities. Where here do we find that which is
characteristic for him?
1. In his uncompromising, bold christological con
centration: The kingdom o f Christ is completely identical with
50John 8:44.
51 See M. Hengel, The Johannine Question, pp. 109-35.
52 See M. Hengel, ‘Die Schriftauslegung im 4. Evangelium’, (above, n. 14) pp.
265f., fn. 60/61.
53John 12:40; cf. Mark 4:12, par. Matt. 13:14f. par. Luke 8:10.
the kingdom o f God, and is realized in deepest humiliation

and powerlessness in the death ofjesus on the cross. Here the
new Creation happens, here he comes into his kingdom. The
place o f the tortured death o f the Crucified One and the
enthronement coincide. Zion, the site o f the throne o f God
and his dwelling place, and the Golgotha, the site o f the
execution coincide. Just because o f this, this kingdom opposes
radically the brutal political powers that belong to the
Cosmos, that function as stooges o f the ‘Prince o f this world’
and o f Death, and thus breaks with the traditional ‘theocratic’
ideals o f Judaism, indeed, the entire ancient world, all o f
which rest upon the unity o f political and religious order. All
theological justification and legitimation o f political power, as
well as every ‘political’ programme intended for the gaining
o f power can therefore, in principle, be avoided: the Gospel
o f John means the end o f all political theology.
2. Nevertheless, the State and its power is neither ignored
nor condemned in this dialogue. Its ‘power is not evil in and
o f itself, no matter who wields it ’.54Just like humanity and its
works, it is part o f the fallen world. As such, it is much more
presupposed as a matter o f course. In contrast to the synoptic
parallels, the Johannine Jesus is not silent before Pilate, but
justifies himself. For he also owes the representative o f the
godless Roman dictatorship his witness to the Truth. But in
his witness he shows the limits o f every power: ‘You would have
no power over me unless it had been given you from above.’
This neither legitimates the power nor makes it sacred. The
state power has its limits in God’s will, and serves it unwittingly
to reveal Jesus’ kingship. At the same time, Pilate is bound in
the responsibility o f his office: he condemns himself with the
unjust judgement.
3. The consequent realization o f salvation produces a, for
us, almost disconcerting certainty o f victory; Christ’s kingdom
combines the struggling and suffering Church with the
perfected Church in a indivisible unity. It no longer
recognizes a separation here. It affords the true Life already,
here and now. The Evangelist’s fundamental salvation
54J. Burckhardt, Weltgeschichtliche Betrachtungen, ed. by R. Stadelmann, p. 131.
statements are in that ‘present’, in which Christ, through his

witness to the Truth, effects the unity o f the Church in faith
and love. The ‘Paraclete’ as well (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7ff.) is
no more than the medium through which the Son, who has
returned to the Father, is present and active in the Church.
This resulting realization o f salvation leads to a certainty o f
salvation that is almost enthusiastic in character, not least o f
all in the face o f suffering (16:33). At the same time, it is no
longer dependent on an apocalyptic depiction o f a coming
end-event which projects the present unfulfilled wishes (and
vengeance) into the future. The future belongs to God’s
eternity; in the promise o f Eternal Life it has already begun -
time has been ‘swallowed up’ by eternity. The traditional
future statements are, to be sure, not completely eliminated,
but represent only a comprehensive, concluding horizon
which the Spirit will reveal in detail at due time (16:13b). They
are no longer marks o f a certainty already given.
4. From this foundation comes that freedom over against
the State and religious powers-that-be, that manifests itself in
exemplary form in the free, fearless confession o f the
Johannine Christ before Pilate and the High Priest. The
Evangelist can avoid threatening the bearers o f earthly power
with future vengeful retaliation by the divine Presence. The
Prince o f this world is judged through the death o f Christ,55
and the unbelief o f the world judges itself in that it rejects
God’s truth.56
5. To be sure, the Fourth Evangelist reaches his limit here
as well. The new commandment o f love does not, as with Jesus
and Paul, exceed the bounds o f one’s own fellowship. It does
that only indirectly through its missionary power: ‘By this all
men will know . . .’ (13:35). One seeks also in vain in the
Fourth Gospel for the command to the Church to love its
enemies. Here it would be necessary to refer already to the
sending o f the Son in the Incarnation in which the love o f
the Father is expressed for the world that stands in enmity
with him(3:16; cf. 12:47; 1 John 4:7-10). His love knows no
“ John 16:11; cf. 12:31. But cf. Justin in his 2nd Apology, 68:2.
66John 3:18f.; 12:47f.
bounds; we read in the Prologue: ‘The light shines in the

darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it’ (1:5). Here
the theme o f the entire work is underscored. Acting from faith
and love finds its deepest christological foundation here.
It seems to me that the dialogue between Christ and Pilate

represents the most fiercely independent contribution o f the
New Testament to the tension-filled relationship between
Kingdom o f Christ, Church and State, and, in its un
compromisingness, perhaps also the most important. For we
find no trace here o f those ‘ theocratic temptations’ which
have ever accompanied the Church in her history. On
the contrary, here everything has been set on the external
powerlessness and the internal triumph o f faith in the
Crucified One. That this very text could give certainty in
decisive, critical moments o f the last battle, is demonstrated
for us in the straightforward answers o f African Christians in
the oldest Latin martyrology.57 It is also the oldest indication
o f the effect on the early Church o f the dialogue between
Jesus and Pilate. To the demand o f the governor Saturninus,
made to the Scilitanian Christians to swear by the genius
dominis nostri imperatoris, the Christian Speratus answers, ‘Ego
imperium huius seculi non cognosco: I recognize no kingdom o f
this world, rather I serve that God whom no man sees, for he
cannot be seen with eyes.’ This sharp rejection, orientated on
John 18:36, stands in contrast to the conciliatory answer o f
Donata who recalls what Christ said regarding that which is
Caesar’s and that which is God’s: Honorem Caesari quasi Caesari,
timorem autem Deo. The early Christian attitude toward state
power stands in the tension between the two answers.
57 Passio Sanctorum Scillitanorum, in The Acts o f the Christian Martyrs, Texts and
Translations by H. Musurillo, pp. 86ff.
7
Christological Titles in
Early Christianity
The Crucified Son of God1

Between 110 and 112 c e , in his well-known letter to Trajan,
Pliny the Younger, then governor o f Bithynia, describes a
worship service o f Christians. They gather together, ‘on a
certain day before sunrise in order to sing an antiphonic hymn
to Christ, as though he were their God’ ( carmenque Christo
quasi deo dicere secum invicem).2 As judge, therefore, he
demands that those charged with being Christian, curse
Christ, their God ( Christo maledicerë).3 Pliny does not clarify
1This paper is a thorough reworking o f a lecture given in Tübingen in an
interdisciplinary series o f lectures entitled ‘The Name o f G od’. See M. Hengel,
‘Die christologischen Hoheitstitel im Urchristsentum’, in H. v. Stietencron (ed.),
Der Name Gottes (Düsseldorf, 1975), pp. 90-111. I wish to thank my doctoral
students - Paul Cathey for the English translation, Ulrike Richert-Mittmann for
preparing the manuscript, and Dr Christoph Markschies for a number o f
valuable suggestions - and Professor Charlesworth for polishing the discussion
and editing the notes.
2Ep. 10.96.7. See A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters o f Pliny (Oxford, 31985), pp.
702-10 (esp. 704ff.); see alsoj. C. Salzmann (above, p. 238, n. 29) see Index s.v.
Plinius p. 533 esp. 133-48. A short contribution o f his dealing with the Christian
worship service in the letter o f Pliny appeared in Studia Patristica 20 (1989),
390-5. For early Christian hymnody, see M. Hengel, Das Christuslied im
frühesten Gottesdienst’, in Wäshät Gottes - Weishät der Welt: Festschrift fü r Joseph
Kardinal Ratzinger zum 60. Geburtstag (St. Ottilien, 1987), vol. 1, pp. 357-404 (esp.
382f.); see below, n. 16 and above, pp. 227-91.
3 Pliny, Ep. 10.96.5-6. See R. Freudenberger, Das Verhalten der römischen
Behörden gegen die Christen im 2. Jahrhundert, MBPF 52 (Münich, 21969), pp. 145ff.;
Mart. Pol. 9.3; Bar Kokhba also demanded that Christians curse Jesus Christ:
Justin, Apol. 1.31.6. See below, n. 10.
359
who this Christus is whose followers sing a hymn to him quasi

deo. He presupposes that Trajan already has accurate
information concerning the sect. However, we learn it a little
later from his friend Tacitus in the well-known description o f
the persecution by Nero: ‘The founder o f the Christian sect,
Christus, was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate ’,4 that
is, he died for his crimes against the state in the notoriously
unruly province o f Judaea. Pliny and Tacitus are at one in their
brusque condemnation o f this sect: This superstitio, according
to Pliny, is ‘depraved and insolent’ (prava et immodica), and
according to Tacitus, ‘pernicious’ (exitiabilis) .5
These two ancient Roman witnesses to Jesus Christ describe
the offence that the early Christian message caused for the
ancient world. An uneducated craftsman from the despised
Jewish people, condemned to a disgraceful death by Roman
authorities - was this man supposed to be the divine Revealer
o f God’s truth and the coming Judge o f the world? Were not
reason, pious sensibility, and national interest here equally
challenged ?6 A visible example o f this is offered in that
4Ann. 15.44: Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per

procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat. In his lost book VII o f
the Ann. Tacitus probably reported on the events under Pilate in Judaea; see
R. Syme, Tadtus (Oxford, 1985), vol. 1, p. 449, n. 7; vol. 2, p. 469.
5 See Suetonius Nero. 16.2: afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum
superstitionis novae ac maleficae. According to Tacitus, Ann. 11.5, Claudius tried
to revive the old haruspicy, quia externae superstitiones valescant. In 57 c e a
woman o f the Roman nobility, Pomponia Graecina, was accused before the
senate because o f superstitio externa, Ann. 13.32. R. Hanslik (PRE 1st Series
XXI, 2; 1952, 2351, no. 83) supposes ‘Anhängerschaft an das Christentum’, but
it could also be an inclination to Judaism, for the reproach o f superstition was
frequently made by Roman authors against Jews as well; see M. Stem, Greek and
Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem, 1984), vol. 3, p. 149, s.v.
‘superstition’. See also, L. F. Janssen, ‘Die Bedeutungsentwicklung von
superstitio/superstes\ Mnemosyne ¥1 (1974), 135-99; idem, “‘Superstitio” and the
Persecution o f the Christians’, VC 33 (1979), 131-59; A. N. Sherwin-White,
Radal Prejudice in Imperial Rome (London, 1967, 1970), p. 38: ‘. . . superstitio,
a bad word in Flavian writers’ (Tacitus about Germanic tribes). For
the identification o f superstition and the accusation o f mental disorder, see
M. Hengel, Crudfixion in the Andent World and the Folly o f the Message o f the Cross,
trans. J. Bowden (London and Philadelphia, 1977) , pp. 2f.: Horace, Satires
2.3.79f.; Minucius Felix, Octavius 9.2; 11.9.
6See W. Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen
(Tübingen, 1909 [repr. 1967]), pp. 452-86: Hengel, Crudfixion, pp. 1-10; 15ff.;
84ff.
Christological Titles in Early Christianity 361
caricature discovered in the Palatine o f a crucified man with

an ass’s head with the inscription, ‘Alexamenos worships
his God ’.7 The Platonist, Celsus, speaks for all the educated:
‘How can we regard him as God, who . . . delivered nothing
o f what he promised, and who - after we exposed him, found
him guilty, and determined to execute him - hid himself
and fled, but nevertheless was captured in disgrace . . . ?
Although he pretended to be God, he could never escape, nor
be freed from his chains, and still less should he who was
regarded as Saviour ( sôtêr), as Son and Messenger o f the
highest God have been abandoned and betrayed by his
comrades!’8 Celsus deliberately puts this indictment on the
lips o f a Jew; on this common front Jews and Greeks were
at one. The charges o f the Jew, Trypho, in Justin’s Dialogue
sounds very similar: ‘It isjust this that we cannot comprehend,
that you set your hope on one crucified.’ ‘Prove to us that
(the Messiah) has to be crucified, and had to die such a
shameful and dishonourable death, cursed by the Law. We
could not even consider such a thing !’9 It was, therefore,
thoroughly consistent that the Jewish messianic pretender,
Simon bar Kosiba, in 132 ce - as did the Roman authorities -
required the Jewish Christians within this sphere o f power
to curse Christ and punished with death those who refused
to do so.10 Paul’s programme, already formulated in 1 Cor.
1:23, and confirmed by years o f mission experience, is
illustrated by numerous ancient witnesses: ‘We preach
Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews, and folly to
gentiles.’ Goethe’s protest in the ‘West-Eastern Divan’ , when
Chosru discovered a cross on his Armenian mistress’s pearl
necklace, shows that this scandal was not restricted to
antiquity:
7For the so-called ‘Spottkruzifix’ (mock-crucifix) from the ruins o f the

‘Paedogogium Palatini’, see H. Riemann, ‘Paedagogium Palatini’ (PRE 1st Series
XXXVI, 1, 1942, 221 Iff.) and I. Opelt, ‘Esel’, RAC VI (1966); cf. E. Dinkier,
‘Signum Crucis’ (Tübingen, 1967), pp. 150ff.; Hengel, Crucifixion, p. 19, n. 12;
M. Smith, Jesus the Magician (San Francisco, 1977), pp. 61ff.
8 Origen, Contra Celsum 2.9; cf. 2.35, 68; 6.10, 34, 36 [translation mine].
9Justin, Dial. Trypho. 10.3; 90.1.
10Justin, Apol 1.31.6; cf. Dial. Trypho 11.3; 133.6. For Bar Kokhba’s messianic
claims, see M. Hengel in Gnomon 58 (1986), 329ff.
You would that I hold him to be

God - this wretch upon the tree!11
Like the indignation o f the ‘Olympian o f Weimar’ , the
voices o f protest from the ancient world strike the very nervus
rerum o f the Christian faith, emphasizing sharply the scandal
as the secret o f christology. There were innumerable
crucifixions in the Roman Empire: slaves, robbers, rebels (all
criminals from the lower strata), and notably the freedom-
11 From his posthumous poems to the ‘West-Eastern Divan’, see J. W. Goethe,

Poetische Werke, Gedichte und Singspiele I I I (Berlin [East], 31979), pp. 3 4 1-2.1 eite
the verses in the context:
Jesus fühlte rein und dachte

Nur den einen Gott im Stillen;
Wer ihn selbst zum Gotte machte,
Kränkte seinen heil’gen Willen.
Und so muß das Rechte scheinen

Was auch Mahomet gelungen;
N ur durch den Begriff des einen
Hat er alle Welt bezwungen.
Wenn du aber dennoch H uld’gung

Diesem leid’gen Ding verlangest,
Diene mir es zur Entschuld’gung,
Daß du nicht alleine prangest.-
Doch allein! - Da viele Fraeuen

Salomonis ihn verkehrten,
Götter betend anzuschauen,
Wie die Närrinnen verehrten.
Isis’ Horn, Anubis’ Rachen

Boten sie dem Judenstolze,
M ir willst du zum Gotte machen
Solch ein Jammerbild am Holze! [italics mine]
U nd ich will nicht beser scheinen
Als es sich mit mir eräugnet,
Salomo verschwur den seinen,
Meinen Gott hab’ ich verleugnet.
Laß die Renegatenbürde

Mich in diesem Kuß verschmerzen:
Denn ein Vitzliputzli würde
Talisman an deinem Herzen.
Sulpiz Boisserée noted in his diary: ‘Too acerbic, too callous and one-sided; I
counselled him to discard.’ - ibid., p. 770; cf. the sixty-sixth Venetian epigram:
Wenige sind mir jedoch wie Gift und Schlange zuwider;
Viere: Rauch des Tabaks, Wanzen und Knoblauch und f*
loving Jews.12 Against this background, a crucified Son of God -

that is, a crucified God, Kyrios, Soter or Messiah - was an
offence without analogy.
It is the peculiarity, indeed uniqueness, o f earliest
Christianity that the development o f christology and its titles
remained inextricably bound to the offence o f the crucified
Jesus o f Nazareth. For wherever Christians yielded to the
pressure o f the religious and philosophical premises o f
prevailing contemporary thought and therefore explained the
humanity o f the suffering and dyingjesus as mere ‘appearance’
or dismissed it as unimportant for salvation, contending that
the heavenly Christ was separated from man Jesus before
his death, christological thinking deteriorated into gnostic
speculation .13 In this light, it was entirely consistent with
ancient thinking when Celsus’ Jewish source argued thus: I f
it had been important to Jesus to prove his divinity, he would
have had to become invisible on the cross (and be carried
back to Heaven ).14 This is similar to Ovid’s depiction o f
Caesar’s apotheosis during the fasti, when he has Caesar
12 See Hengel, Crucifixion, passim, at several points enlarged upon in the

French translation, La crucifixion dans l ’antiquité et la folie du message de la croix,
Lectio Divina 105 (Paris, 1981). For the crucifixion among the Jews, see Hengel,
Crucifixion, pp. 84-5; idem, The Zealots (Edinburgh, 1988); idem, ‘Rabbinische
Legende und frühpharisäiche Geschichte’, AHAW.PH (1984), 27-36; and H. W.
Kuhn, ‘Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit’, A N R W I I 25,1 ( 1982),
648ff.
13For ‘docetic’ christologies, see 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7; Ignatius, Smyr 2; 4.2;
5.1f.; Trail. 10; Irenaeus, adv. haer. 1.24; 2.4; 25.1; 26.1; 3.18.7; 4.33.5;
characteristic for Basilides a generation after John (1.24.4): ‘et non oportere
confiteri eum qui sit crucifixus, sed eum qui in hominis forma uenerit et putatus
sit crucifixus et uocatus sit Iesus et missus a Patre . . . Si quis igitur . . . confitetur
crucifixum, adhuc his seruus est et sub potestate eorum qui corpora fecerunt;
qui autem negauerit, liberatus est quidem ab his, cognoscit autem dispositionem
innati patris.’ See J. G. Davies, ‘The Origins o f Docetism’, in Studia Patristica 6,
T U 81 (1962), pp. 13-25, who stresses the Jewish influence in early docetism;
K. Koschorke, 'Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das kirchliche Christentum!, N H S 12
(Leiden, 1978), pp. 20-6, 36, 44-8; K. W. Tröger, ‘Doketische Christologie in
Nag-Hammadi-Texten’, Kairos 19 (1977), 45-72. For the importance o f docetism
and anti-docetism for early christology, see A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im
Glauben der Kirche (Vienna, 1979), p. 820 and esp. pp. 187-9; A. Orbe,
‘Christologia Gnostica’, BAC 384/385 (Madrid, 1976), pp. 380-412. The term
‘docetism’ should not be used in too narrow a sense or restricted only to the
later Valentinians. It includes, rather, various conceptions.
14 Origen, Contra Celsum 2.68.
carried away by Vesta just before the attack, so that only his
naked image or shadow is pierced by the murderous daggers.15
The appropriate christology for the educated in antiquity was
the ‘docetic’ , which declared the humanity ofjesus and, above
all, his Passion to be unimportant for salvation, since a
heavenly being could not suffer and die at all.
Which hymn might those Christians in Bithynia have sung
Christo quasi deo? It is futile to speculate about this, since we
have few fragments from the rich early Christian liturgy. Most
o f the christological hymn fragments,16 however, have just this
quasi deo as theme, often counterpointed with the cross
motif .17 This is no accident, since the unfolding o f the titles o f
divine dignity o f the Crucified One and his saving offices
occurred not so much in the prose o f theoretical speculation
or missionary preaching, as in the poetic, inspired language
o f hymn and confession; that is, they had their place in the
worship service. Here, in overflowing praise to Christ, the early
Christian churches formulated their thanks for the gifts o f
salvation they had received. In worship, however, the
15Ovid, 3.701f. (ed. Bömer): ipsa virum rapui simulacraque nuda reliqui; quae
cecidit ferro, Caesaris umbra fuit. See E. Bickermann, ‘Consecratio’, in Le culte des
souverains dans l ’Empire romain, Entretiens sur VAntiquité classique 19 (Vandoeuvres-
Geneva, 1973), pp. 15f. Ovid, Metamorphoses 15.840ff., has the Greek alternative:
Venus translates Caesar’s soul from his murdered body and brings it up to the
stars, where it is transformed into the fiery sidus Iulium, which can admire
without envy the even greater deeds o f his son Augustus. See also the
commentary o f F. Bömer: P. Ovidius Naso. Die Fasten, ed. F. Bömer (Heidelberg,
1957), vol. 2, p. 192: ‘Das Vorbild für das similacrum Ovids ist das eïôcoÀov der
Helena bei Eur. El. 128ff.’ Cf. already Homer, Odyssey 11.601ff.: Odysseus sees
in Hades only the d'ÔcoÀov o f Hercules: (airtôç ôè pex’ âOavaxoioi Geoïoi
xepnexai év 9aÀ(qç Kai exei KaÀÀio<}>upov "Hßqv (H e himself is feasting with
the gods . . . ) . Docetism presupposed high education, the influence o f popular
philosophy, and some knowledge o f Greek literature.
16For early Christian hymnody, see R. Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus und
Christushymnus in derfrühen Christenheit, S U N T 5 (Göttingen, 1967) ;J. T. Sanders,
The New Testament Christological Hymns, SNTS MS 15 (Cambridge, 1971);
K. Wengst, ChristologischeFormeln und Lieder des Urchristentums, S t N T l (Gütersloh,
31973); M. Hengel, ‘Hymnus und Christologie’, in Wort in der Zeit: Festgabefü r K
H. Rengstorf zum 75. Geburstag (Leiden, 1980), pp. 1-23; trans. J. Bowden in
Between Jesus and Paul (London and Philadelphia, 1983), pp. 78-96, 188-90;
idem, ‘Das Christuslied im frühesten Gottesdienst’, see above, n. 2.
17See Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:15, 20: Heb. l:2f.; 1 Pet. 2:21; Rev. 5:9; Ignatius,
Trail. 9; Smyr. 1; and Eusebius, H E 5.28.5: ‘xöv ÀoÇov xoö Gsoö xöv Xpicnöv
upvoöoiv GeoAoyoövxeq.’
spontaneously formulated, enthusiastic expressions o f the

Spirit were bound together with the trustworthy older, and
now binding ‘apostolic’ or ‘Jesus’ tradition, as well as with the
charismatic exposition o f scripture. The working together o f
these three apparently opposite components gave christo
logical development its specifically inner dynamic.18
In what follows, I would like to take three hymns from the
different periods and communities as a point o f departure
and to consider each in turn in its greater christological
context. The carmen Christo quasi deo o f Pliny applies to them
all, and indeed, each gives voice anew in a different way to the
‘worthiness’ ofjesus and his offices.
1. This quasi deo appears in its fullest form in the Prologue
o f the Gospel o f John, likely written a bit earlier (between ten
and twenty years) than Pliny’s letter. We will, therefore,
concentrate our most detailed examination on John 1:1-18.19
18For the development o f christological thought, see F. Hahn, Christologische

Hoheitstitel, FRLANT 83 (Gottingen, 21964); R. H. Fuller, The Foundation of New
Testament Christology (New York, 1965, 1967); M. Hengel, ‘The Son o f G od’, The
Cross o f the Son o f God, trans. J. Bowden (London, 1986), pp. 1-90; C. F. D. Moule,
The Origin o f Christology (Cambridge, 1977) ;J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making
(London and Phildelphia, 1980). For the Jewish background, see J. E. Fossum,
The Name o f God and the Angel o f the Lord, W U N T 36 (Tübingen, 1985); L. W.
Hurtado, One God, One Lord (Philadelphia, 1988); see alsoj. H. Charlesworth,
‘From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology: Some Caveats and
Perspectives’, in T. Neusner et al. (eds), Judaisms and Their Messiahs (Cambridge,
1988), pp. 225-64.
19From the abundant literature I mention those authors from whom I have
learned most: W. Eltester, ‘Der Logos und sein Prophet’, in Apophoreta:Festschrift
f ü r Ernst Haenchen, B Z N W 30 (Berlin, 1964), pp. 109-34. He stresses the Old
Testament background o f the Prologue over against R. Bultmann’s exegesis o f
John 1:9-11: ‘Soll dem Evangelisten wegen seiner zeitgenössischen
Judenpolemik eine positive Beziehung zum Alten Testament und der darin
enthaltenen Geschichte Gottes mit seinem Volk bestritten werden? . . . Es
scheint, dass die gnostische Brille die Augen nicht unbedingt schärft’ (pp. 131 f.,
n. 40); see A. Feuillet, Le prologue du quatrième évangile (Paris, 1968); K. Barth,
‘Erklärung des Johannesevangeliums (Kapitel 1 -8 )’, (ed. W. Fürst), Karl-Barth-
Gesamtausgabe, 2nd section; Akademische Werke (Zürich, 1976), pp. 12-163;
E. Ruckstuhl, ‘Kritische Arbeit am Johannesprolog’, in W. C. Weinrich (ed.),
The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor o f Bo Reicke (Macon, Ga., 1984), vol. 3,
pp. 443-54; O. Hofius, ‘Struktur und Gedankengang des Logoshymnus in Joh
1, 1-18’, Z N W 78 (1987), 1-25. Reviews o f research: H. Thyen, ThRu NF 39
(1974), 53-69, 222-52; J. Becker, ThRu NF 47 (1982), 317-21; 51 (1986), 12f.,
32, 64, 69f.; M. Theobald, Die Fläschwerdung des Logos (N T A NF 20; Münster,
1988), pp. 6-161. To the author, see M. Hengel, below n. 32.
‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God
( pros ton theon)9and the Word was God ( theos en ho logos).1The
Logos has not only created all that is; it is also the power that
embodies the ‘ true life’ and the light that illuminates the
darkness. This light first breaks in the Old Testament salvation
history and bursts forth fully in Jesus o f Nazareth. In him the
impossible paradox happened. The divine Logos became a
mortal man: ‘And the Word became flesh and dwelt among
us, and we beheld his glory.’ He brings ‘grace and truth’ in
contrast to the Law o f Moses. In accordance with the rules o f
style o f the inclusion the key word ‘God’ appears again at the
end o f the Prologue: monogenês theos, the ‘only-begotten, God,
by nature, who is in the bosom o f the Father, he has made
God known’ (1:18).
This enigmatic Logos appears only in the Prologue o f the
Gospel o f John and twice elsewhere in the New Testament. It
is certainly not the ‘universal reason’ o f the Stoics, nor, as was
thought in Germany for a long time, the heavenly redeemer
o f a gnostic sect. Behind it stands the creative Word o f God o f
the Old Testament, that in ancient Judaism had merged with
Wisdom, and thereby was able to assume the office o f Creator
and bringer o f salvation.21 The three variants o f Faust’s trans
lation, Wort (word), Sinn (sense), and Tat (deed), all delineate
the effecting work o f the divine Logos. We encounter the
designation o f Christ as theos, ‘God’ , in only one other place
in the Gospel o f John, at its end in the confession o f the
unbelieving Thomas before the Risen One (20:28) - ‘My
Lord, and my G od!’ This carefully formulated second inclusio
is not an allusion to the dominus et deus o f the contemporary
Caesar, Domitian ,22 but rather - as the first-person singular
20J. A. Bengel and also O. Hofius, in ZN W 78 (1987), 12, n. 64 have drawn
attention to the inclusio.
21 See J. Jeremias, ‘Zum Logos-Problem’, Z N W 59 (1968), 82-5.
22 Suetonius, Domitian 13.2; see Cassius Dio 67.4.7; 13.4. This, however, was
not an official title for Domitian. See J. R. Fears, ‘Princeps a düs electus, PMAAR
26 (Rome, 1977), pp. 190f., 223f.; idem, ‘The Cult o f Jupiter and Roman
Imperial Ideology’, in A N R W II 17, 1 (1981), 3-141 (74-80), and already
A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (Tübingen, 41909), p. 209, n. 1. This
fact is overlooked by B. A. Mastin, ‘The Imperial Cult and the Ascription o f the
Title to Jesus’, in Studia Evangelical (T U 112; Berlin [East], 1973), pp. 352-65;
see idem, ‘A Neglected Feature o f Christology o f the Fourth Gospel’, N T S 22
possessive pronoun shows - intends that personal faith and its

confession be shown as the goal o f the entire Gospel. This is
made clear by what immediately follows: ‘These things have
been written that you might believe . . .’ (20:31). The con
fession o f the divinity o f Christ stands thus at the beginning
and end o f the Fourth Gospel, and, with the self-declaration
ofjesus at 10:30, determines the middle as well: ‘The Father
and I are one.’ This accords with the hint that the Johannine
Jesus gives to his pre-existence in 8:58: ‘Before Abraham was,
I am.’
The christological statements o f the earliest Church thus
reach their climax in the Fourth Gospel. Elsewhere we find
the title theos only in the related letter, 1 John, in the
conclusion formula: ‘This One is the true God and eternal
life’ (5:20), and in two or three very late New Testament
texts (Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1, and perhaps 2 Thess. 1:12), and
then numerous times in the letters o f Ignatius, written
after 110 ce.23 With this title, and the statement in 10:30,
then, the Gospel o f John provides the most important basis
for the further christological reflection o f the ancient
Church.
It is, therefore, clear that the Christianity o f the first
century - like contemporary Judaism - was reluctant to
transfer the term ‘God’ directly to a heavenly mediator figure,
although it did not rule it out completely. It was expressed
as a kind o f ‘upper limit’ statement, similar to those o f
Philo, who - in contrast to the definite ho theos, which was
reserved for God alone - could describe the Logos with
the indefinite theos, indeed even deuteros theos.24 Later the
Rabbis charged the Christians unjustly with ‘ditheism’ . Yet
even rabbinic mysticism knew godlike mediators such as
(1975/6), 32-51: These three verses (Jn 1:1,18; 20:28) describe the pre-existent
Logos, the incarnate Logos, and the risen Christ as “G o d ” and so they
complement each other to provide an outline o f the church’s understanding o f
Jesus. The fact that each o f these verses is placed at a significant point in the
Gospel emphasizes the importance o f what they say’ (p. 51).
23 Ignatius, Rom. prol. 3:3; 6:3; Eph. prol. 1:1; 7:2; 15:3; 18:2; 19:3; Smyr 1:1;
10:2; Trail 7:1; cf. 2 Clem. 1:1; see also Heb. l:8f. = LX X Ps. 45:7.
24 Quaest. Gen. 2.62; leg. all. 3.207; Som. 1.29f., 238f.
Metatron, who was named ‘the little Yahweh’, and the Essenes
o f Qumran dared to refer a passage such as Isa. 52:7, ‘ Your
God has become King’ , to the heavenly redeemer o f the Sons
o f Light, Michael-Melchizedek .25
Indeed, one might think that especially in the Fourth
Gospel the apotheosis o f Jesus had become a speculative
end in itself, and had pushed the salvation event - above
all suffering and dying - to the side. The inference, how
ever, would be incorrect. For already in the Prologue the
accentuation o f the Father (1:14, 18) and the ‘only-begotten’
Son, as well as the goal o f the Gospel, stated at the end,
‘in order that you might believe’ (20:31), show thatjesus
as the Son (that is, in his relation to the Father and in his
role as Saviour for those who believe) is the controlling
christological m otif o f the whole Gospel. The task o f the
monogenês theos, the ‘only begotten’ , God by nature, is to
communicate G od’s innermost nature to humankind, and
this nature is love: ‘For God so loved the world that he
gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in him
should not perish but have eternal life’ (3:16).
The first letter o f John, which takes the intentions o f
the Gospel further, defines this precisely: ‘Whoever does not
love does not know God; for God is love. In this the love o f
God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only-
begotten Son into the world, that we might love through
him’ (4:8ff.). This means that in the Son who has become
human, G od’s love, his very nature, has become manifest
for humankind; God himself comes to them. The incarnation
of the love o f God, not the deification o f Christ, is the main
theme o f Johannine theology. This means at the same time
25 3 En. 12:5 in Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, ed. P. Schafer (Tübingen, 1981),

§15; cf. the ‘Commentary’ in 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book o f Enoch, ed. and
trans. with Introduction, Commentary and Critical Notes by H. Odeberg (repr.
New York, 1973), p. 33; J. E. Fossum, The Name o f God and the Angel o f the Lord,
W U N T 36 (Tübingen, 1985), pp. 300ff.; llQ M e lc h Col. II, 16 in ‘Milkî-sedeq
et Milkî-resa‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens’,J. T. Milik,J£/S23 (1972),
98; see M. Hengel, ‘The Son o f G o d’ (n. 18), p. 81; P. J. Kobelski, Melchizedek
and Melkîresa\ C B Q M S 10 (Washington, DC, 1981), pp. 59fif.: Melchizedek as
’LHYM; cf. F. L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, SNTS MS 30 (Cambridge,
1976), pp. 64-82 (77f.); 167ff.
that its goal is the salvation o f humankind.26 ‘And from his

fullness have we all received . . (John 1:16). Therefore ‘Son’
is the most frequent christological title, and not ‘ G od’ or
‘Logos’ , and this not in the dyadic form as ‘Son o f God’, but
rather as the absolute ho huios, the Son, in his continual
relatedness to the Father, whose nature he reveals. In John
the Father himself, ho patêr; appears more often than all
christological titles put together, and it is in the very
unity with him that the Son remains always subordinated to
the Father: the Son can do nothing without the Father
(5:19) .27To sharpen the point even further, one could say that
the ‘W ord’ from John 1:1 contains nothing except the one
word Abba, ‘dear Father’ , and communicates this to
humankind.28
The Johannine Son christology is therefore misunderstood
when regarded as a syncretistic-speculative alientation o f the
simple message ofjesus or the early Church. It is, rather, the
final, mature conclusion o f a spiritual development that, along
with the messianic preaching o f the kingdom o f God and
Jesus’ unique relationship to God, introduces a relationship
that manifests itself in Jesus’ prayer address, ‘Abba’ , ‘ dear
Father’ .
26Gese correctly understands ‘xâpiç Kai àÀqOeia’ in 1:14 as ‘overflowing o f

salvation’; see H. Gese, ‘Der Johannesprolog’, in Zu r biblischen Theologie:
Alttestamentliche Vorträge (Tübingen, 21983), pp. 186ff.
27 Concerning the discussion on Johannine christology, see E. Kasemann, Jesu
letzer Wille nach Johannes 17 (Tübingen, 1966,41980); U. B. Müller, Die Geschichte
der Christologie in der johanneischen Gemeinde, SBS 77 (Stuttgart, 1975); Jan-A.
Bühner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium, W U N T (Tübingen, 1977);
C. K. Barrett, Essays on John (London, 1982), pp. Iff., 19ff., 37ff. Against the
widespread opinion that John was a ‘naive docetist’ (E. Kasemann), see now
G. Johnston, 'Ecce Homo: Irony in the Christology o f the Fourth Evangelist’, in
L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (ed s), The Glory o f Christ in the New Testament: Studies
in Christology in Memory o f G. B. Caird (Oxford, 1987), pp. 125-38. O f all New
Testament writers, the author o f the Fourth Gospel was the most subtle and
least naive, but I agree with Lietzmann, who says: ‘Es konnte sich aus dieser
Logoschristologie ein naiver Doketismus entwickeln’ ( Geschichte der Alten Kirche,
vol. 2, Ecclesia catholica [Berlin, Leipzig, 1936], p. 117); K. Wengst clarifies
Käsemann’s position: see Bedrängte Gemeinde und verherrlichter Christus, BTS 5
(Neukirchen-Vluyn, 21983), p. 14, n. 11. See also M. Hengel (n. 32: 57fF., 68ff.).
28Joachim Jeremias was therefore quite correct when he put this one word at
the centre o f his New Testament Theology, see his Neutestamentliche Theologie, vol. 1,
Die VerkündigungJesu (Gütersloh, 31979), pp. 67ff.
The christology o f the Fourth Gospel is not a foreign

element introduced from Gnosticism, but represents rather
the completion o f the tradition within the Church o f the
person and work o f Christ. This is clearly shown by the
intentional occurrence o f nearly all other important
christological titles side by side, much more so here than in
the Synoptic Gospels. The list also contains the absolute
‘ Lord' {ho kyrios), ‘Saviour of the world' (sotër tou kosmou
[4:42]), ‘Son of Man', 'Elected of God' (1:34), 'Holy of God'
,
(6:69),29 'Christ' and its Hebrew equivalent, 'Messiah' and ,30
even the simple Palestinian form o f address for the master,
'Rabbi', or ‘ Rabbouni'. The ' I am' sayings are specifically
Johannnine expressions o f the ‘worthiness’ , or more
precisely the revelation o f Jesus: ‘I am the Bread o f life’ , ‘ the
Light o f the world’ , ‘ the Good Shepherd’ , ‘ the Resurrection
and the L ife ’ , ‘ the Way, the Truth and the L ife ’ , ‘ the True
V in e ’ .31 Recent so-called critical investigation is fond o f
conjecturing about early Christianity generally, and in John
particularly, that different, conflicting christologies lie
behind this richness o f christological titles. But is not this
accumulation o f extremely different titles from ‘Rabbi’ and
‘Son o f Man’ to ‘Logos’ and 'theos' an expression o f the
dialectic between Jesus’ humanity and his divinity? It is just
the diverse and numerous titles and names that express
Jesus’ unique ‘worthiness’ which at the same time demon
strates the intensity o f the early Christian experience o f
salvation. Therefore, we should not try to isolate the titles o f
Jesus in John; it is their manifold interplay which makes
John’s christology so fascinating and full o f tension and
power.
29The title ô e k à s k t o ç appears in Isa. 42:1, but also in the Parables o f Enoch
39:6; 40:5; 45:3; 49:2-5; 51:3 (cf. 55:4; 72:1), and 52:6, 9; 53:6; 61:5. John 6:69
and Mark 1:24 show that ô âyioç t o ö 0£oü is probably an archaic title and
represents an early stage o f christological development.
30See M. de Jonge, ‘Jewish Expectations About the “Messiah” According to
the Fourth Gospel’, N T S 19 (1972/3), 246-70.
31 E. Schweizer, Ego Eimi, FRLANT 56 (Gottingen, 1939, 21965). A. Feuillet,
‘Les Ego Eimi christologiques du quatrième Évangile’, RSR 54 (1966), 5-22,
213-40; P. B. Harner, The T A m ’ o f the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia, 1970); H. Klein,
‘Vorgeschichte und Verständnis der johanneischen Ich-bin-Worte’ in KuD 33
(1987), 102-36.
The Fourth Evangelist articulates at the same time un

mistakably the paradox of the Passion of the Son of God. Although
this is unfolded - true to the confession in the Prologue, ‘and
we beheld his glory . . .’ (1:14) - in a rather unhistorical
development o f the words and works o f Jesus, whose divine
glory shines through continually, the road he travels is still one
that, from the very beginning, leads to the cross. Alreadyjohn
the Baptist bears witness to him as ‘the Lamb o f God who takes
away the sin o f the world’ (1:29, 36), and, in connection with
an old tradition already retained in Mark, the title ‘Son o f
Man’ - literally, ‘ the man’ - is inseparably bound with Jesus’
death on the cross: ‘Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, so must the Son o f Man be lifted up, that whoever
believes in him may have eternal life’ (3:14ff.). Here ‘lifted
up’ (in Aramaic 5ezd'qef) is code for ‘being crucified’ (see also
Isa. 52:13 L X X ), but it also means ‘lifted up’ from the earth
(12:32). Jesus’ very claim to divine revelation provokes the
attempt on his life: in answer to ‘I and the Father are one’ , his
listeners ‘ . . . took up stones . . . to stone him’ (10:31). Pilate
brings him scourged and throne-crowned before the crowd:
‘Behold, the man!’ ( idou ho anthropos), but they demand his
death: ‘because he has made himself the Son o f God’ (19:5,
7). R. Bultmann’s comment here is correct: ‘The ho logos sarx
egeneto ( “and the Word became flesh”) has become visible in
its most extreme consequence.’32Very similar to the Synoptics,
the - deadly - messianic claim o f Jesus is a thread that runs
through the trial narrative to the title on the cross: ‘Jesus o f
Nazareth, basileus tön Ioudaiön (19:19; cf. Mark 15:26).
The uniqueness o f the Fourth Evangelist reveals itself,
however, in that, in contrast to Mark 15:34 and Matt. 27:46,
the Son does not end his life with the cry o f dereliction, but
with the shout o f the victor - ‘It is finished!’ - which signifies
32 Das Evangelium desJohannes, KEK (Göttingen,211986), p. 510: ‘So muss denn

Jesus heraustreten ( . . . ) also die Karikatur eines Königs, und Pilatus stellt ihn
vor mit den Worten: . . . das ist der Mensch! Da seht die Jammergestalt! Im
Sinne des E v [a n ]g [e ] listen ist damit die ganze Paradoxie des Anspruchs Jesu zu
einem ungeheuren Bilde gestaltet. In der Tat: solch ein Mensch ist es, der
behauptet, der König der Wahrheit zu sein! Das ô Àoyoç oàpÇ éyévexo ist in
seiner extremsten Konsequenz sichtbar geworden.’ See now, M. Hengel, The
Johannine Question (London and Philadelphia, 1989), pp. 68-72.
the finishing o f the work o f new creation, at the eve o f the

sixth day.33 The confession ‘and we beheld his glory’ (1:14)
from the Prologue points ultimately to the Dying One. The
single - ideal - eye-witness o f the Gospel stands at the foot o f
the cross ofjesus (19:35). The crucified Son o f God and his
way into suffering - the severest challenge for ancient polemic
- is thus a basic theme in the Fourth Gospel, and not only in
the Passion story (cf. 2:4, 17, 21; 3:14; 5:17f.; 6:51-58; 7:19f.,
33, 39; 8:59; 10:11, 15; ll:50ff.; 12:24, 31f.).
2. The Letter to the Hebrews, written about two decades
before the Gospel o f John, has likewise assimilated a Christian
hymn into its introduction. The letter - actually an early
Christian sermon - begins with a reminder o f how God has
spoken. Once he spoke through the prophets, but now, in the
last days, through the Son. Through this One he created the
worlds and appointed him ‘heir o f all things’ . Here the actual
hymn begins:
He reflects the glory of God
and bears the very stamp of his nature.
He upholds the universe by his word of power,
He has made purification for sins
and sat down at the right hand
of the Majesty on high.
The scribal argument follows: ‘H e has become as much

superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more
excellent than theirs. For to what angel did God ever say, “You
33John 19:30 - see already the first xexeAeoxai in 19:28 and the unique i'va
x£À£i(D0fj rj ypa<j)rj. John l:lff.: év àpxn • • • corresponds to Gen. 1:1; the two
xsxéÀeoxai in 19:28, and 30 to Gen. 2:lf.: w afkullü and w afkal (LX X : Kai
ouvexeÀéoGqoav . . . Kai ouvexéÀeoev ö 0eoç . . . xà £pya auxoö), see John 4:34
and the translation o f the RSVJohn 19:30: ‘it is finished’; Gen. 2:lf.: ‘. . . was
finished’ and: ‘God finished his work.’ O n Friday evening, just before nightfall,
Gen. 2:Iff. is read as a part o f Shabbat-qiddüsh - see b. Shab 119b; Gen. R. 10.8
(to Gen. 2:2). For John the following Shabbat, when Jesus was ‘resting’ in the
tomb, was a ‘great’ Shabbat day (19:31). In John 20:21f., at the evening o f the
first day, when the resurrected Christ is breathing the Holy Spirit to his disciples,
the Evangelist uses the same word, ève<J)U0r|0£v, as in Gen. 2:7, where God is
breathing a ‘breath o f life’ to Adam. At the beginning and at the end o f the
Fourth Gospel, we therefore have distinct allusions to Genesis 1 and 2
combining the old and new creation. See M. Hengel, ‘Die Schriftauslegung des
4. Evangeliums’, Jahrbuch fü r biblische Theologie A (1989), pp. 249-88 (284-6).
are my son, today I have begotten you” (Ps. 2:7)? Or again, “I

will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a son” (2 Sam.
7:14; 1 Chr. 17:13)?’ (Heb. l:3-5 ).34 Despite the difference in
language, the substantive points o f contact with John’s
Prologue are striking: here as well the Son appears as God’s Word
of revelation, and here as well he is Mediator of the Creation. Since,
however, the beginning o f time corresponds to the end o f
time, the Son, as the eschatological representative of God, is the
‘heir o f all things’ . As in the Prologue to John, we meet
statements here that, in their boldness and universality,
completely transcend the possibilities o f pagan-polytheistic
apotheoses, whether those o f the Roman Caesars, or an
Alexander, or a Hercules.35 The pre-existence and mediator
o f creation functions attributed to the crucified Messiah, Jesus
34 See O. Hofius, Der Christishymnus Philipper 2, 6-11, W U N T 17 (Tübingen,

21976), pp. 75-92; Hengel, ‘The Son o f G od’ (n. 18), pp. 82-5. The text o f
Hebrews is already quoted in 1 Clem. 36:2ff. Strong relations also exist to the
older hymn in Phil. 2:6-11.1 put the question hypothetically, whether the letter
could not have been written from Rome to Christians in Palestine in the early
60s c e before the destruction o f the Temple. Is it conceivable, had it been
composed shortly after 70 c e , that this would not have been mentioned at all? It
probably belonged to the first collection o f the Pauline letters. See its
interpolation between Romans and Corinthians in P46and other MSS mentioned
by W. H. P. Hatch, ‘The Position o f Hebrews in the Canon o f the N T ’, H T R 29
(1936), 133ff. The inscription was then deleted because the letter was not
Pauline. These are mere reflections, not solutions!
35Alexander. F. Taeger, Charismal (Stuttgart, 1957), pp. 171-233; C. Schneider,
Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus II (Münich, 1969), pp. 891ff., 1102; J. Tondriau,
‘Alexandre le Grand assimilé à differentes divinités’, RPh 23 (1949), 41-52; J. P.
V. D. Balsdon, ‘The “Divinity” o f Alexander the Great’, Hist. 1 (1950), 363-88;
C. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte, Zetemata 14 (Münich, 1956,
21970), pp. 222-42; J. Straub, ‘Divus Alexander - Divus Christus’, in P. Granfield
an d j. A. Jungmann (eds), Kyriakon: FestschriftJ. Quasten (Münster, 1970), vol. 1,
pp. 461-73.
Heracles: F. Pfister, ‘Herakles und Christus’, in A R W 34 (1937), 42-60.
Pfister suspects an influence o f the Hercules myth upon the gospels; see also
C. Schneider, Geistesgeschichte des Antiken Christentums l (Münich, 1954), p. 57. A
critical stance against this position is taken by H. J. Rose, ‘Heracles in the Gospels’,
H T R (1968), 113-42; see also M. Simon, Hercule et le christianisme (Paris, 1955);
M. Mühl, ‘Des Herakles Himmelfahrt’, RMus 101 (1958), 106-34; R. Flacelière
and P. Devambez, Héraclès (Paris, 1966); N. Robertson, ‘Heracles’ Catabasis’,
Hermes 108 (1980), 274-300. Against a precipitate parallel between Hercules and
Christ, see also E. Käsemann, Das wandememde Gottesvolk, FRLANT 55 (Göttingen,
1938, 31959), pp. 65f., contra H. Windisch; idem, Exegetische Versuche und
Besinnungen II (Göttingen, 1964), vol. 2, p. 50, contra H. Braun, Gesammelte Studien
zum N.T. und seiner Umwelt (Tübingen, 21967), p. 265 (= Z T K 5 4 [1957], 362f.).
o f Nazareth, have no real analogy here. The ultimate inten

tion o f these statements is not the deification o f a superhuman
wielder o f power, but the summing up o f G od’s final
revelation. The language o f the hymn fragments touches the
predicates o f the divine Wisdom as we meet them, for example,
in the Jewish-Hellenistic Wisdom o f Solomon. Thus, concepts
such as ‘reflection o f His glory’ (apaugasma tês doxês) and ‘very
stamp o f his nature’ ( charaktër tes hypostaseös) interpret the
mediating work o f the Pre-existent O ne ,36 who gives divine
light and true being to the creatures threatened by Chaos. But
this is not yet enough: this mediation becomes really concrete
in the atoning death ofjesus: ‘He has made the purification
for sins’ and thereby spanned the gulf that separates God and
his creatures. Following his deepest mortification comes the
exaltation. ‘He has sat down at the right hand o f the majesty
on high.’ And here we meet the real theme o f the letter in
which Jesus is several times described as ‘Mediator of the new
covenant ( diathékës haines mesitës, 9:15; cf. 8:6, 12:24).37
Still further observations are important in this context:
Christological reflection, both in Hebrews and in early
Christianity generally, was stimulated by the charismatic
exposition o f the Old Testament understood as the prophetic
Word, that is, it was more propehtic than learned, rabbinic,
and scribal. The author o f the letter, therefore, cites two texts
36 Cf. Wis. Sol. 7:26 about the pre-existent divine Sophia:
For she is an effulgence (ccnauyaopa)
from everlasting light,
and an unspotted mirror o f G o d’s working,
and an image (eixcov) o f his goodness, (trans. Charlesworth)
37This formulation makes Jesus an antitype to Moses as the ‘mediator o f the
O ld Testament’. Philo, Vita. Mos. 2.166, calls Moses peoixqc; Kai ôiaÀÀaKxqç,
mediator and reconciler (with God). T. Mos. 1:14: Kai npoeOeaoaxo pe ô Ôeoç
npö KaxaßoÄqq KÖopou d v a i pe xqç ôiaOqKqç aùxoû peoixqv (Greek text
according to Gelasius Cyzicenus, H E 2.17, 17 (GCS 28; 1918; see A.-M. Denis,
ed. Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum graeca [Leiden, 1970], p. 63). In rabbinic texts,
too, Moses is ‘mediator’ ( sarsôr) - see A. Oepke, T W N T 4 (Stuttgart, 1942), vol.
4, pp. 619ff., and Strack-Billerbeck III, p. 556, to Gal. 3:19. The angelic mediator
is peoixqç ôeoû Kai àvôpconcov Kai ém xqç dpq vq ç xoû ’IopaqÀ Kaxévavxi xqç
ßaoiAeiat; xoû Oeoû (or éxôpoô?) oxqoexai (T. Dan. 6:11). About angelic
mediators, see A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, SJLA 25 (Leiden, 1977); idem,
‘Ruler o f This World: Attitudes About Mediator Figures and the Importance o f
Sociology for Self-Definition’, in E. P. Sanders (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self-
Definition (London, 1981), vol. 2, pp. 245-68, 403-12 (esp. with regard to the
following the hymn that are o f major importance for the

transmission o f the title ‘Son’ to Jesus. One o f these concerns
the appointment o f the Davidic king, the 'Anointed' of Yahweh,
to Son of God in Ps. 2:7 (cf. 2:2) : ‘You are my Son, today I have
begotten you.’ The importance o f this citation for the Letter
to the Hebrews becomes clear when it is repeated later (5:5) .38
At the same time, however, it is one o f the most important
Old Testament messianic proof texts in the entire New
Testament; it helped shape the heavenly voice at Jesus’
baptism in Mark 1:11, as well: ‘You are my beloved Son; with
you I am well-pleased.’39 Together with the second citation,
Nathan’s prophecy to David (2 Sam. 7:14), ‘I will be a father
to him, and he shall be to me a son’, this text shaped one o f
the oldest confessions in the New Testament. This is the two-
part formula with which Paul introduces himself to the
community at Rome (unknown to him), and which, in its pre-
Pauline form in the earliest Palestinian community, read as
follows:
Jesus Christ, descended from the seed of David,
appointed as Son of God
Since his resurrection from the dead.40
Here there is still nothing about a Being before time, about

the pre-existence o f the Son. Rather, the Son o f David seems to
Fourth Gospel, see pp. 251ff.). Concerning the ‘mediator’ in the Hellenistic
Roman world, see Reinhold Merkelbach, Mithras (Königstein, 1984), p. 27;
regarding the Persian Mithras as peoftqç, see also Plutarch, De Iside 46 (p. 369E),
and the seminal essay o f M. P. Nilsson, ‘The High God and the Mediator’, H T R
56 (1963), 101-20: ‘It is the great achievement o f Christianity . .. introducing a
mediator between the High God and man’ (p. 118): ‘The gap was bridged by
the mediator Christ. Christianity presented the mediator in his most concrete
form, as G o d’s son and as suffering man.’
38According to O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer, K E K 13 (Göttingen, 4984),
p. 110, the second citation o f Ps. 2:7 in 5:5 is situated at the beginning o f the
second principal section o f the letter.
39 Here also we find the secondary influence o f the ‘Servant o f G od’ tradition
from Isa. 42:1. See the quotation o f Isa. 42:1 in Matt. 12:18 and J. Jeremias, Abba
(Göttingen, 1966), pp. 192ff.
40 Cf. Rom. l:3f. Concerning the oldest form, see M. Hengel, ‘The Son o f G od’
(n. 18), pp. 57f.; H. Schlier in H. Baltensweiler and Bo Reicke (eds), Neues Testa
ment und Geschichte: O. Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag (Zürich, 1972), pp. 207-18;
U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, EKK 6.1 (Zürich, 1977,21987), pp. 56ff., 64ff.
be ‘adopted’ as Son o f God through the resurrection, but it is

no real adoption for the title ‘Son o f God’ which is only an
interpretation o f the title ‘ Christos', the Messiah from the
house o f David, and expresses his unique relation to God.
Already in the pre-Christian period these two texts, 2 Sam. 7
and Ps. 2, appear together in a collection o f messianic
prophecies from the Essenes in Qumran .41
The earliest Church drew on these passages in order to
explain theologically the resurrection event upon which it
was founded. But less than two generations later as well, with
a much more widely developed christology such as we find in
Hebrews, these Old Testament texts still retained their con
stitutive significance. Indeed, one was able with their help to
answer burning christological questions, such as how the
Exalted One stands in relation to the angels.
Speculation was extensive in Early Judaism over the hier
archically ordered angel world. Outstanding human beings
such as Enoch and Elijah, who had been taken up into
Heaven, could be changed into angelic figures as well. What
could have been more natural for the Jewish Christian circles
than that they should see in the exalted Christ one o f the
highest o f the angels? It is curious that this problem surfaces
only here in the Letter to the Hebrews and is at once tersely
rejected. Not until later writings, to some extent in the
Apocalypse o f John and more so in the Shepherd o f Hermas
and other second-century texts, does it again become virulent.
‘Angel Christology’ was apparently not a live option for earliest
Christianity. The Son, lifted up and seated at the right hand
o f God, was from the beginning set above all angels.42 The
41 4QFlor = 4 Q 174; see E. Lohse, Die Texte aus Qumran (Darmstadt, 1964,
31981 ), pp. 256ff.; J. M. Allegro, Qumran Cave 4, DJD 5 (Oxford, 1968), pp.
59ff.; and the corrections o f J. Strugnell, R Q 7 (1969/71), 220ff. For the
importance o f 2 Sam. 7:10-15 for New Testament christology, see O. Betz, What
Do We Know About Jesus? (Philadelphia, 1968), pp. 88ff., 95ff. D. Lührmann is
incorrect in saying, *. . . in der Auslegung - soweit erhalten - wird aber der
Sohnestitel nicht aud den I ' l l angewendet’. Idem, Das Markusevangelium,
H N T 3 (Tübingen, 1987), p. 38. But see 4QFlor 1.11: iWirT m m K im
m r r nos.,
42 Contra M. Werner, Die Entstehung des christlichen Dogmas (Bern, Tübingen,
21953), pp. 302ff.; see J. Barbel, Christos Angelos, Theoph 3 (Bonn, 1941);
J. Daniélou, Théologie du judéo-christianisme. Histoire des doctrines chrétiennes avant
argumentation o f the unknown author o f our letter is

correspondingly uncomplicated: the citations prove Christ to
be the Son; his utterly unique relation to God cannot be
compared to that o f the angels who occupy a subordinate
position as eitourgika pneumata, ministering servants (1:14).
As a final support for his argument, the author uses a third
citation from the most important Old Testament text for all
christology, a text already alluded to in the Christ hymn: ‘He
has sat down at the right hand o f the majesty on high.’ The
angels stand before God like the ministers before the great
king ;43 it is only the Son for whom the word o f Ps. 110:1 is
meant: ‘The Lord [that is, God himself] said to my Lord
[Christ]: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a
footstool for your feet .”’44
It is not only the formula entrusted to us in the Apostles’
Creed o f Christ’s sitting, or rather being enthroned at the
right hand o f God that we have from this verse. It probably
encouraged as well the introduction o f the title ‘ Lord’ ,
Nicée (Tournai, 1958), vol. 1, pp. 167-98; R. N. Longenecker, The Christology of

Early Jewish Christianity (London, 1970), pp. 26ff.; A. Grillmeier (see n. 13), vol.
1, pp. 150-7; J. E. Fossum (see n. 18) passim; R. Williams, ‘Christologie II, I’,
TEE 16 (1987), 726f. The angel christology has only a very reduced importance
in the earliest and most important New Testament texts. Probably in a Jewish-
Christian and popular milieu, angelogical traits were secondarily introduced in
christology. Thus, H. Leclercq, ‘Anges VII: Culte des anges’, DA CL (Paris, 1924),
vol. 1.2, cols. 2144-2150.
43 See b. H ag 15a: ‘. . . on high there is no sitting [no jealousy and] no
emulation o f the angels before the throne o f G o d’. Cf. 3 En. 16 in Synopse zur
Hekhalot-Literatur (see n. 25), §20 and A. F. Segal (see n. 37), pp. 60ff. For the
text, see D.J. Halperin, The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature, AO S 62 (New Haven,
Conn., 1980), pp. 168 and 87. Three manuscripts read: ‘there is no standing
and no sitting . . .’, but the original story ‘presupposes that heavenly beings
would normally stand, not sit’ (so Rashi and two manuscripts). The addition o f
‘standing’ seems to be an anti-anthropomorphic ‘philosophizing’ inter
pretation. See idem, 'The Faces o f the Chariot’, TSAJ 16 (Tübingen, 1988), 149ff.
For the ‘standing’ o f the angels, see y. Ber 1:1, 2c, 1. 23f.: Gen. R. 65.21: they
have according to Ezek. 1:7 and Dan. 7:16 no knees, so they cannot sit. Only
Moses was allowed to sit before God on Mount Sinai in contrast to the angels,
Ex. R. 34:4; Tanh b besallah 13 to Exod. 15:1: ‘There is in the high no sitting,
rather they are all standing. . . .’ The rabbis were very reluctant to speculate
about heavenly enthronizations.
44 For 1:13 and Ps. 110:1, see D. M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, SBLMS 18
(Missoula, Mont., 1973); M. Gourgues, À la droite de dieu, EtB (Paris, 1978); cf.
Hengel, ‘The Son o f G o d’ (see n. 18), p. 78. Cf. above, pp. 119-225.
‘ Kyrios’ , in the earliest Church. This is already in use in the

oldest Palestinian community, in a prayer to him who is
exalted to the right hand o f God: ‘Our Lord, com e!’ - in
Aramaic: Maran ,atä.Ab The Greek form appears as the
concluding prayer in the Apocalypse o f John: erchou kyrie Iêsou
(22 :20 ).
Now it is striking, indeed paradoxical, that the Son who is
exalted to God’s right hand, separated from the angels and
completely bound to God, is portrayed at the same time in his
full humanity.46 For this purpose the author takes over a title
from older tradition with whose help he develops the saving
effectiveness o f Christ: Jesus is the true High Priest. The Essenes
already expected for their two Messiahs a high priest figure
and a ruler-warrior figure, although the messianic high priest
from the line o f Aaron was superior to the Davidic prince from
Israel.47 In the Jewish-Hellenistic Testament o f Levi the
messianic high priest reveals himself from heaven (18:3; a text
which I believe to be Jewish). For the Letter to the Hebrews,
Christ is the high priest, because he presents himself as the
atoning sacrifice: ‘Therefore he had to be made like his
brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful
and faithful high priest in the service o f God, to make
expiation for the sins o f the people. For because he himself
has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who
are tempted’ (2:l7ff.). ‘In the days o f his flesh, he offered up
prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him
who was able to save him from death. . . . Although he was a
Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and
being made perfect he became the source o f eternal salvation
to all who obey him . . .’ (5:7-9); ‘ . . . who for the joy that was
451 Cor. 16:22; Did. 10.6; for the linguistic problems, see H. P. Rüger, Z N W 59
(1968), 120f. and idem, ‘Aramäisch II im Neuen Testament’, TRES (1978), 607.
The prayer maran ,atä has a possible connection as well with the messianic Ps.
118:26 Targ Teh: bàrîk de’àtêbesûm mêmrà. . . ; and Dan. 7:13: kebar ’anäs ’ätehawä;
see Matt. 23:39 = Luke 13:35 (= Q ).
46 Concerning the ‘full humanity’, see Heb. 2:17: ‘Kaxà nàvxa xoïç àôeÀcpoïç
öjioicoOqvai’; 2:11: ‘Kaxà nàvxa Ka0’ ôpoioxqxa’ 4:15 and 5:7f.
47See A. J. B. Higgins, ‘The Priestly Messiah’, N T S 13 (1966/7), 211-39. For
Qumran, seej. Starcky, RB 70 (1963), 481-505; E. M. Lapperousaz, U attente du
Messie en Palestine (Paris, 1982).
set before him endured the cross, despising the shame . . .’

(12:2). ‘Therefore let us go forth to him outside the camp
and bear the abuse he endured. For here we have no lasting
city (polis), but we seek the city which is to come’ (13:13ff.).
The obedient sacrifice o f the Son, the self-sacrifice o f the true
high priest, summons to discipleship .48
3. The last hymn is at least a decade or two older than the
Letter to the Hebrews. We find it in the letter o f Paul to the
church at Philippi (Phil. 2:6-11),49 to whom it was written
approximately in the middle o f the 50s c e , if it came from
Ephesus, or at the beginnings o f the 60s if it came from Rome.
The composition o f the hymn was possibly much earlier.
Have this mind among yourselvés, which was also in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant,
being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form
he humbled himself
and became obedient unto death,
even death on a cross.
Therefore God has highly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father! (2:5-11)
48The Jewish background o f Hebrews, related to Merkabah mysticism, is

demonstrated by O. Hofius in Der Vorhang vor dem Throne Gottes, W U N T 14
(Tübingen, 1972); see also W. R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester, W M A N T 53
(Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981).
49 See Hengel (see n. 18), pp. lf.; O. Hofius (see n. 34); L. W. Hurtado, ‘Jesus
as Lordly Example: O n Philippians 2:5-11’, in P. Richardson and J. C. Hurd
(eds), From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour ofF.W . Beare (Waterloo, Ont., 1984),
pp. 113-26; C. A. Wanamaker, ‘Philippians 2:6-11: Son o f God or Adamic
Christology’, N T S 33 (1987), 179-93. U. B. M üller’s recent essay ( ‘Der
Christushymnus Phil 2:6-11’, Z N W 79 [1988], 17-44) betrays a complete
misunderstanding o f Hofius. This often-discussed text is surely in its first
part related to the pre-existence o f Christ - see 1 Cor. 8:6; 10: Iff.; Rom. 8:3; Gal.
4:4.
First, it is striking that the hymn occurs not in a context o f

dogmatic argumentation, but within ethical exhortations
from the apostle. The hearers o f the letter should live in
spiritually gifted conformity like Paul himself (cf. 2 Cor. 1:7
sharing in his sufferings) to the way and work o f Christ. The
statements about humiliation and exaltation have concrete
application in life. Secondly, this oldest o f the three hymns is
the most well-balanced o f all. He who is pre-existent and like
God regards his divine form o f existence not as ‘a thing to be
snatched’ , but empties himself, becomes human, and dies the
shameful death o f a slave on the cross. Therefore, God has
exalted ( hyperhypsösen) him above every comparable power,
and given him his own name o f majesty, ‘ Kyrios’, that he might
be Lord over all Creation, the heavenly (that is, the angels),
the earthly (that is, humanity), and the underworld (that is,
the dead - or the demons?), in order that they all confess him
as ‘ j Kyrios' - not to his own glory, but to the glory o f God the
Father.50
The first thing to consider here is that ‘ Kyrios’ in the
Hellenistic synagogue - as a substitute ( q*rê’ ) for the Hebrew
name for God, YHWH, the tetragrammaton - was the most
important appellation for God. Early on, the Greek-speaking
community referred Old Testament statements in which
‘Kyrios’ meant the God o f Israel to the ‘Kyrios Jesus’ . For
example, Joel 3:5, ‘Everyone who calls on the name o f the
Lord (that is, Yahweh) shall be saved’ , was so understood in
the sense o f the saving appeal made to the kyrios Iesous (Rom.
10:13; cf. Acts 2:21). Philo could already occasionally refer an
Old Testament ‘Kyrios’ to the ‘Archangel’ , that is, the Logos,
in whose form God himself appears.51 However, early
Christianity was establishing here the theological principle
50 Cf. Rev. 5:8-14. I see no reason to assume- *hat the original hymn was
enlarged by Paul. It is, as we have it, perfect. The ‘anadiplosis’ (cf. O. Hofius, n.
34, p. 10), Gavctxou ôè oxaupoö is as necessary as the eiç ööâv toö Oeoö
naxpöq, so already M. Dibelius, A n die Philipper, H N T 11 (Tübingen, 31937), p.
81. Most probably the hymn was created by Paul himself. Its special language,
which is somewhat different from Paul’s prose, is the language o f pneuma-
inspired hymnic poetry.
51 Somm. l:157ff. to Gen. 28:13; see Fossum (n. 18), pp. 110, 292ff. and Segal,
Two Powers (n. 37).
which expresses the eschatological identity o f the revelation

o f God, the ‘Kyrios’ and ‘Father’ , and Jesus, the ‘Kyrios’ and
‘Son’ . The absolute ho kyrios, and kyrios Ièsous, is far and away
the title o f majesty most used by Paul, appearing in the
genuine letters 184 times. ‘Son o f God’ by contrast appears
only fifteen times. The apostle expresses thereby the personal
connection o f the Church, as well as the individual, with the
Exalted One. ‘Son o f God’ , on the other hand, emphasizes
primarily Jesus’ relation with the Father. One may safely
dismiss the derivation o f the title ‘Kyrios’ from the Hellenistic-
oriental cults o f the ‘Kyria Isis’ and other oriental ‘Kyrioi’.52
An important preliminary stage o f the Pauline usage was
formed from the practice o f using scripture as proof with the
help o f the above mentioned Ps. 110:1: ‘The Lord said to my
Lord . . . ’ . The roots for this were basically the respectful form
o f address to Jesus himself with manor rabbî, which could with
no problem be translated with kyrie, ‘Lord ’ . Paul can,
therefore, call Jesus’ physical brothers - James, for example -
simply ‘ the brothers o f the Lord’ (1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19). On
the other hand, the most important confession formula o f
52 Against the hypothesis o f W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (Göttingen, 1913,

51965), influential and often repeated in Germany, but in many ways misleading,
Bousset tried to derive the title ‘Kyrios’ from pagan oriental Kyrios cults in the
gentile-Christian community in Antioch. See the protest already by P. Wernle,
‘Jesus und Paulus: Antithesen zu Boussets Kyrios Christos’, Z T K 25 (1915),
1-92, and the seminal but often overlooked investigations by W. Foerster, Herr
1stJesus, N T F 2nd Series (Gütersloh, 1924), pp. 69ff., 201ff.; idem, Kyrios, T W N T
3 (1938), pp. 1045ff. (p. 1049); R. N. Longenecker (n. 42), pp. 120ff.; Hengel,
‘The Son o f G o d ’ (see n. 18), pp. 23ff., 75ff.; idem, Between Jesus and Paul
(Philadelphia, 1983), pp. 41ff.; J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Semitic Background o f the
New Testament Kyrios Titles’, in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Essays (Missoula,
Mont., 1979), pp. 115-42; L. W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord (Philadelphia,
1988), passim. Hurtado’s important summary o f research, especially o f the last
twenty years, seems to me to be fundamental for further investigation. The old
assertions o f the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, still given in some circles today, are
no longer tenable. It underestimated the richness and creative power o f Palestinian
Judaism, the intermingling o f Jewish and Hellenistic thought in Jewish Palestine,
and the importance of bilingualism in the Palestinian Jesus Movement in Galilee
and Jerusalem. The resurrected and exalted Son o f Man was the lord o f the
community and so O K Y P IO E became very early - astonishingly enough,
apparently with no difficulties - the appellation for the man Jesus himself, and
the words o f the man Jesus were called Àoyoi Kupiou; cf. 1 Thess. 4:15 and 1 Cor.
7:10; 9:14, and 11:23. See now, M. Hengel, The ‘Hellenization* o f Judaea in the first
Century after Christ (London and Philadelphia, 1989), esp. pp. 54ff.
acclamation is for him kyrios Iêsous, ‘Jesus is Lord’, the con

fession in which according to the conclusion o f our hymn, all
creation joins.
That the acclamation, ‘Jesus is Kyrios’ , is made ‘ to the glory
o f God the Father’ shows that the title ‘Kyrios’ and the title
‘Son’ are connected in the closest possible way. This
acclamation is the goal o f creation and history,53 or more
precisely, the goal o f the self-disclosure o f God through the
Son: ‘When all things are subjected to him, then the Son
himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things under
him, that God may be all in all’ (1 Cor. 15:28), I f the Son
returns to the Father at the end o f all things, it is, after all,
because he came forth from him. Therefore, the beginning
o f the Philippian hymn speaks o f divine ‘nature’ and the
divinity o f the Son. The morphë theou, divine nature, is in this
regard closely related to the eikön theou, the image o f God.
According to 2 Cor. 4:4ff., Christ, as God’s äkön, radiates the
glory o f God, preached in Paul’s gospel, into the hearts o f
believers. This metaphor as well is taken over from Jewish
Wisdom theology.54
The Son, however, renounces divine nature and divine
glory; he takes the form o f a human being, comparable with a
slave, subject to weakness, temptation and death, and lets
himself be crucified. Although Paul knows the function o f
mediation o f the Creation by the Pre-existent One and his
revelation already in the Old Testament history o f Israel
(1 Cor. 8:6; 10:lff.; cf. Col. 1:15), this theme appears in his
writings only peripherally: it is not the Pre-existent One or the
Exalted One in his glory whom he preaches, but the
Crucified. This one is the centre o f his christology (1 Cor.
1:17ff.; 2:Iff.). The apostle himself characterizes his message
53Cf. O. Hofius (n. 34), pp. 41ff.; 65: ‘Der Christushymnus Phil 2,6-11 besingt
die O ffenbarung der eschatologischen Königsherrschaft Gottes in der
Erhöhung des gekreuzigten Jesus Christus.’
54F. W. Ehester, Eikon im Neuen Testament, B Z N W 23 (Berlin, 1958); J. Jervell,
ImagoDei, FRLANT 76 (Göttingen, 1960), pp. 197-231. Agnostic background of
this important Jewish-Hellenistic term cannot be presupposed. Cf. B. Mack, Logos
und Sophia, S U N T 10 (Göttingen, 1973), pp. 166-71, and index p. 220;
G. Schimanowski, Weisheit und Messias: Die jüdischen Voraussetzungen der urchristlichen
Präexistenzchristologie, W U N T 2nd Series 17 (Tübingen, 1985), pp. 336-40.
as logos tou staurou, ‘word o f the cross’ . The scandal this must
have created for people o f antiquity, both Jews and Greeks,
and us, with our domesticated Christianity, can hardly be
estimated. The polemic o f Celsus against Jesus as a crucified
criminal and deceiver can give us a notion o f it.55
4. With this we come to our real problem. The comparison
o f the three hymns in the Johannine Prologue, the Letter to
the Hebrews and the Letter to the Philippians shows, first o f
all, that christological thinking between 50 and 100 c e was
much more unified in its basic structure than New Testament
research, in part at least, has maintained. Basically, the later
developments are already there in a nutshell in the Philippian
hymn. This means, however, with regard to the development
o f all the early Church’s christology, that more happened
in the first twenty years than in the entire later, centuries-long
development o f dogma .56 Secondly, it is clear that the glori
fication o f Christ, the doctrines o f his pre-existence, creation,
mediation and exaltation, did not remove the scandal o f his
shameful death, but rather deepened it. A crucified Jewish
martyr, a martyred innocent, a second Socrates could have
appealed to Jews and Greeks as an edifying example; a
crucified God was for every educated person in antiquity a
shameless impertinence, indeed, an absurdity.
The basic question o f New Testament christology is:57 How
did it come about that in the short space o f less than twenty
years the crucified Galilean Jew, Jesus o f Nazareth, was
elevated by his followers to a dignity which left every possible
form o f pagan-polytheistic apotheosis far behind? Pre
existence, Mediator o f Creation and the revelation o f his
55 Origen, Contra Celsum 2.33ff., 37-39, 47, 55, 61, 68, 72f.; 5.64; 6.10
(KeKOÀaopévoç aïoxioxa”); 6.34, 74 - etc. See C. Andresen, Logos und, Nomos:
Die Polemik des Kelsos under das Christentum, A K G 30 (Berlin, 1955), pp. 176; 232ff.;
Hengel, Crucifixion, pp. 7f., 17; see above nn. 6-8.
56Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, pp. 30-47; 156-66; M. Casey, ‘Chronology
and Development o f Pauline Christology’ in M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson
(eds), Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour o f C. K. Barrett (London, 1982), pp.
124-34.
57 Hengel, ‘The Son o f G o d ’ (n. 18), pp. If. For the soteriological inter
pretation in the earliest community, see M. Hengel, The Atonement (London and
Philadelphia, 1981), pp. 65ff.
identity with the One God: this exceeds the possibilities

o f deification in a polytheistic pantheon; here we have a
new religions-geschichtliche category before us that must be
explained from the first Christian experience itself, or as the
case may be, from its Jewish background.58
In order to answer this basic question with the required
brevity, we turn to two titles that, as titles, already for Paul no
longer played an important role, and which we have until now
barely touched. In 1 Cor. 15:3ff. Paul cites a formulaic
summary o f the salvation event, which he held to be the basis
for the founding o f the church in Corinth around 49 c e : ‘For
I delivered to you as o f first importance what I also received’ ,
that is, probably after his conversion in the early 30s c e -: ‘that
Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that
he was buried, that he was raised on the third day. . . .’ It is
disputed whether ‘Christos’ here is still a messianic title ,59or -
as otherwise almost always in Paul - used as a proper name.60
This ambivalence results from the fact that the Jewish title for
the eschatological ruler promised in the Old Testament, the
‘Messiah’ , masiah, that is, the ‘Anointed’ , would hardly have
been understood in pagan circles outside Palestine. A personal
understanding was restricted to the Septuagint and a Jewish
milieu, since for Greeks ‘ christos’ is an adjective never used for
persons, meaning something that was ‘ to be rubbed in’ or
‘used as ointment or salve’;61 ‘ neochristos’ had the meaning
‘newly plastered ’.62 The early Christian confession ‘Jesus is
58 ‘Jewish’ includes the Jews who spoke Greek - ‘Hellenistic’ and pagan should
no longer be identified!
59J. Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Gottingen, 41967), pp. 97f.; cf. idem,
‘Artikelloses Xpioxôç’, Z N W 57 (1966), 211-15.
60Hengel, BetweenJesus and Paul, pp. 65-77, 179-88. See above, pp. 1-15.
61 Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, col. 2007; see Stephanus and
Dindorf, Thesaurus Graecae Linguae IX, col. 1688: <|>dppaKa xp^rta sunt omne
genus unguenta et olea quibus aegri inunguntur, vel etiam pigmenta etfucamenta quibus
illitis color emendatur.
62 Liddell and Scott, col. 1170; Stephanus and Dindorf, VI, col. 1447: oI kov or
oiKqpa veoxpiorov; see àpxixpioroç/ov in Liddell and Scott, col. 250: fresh-
spread (|)dp|iaKov. See the inimitable G. Zuntz amusing description o f possible
reactions o f pagan readers: ‘Ein Heide las das Markusevangelium’, in Markus-
Philologie. Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten
Evangelium, ed. H. Cancik, W U N T 33 (Tübingen, 1984), p. 205.
Messiah’ , Christos Iesous, was quickly changed therefore into a

proper name .63 Already by the end o f the 30s the members o f
the new Jewish sect in Antioch were called ‘Christians’ (Acts
11:26). For the later Roman authors, Suetonius, Pliny and
Tacitus, it was taken for granted that ‘Christos’ was a proper
name that was confused with the common slave name
‘Chrëstos’.64Without doubt, however, ‘ Christos' originally had
titular significance in the confession o f 1 Cor. 15:3ff. The
intent was to say, ‘that the Messiah died for our sins’.65 This
declaration about the Messiah dying for us ( hyper hëmôri) is
for Paul the basis for numerous formulaic expressions.66These
sounded strange to Jewish ears, for in the Judaism
o f Jesus’ time, the ‘Anointed’ was above all a victorious
ruler; the suffering Messiah in Jewish literature appears
unequivocally only from the second century c e on .67 The
63For the use o f ‘Christos’ in Judaism and the New Testament, see A. S. van
der Woude, M. de Jonge, and W. Grundmann, xpiotoç, T W N T 9 (1973), 482-
576.
64Suetonius, Divus Claudius 25.11 : lIudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis
Roma expuliV For the use o f ‘Chrestiani’ in Tacitus, Ann. 15.44, see H. Fuchs,
‘Der Bericht über die Christen in den Annalen des Tacitus’, in V. Pöschl (ed.),
Tacitus, W dF 97 (Darmstadt, 1969), pp. 558-604 (esp. 563f.).
65 Hengel, The Atonement, pp. 34-47. For the O ld Testament understanding o f
sacrifice and atonement and its importance for the early interpretation o f the
death ofjesus, see H. Gese, ‘Die Sühne’, in Zur biblischen Theologie (see n. 19),
pp. 85-106; see also his pupil B. Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen, W M A N T 55
(Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982) ; for Rom. 3:25, see pp. 350ff.
66 Cf. W. Kramer, Christos Kyrios, Gottessohn, A T H A N T 44 (Zürich, 1963), pp.
22ff.; W. Popkes, Christus Traditus, A T H A N T 49 (Zürich, 1967), pp. 163ff.;
K. Wengst, Christologische Formeln und Liederim Urchristentum, SNT 7 (Gütersloh,
21973), pp. 55ff.; A. J. Hultgren, Christ and His Benefits (Philadelphia, 1987), pp.
47ff.
67T. Ben. 3:8, often quoted in his respect, is even in its shorter Armenian
form, possibly a Christian enlargement; the original form was perhaps related
to Joseph. A reference to a suffering Messiah is therefore unsure. But the late
A bbé Starcky, RB 70 (1963), 492, mentions an unpublished fragment o f ‘a
Testament o f Jacob (? )’ from Cave 4 o f Qumran with references to messianic (?)
suffering. Abbé Starcky graciously sent me a transcription. In this text an
eschatological person seems to play an atoning and a suffering role:
he atones for all sons o f his generation, and to all sons [ . . . ] it will be sent
[remission o f sins? his word] will be like the word o f heaven and his
teaching like the will o f God.
Later on he will be attacked and defamed:
and in falsehood and violence he will be, (and) the people will go astray in
his days.
historical roots o f this formulaic expression o f the dying

o f the Messiah lie in the Passion o f Jesus. According to
the unanimous witness o f all four gospels the messiah
question ruled not only the trial o f Jesus, but could also be
read on the cross itself as the causa poenae, the reason for
execution: T h e King o f the Jews’ (Mark 15:26, par.).68 After
the resurrection event upon which the Church was founded,
the early Christian proclamation could not do otherwise than
concentrate on this point which so radically contradicted the
prevailing Jewish hope: ‘Was it not necessary that the Messiah
must suffer these things and enter into his glory?’ (Luke
24:26).69
5. While we possess no text in the Synoptic Gospels besides
the trial in which Jesus confesses himself to be the Messiah,
In a further fragment, perhaps from the same column, there is mention o f

a persecuted person (probably the same one). In the first line appears wmk'byn;
ngdy mk'bykh is all that is left on the third. As mak'obis relatively rare in the Old
Testament, appearing twice in close succession in Isa. 53:3 and 4, a reference
to this chapter here is probable. The text is now published by E. Puech,
‘Fragments d ’un apocryphe de Lévi et le parousia eschataologique 4QTest
Levi -d (?) et 4 Q A D a’, in The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings o f the
International Congress o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, M adrid 18-21 March 1991, ed.
J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner, vol. II (Leiden-M adrid, 1992),
pp. 449-451; see also M. Hengel, ‘Zur Wirkungsgeschichte von Jes 53
invorchristlicher Zeit’, in B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher (eds), Der leidende
Gottesknecht, FAT (Tübingen, 1995). For the older discussion about the
suffering Messiah, see the critical opinions o f G. Dalman, Der leidende und
sterbende Messias (Berlin, 1888); S. Hurwitz, Die Gestalt des sterbenden Messias
(Zürich, 1958); K. Hruby, ‘Die Messiaserwartungen der Talmudischen Zeit mit
besonderer Berücksichtigung des Leidens des Messias’, Judaica 20 (1964),
6-22, 73-90, 193-212; 21 (1965), 100-22; J. Heinemann, ‘The Messiah o f
Ephraim and the Premature Exodus o f the Tribe o f Ephraim’, H T R 68 (1975),
1-15; positive: J. Jeremias, Abba, pp. 191-216; Jeremias, naîç 0soö, T W N T
(41954), 680ff.
68 J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu (Regensburg, 1969), pp. 351, 362: Suetonius,
Caligula 32; Domitian 10; Cassius Dio 54.3.7; 73.16.5; Eusebius, H E 5.1.44: This
information from antiquity about delinquents sentenced to death carrying a
signboard with the causa poenae on their way to the place o f execution
presupposes that after the execution the board remained on the cross for public
deterrence. Together with the suffering o f the victims, surely it had a strong
effect on the spectator. The inscription ‘king o f the Jews’ is in keeping with the
personal antijudaism o f Pilate. Cf. above p. 48f.
69N. A. Dahl, Jesus the Christ (Minneapolis, 1991), chapter 1; Hengel,
Atonement, pp. 41ff., 65ff.
the other title, ‘Son of M ari,70with one exception (Acts 7:56),

appears only in the gospels, and then only as self-declaration
on the lips o f Jesus. One can, in my judgement, explain its
importance in the gospel tradition only if one concedes that
Jesus had already used it himself. Indeed, it is probably more
a veiled code word than an actual title. The word ‘Son o f Man’ ,
in Aramaic, bar ’enäs, basically has the simple meaning, ‘man’ ,
or ‘anyone’ ; it is - in an eschatological or messianic sense -
found outside the gospels only in a very few Jewish apocalyptic
texts where it also obscures more than illuminates.71 In at least
two places ‘ the Son o f Man’ is directly identified with ‘the
Messiah’.72 The Synoptic Jesus uses this cipher with three
meanings: for the heavenly figure o f the coming Judge, for
his present work, and for his future suffering. In the latter two
cases it could be no more than a circumlocution for the first
person. We need not go deeper into the hotly disputed
problem o f the Son o f Man title, for one thing is certain: with
the first appearances o f the Risen One, the identity o f the
Crucified with the heavenly Son o f Man was, for the disciples,
70The literature on his ‘cipher’ is endless. The article by C. Colpe, uioç toO
ctvOpconou, T W N T 8 (1969), 403-81, is still basic; idem, Kairos NF 11 (1969),
241-63; 12 (1970), 81-112; 13 (1971), 1-17; 14 (1972), 241-57; see J. Jeremias,
Neutestamentliche Theologie, vol. 1, pp. 245ff.; see also F. H. Borsch, The Son o f M an
in Myth and History (Philadelphia, 1967); S. Kim, ‘ The Son o f M an ’ as the Son o f
God, W U N T 30 (Tübingen, 1983); C. C. Caragounis, The Son o f Man, W U N T 38
(Tübingen, 1986).
71 The starting point is the enigmatic comparison o f Dan. 7:13: kebar ànasr,
beyond this we find only the slightly altered formula in 1 En. 46:2-4; 48:2; 62:5f.;
62:9, 14; 63:11; 69:26-29; 70:1; 71:14, see also 60:10 and in 4 Ezra 13; see also
T. Ab. A 12:5: the àvrjp ôaupaoxôç rjÀiôpatoç opoioç u u j) Oeoö residing on a
throne as judge o f the souls o f the dead (12:11) who is identified with Abel. For
the Parables o f Enoch, see J. Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, S U N T 12
(Göttingen, 1975) and the invaluable commentary o f M. Black, The Book of Enoch
or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes, SVTP 7
(Leiden, 1985), pp. 206ff.
721 En. 48:10; 52:4; see W. B. Müller, Messias und Menschensohn in jüdischen
Apokalypsen und in der Offenbarung desJohannes, SNT 6 (Gütersloh, 1972); Black,
The Book o f Enoch, p. 212. O f the two possibilities which Black is considering I
would prefer the last: the author ‘reserves the term to the climax o f this vision,
and is sparing in its use simply because it is a special term o f majesty with royal
as well as high-priestly and prophetic associations’. ‘Son o f M an’ is not only
‘elect’ and ‘just” but also the title o f the hidden one, the Messiah, after his
revelation to Israel. Late rabbinic tradition could call the Messiah, alluding to
Dan. 7:13, ianànî, Strack-Billerbeck I, pp. 486, 957; see Justin, Dial. 32.1.
certain; they could pray for his quick return with the call,
maran ’ata, ‘Our Lord, com e!’ From here then, the one yielded
to the other. I f God had confirmed his crucified Messiah
through the resurrection and exalted him to his right hand, it
was thus fitting, not the least o f all because o f Ps. 2:7 and 2
Sam. 7:14, that he receive the title o f honour ‘Son o f God’,
which clearly emphasized his relation to the Father, instead o f
the obscure term ‘Son o f Man’. Had he not, after all, taught
his disciples to call on God as the kind Father, to address him
without any fear as ‘Abba’ (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6; cf. Mark
14:36)?73Already Paul confesses in connection with his vision
o f Christ, which took place some two or three years after Jesus’
death, that it pleased God ‘ to reveal his Son to me’ (Gal. 1:16).
According to the old confession o f Rom. l:3ff., Jesus, the Son
o f David, was appointed as the Son o f God through the
resurrection. I f God himself had revealed himself ultimately
and once for all time in the life and death o f Jesus, the One
Exalted to the Son and the Lord o f the Church, then the Son
o f God stood not only in rank above all the angels - at the
same time his relation to the revelation at Sinai and to Moses
as the Lawgiver had to be determined anew. For according to
the common Jewish view, God had given the people o f Israel
in the Torah his universal, final revelation through Moses at
Sinai. All the later words o f the prophets - indeed, even the
Messiah - were expositions o f this Torah. Against this, the
absoluteness and unsurpassability o f the final word o f God in
his Son Jesus could not have been expressed more clearly or
unequivocally than in the message that this crucified Messiah
was a pre-existent Being, identified before creation and before
time with the wisdom o f God, a privilege which until then had
been the prerogative o f the Torah. This situation is still
discernible in the Prologue o f John: ‘For the Law was given
through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ’
(1:17). Thus, the unity o f the word and work o f God in
creation and history was restored, and his eschatological
73Jeremias, Abba, pp. 15-67; idem, Theologie, pp. 45, 67ff.; G. Schelbert,
‘Sprachgeschichtliches zu A b b a’, in Mélanges Dominique Barthélémy, O B O 38
(Fribourg, Gottingen, 1981), pp. 395-447. See also S. Kim, ‘The Son o f M a n ' as
the Son o f God.
revelation in Jesus o f Nazareth obtained the rank which could

not be surpassed. The Crucified and Exalted One was now, as
the pre-existent Mediator o f Creation, identical with the
divine Word o f revelation o f the Old Covenant. Through this
the certainty was obtained that in Jesus, God himself had
disclosed his complete salvation - that is, his love for human
beings. This thoroughly bold, dynamic way o f thinking took
place in the astonishingly short space o f hardly more than
fifteen years. As Paul began his great missionary journeys
toward the end o f the 40s, it was already complete. In his
letters no further christological development can be seen. The
decisive basic development seems to have been completed ten
years earlier.
The unfolding o f New Testament christology, however
strange it may appear to us today, was certainly not idle
speculation or haphazard mythological ‘wild growth’ . We find
rather an amazing inner consistency from the oldest Christian
confession to the Prologue o f the Fourth Gospel. The earliest
Christians attempted with the contemporary Jewish though t-
forms, which were passed on to them, to so formulate God’s
self-disclosure in the crucified Galilean, Jesus o f Nazareth, that
neither the human reality o f the life and suffering o f Jesus
would be abandoned, nor the absolute ultimateness o f God’s
revelation and presence in Jesus, which gave them certainty
o f salvation. In the irresolvable dialectic between the two poles
lies the truth and the power o f the Christian faith.
Index of
Modem Authors
Abbott, E. A. 305, 310 Berger, K. 205, 208, 209

Abramowski, L. 243 Beskow, P. 337
Acerbi, A. 193, 222 Betz, O. 180, 267, 324, 376
Achelis, H. 244 Bickermann, E. 364
Aland, K. 142, 166, 260 Bieder, W. 95, 121
Allegro, J. M. 376 Bietenhard, H. 191
Alt, F. 72 Billerbeck, P. 34, 36, 66, 190, 235,
Altaner, B. 248, 249 317, 324, 374, 387
Andresen, C. 127, 383 Bizer, E. 276
Appold, M. L. 349 Black, M. 387
Arseniew, N. v. 274 Blinzler, J. 50, 386
Ashton 285 Böhlig, A. 241
Astour, M. C. 328 Boismard, M. E. 304
Attridge, H. W. 197 Boisserée, S. 362
Aune, D. 323 Börner, F. 364
Borgen, P. 302
Borig, R. 315
Baillet, M. 201, 202 Bornkamm, G. 42
Balsdon, J. P. V. D. 373 Borsch, F. H. 387
Barbel, J. 376 Botte, B. 125, 248
Bardenhewer, O. 241 Bousset, W. 16, 18, 20-1, 21, 27, 74,
Barns, J. W. B. 260 184, 246, 381
Barrett, C. K. 294, 299, 304, 369 Bowker, J. W. 175
Barth, K. 300, 303, 365 Braun, H. 146, 373
Bauer, W. 121, 142, 166, 218, 239, Brennecke, H. C. 120, 228
266, 269, 296, 340, 360 Breuss, J. 294
Baumgartner, W. 171 Broer, I. 324, 326
Beck, E. 297 Brox, N. 208
Becker, J. 294, 299, 303, 305, 307-8, Buchheit, V. 254
365 Büchsel, F. 303
Bengel, J. A. 366 Bühner, Jan-A. 369
Benko, S. 233, 323 Bujard, W. 272
391
Bultmann, R. xi, xii, 28, 42, 43, 44, Derrett, J. D. M. 295, 298, 299
47, 50, 55, 56, 74, 84, 92, 93, 278, Deschamps, G. 321
295, 299, 304, 306, 307, 308, 335, Dibelius, M. 208, 265, 295, 299, 379
343, 365, 371 Diehl, E. 209
Burckhardt, J. 355 Dihle, A. 254, 255, 256
Burger, C. 285 Dinkier, E. 361
Burkitt, C. F. 233 Dix, G. 248
Dodd, C. H. 170
Caird, G. 293 Dohmnes, A. 265
Callan, T. 135 Dölger, F. J. 254, 262, 263, 264, 284
Calvin, J. 170 Donner, H. 175
Campenhausen, H. von 343 Doutreleau, L. 301
Capelle, B. 236 Drijvers, H. J. W. 241, 247, 248
Caragounis, C. C. 387 Dschulnigg, R 305
Carlyle, T. 21 Dunn, J. D. G. 138, 158, 163, 365
Carmignac 100 Dupont, J. 135, 138
Carson, D. A. 305
Casey, M. 383 Ebner, M. 138
Caspari, W. 227, 235, 239, 247, 249, Ego, B. 149, 179, 200
257, 260, 267 Elbogen, I. 265
Cavallin, H. C. C. 208 Eltester, F. W. 382
Charles, R. H. 92,107 Ehester, W. 365
Charlesworth, J. H. 36, 181, 203, 208,
231, 244, 365 Fabry, H.-J. 156
Christ, F. 75, 79 Farris, S. 232, 233
Christ, W. 247, 254 Fauth, W. 248, 328
Cohen, M. S. 193 Fears, J. R. 366
Collins, J. J. 39, 201, 202, 203 Feldmeier, R. 160, 340
Colpe, C. 60, 62,109, 328, 387 Feuillet, A. 74, 365, 370
Conzelmann, H. 30, 41-4, 48, 51, 57, Fitzmyer, J. A. 100, 381
58, 93, 156 Flacèliere, R. 373
Corbin, S. 227 Flemming, J. 244
Cousin, G. 321 Flusser, D. 3, 236
Cowley, A. E. 200 Foakes Jackson, F. J. 34
Cramer, J. A. 281 Foerster, W. 381
Cranfield, C. E. B. 139 Fohrer, G. 74-5
Cullmann, O. 34 Fontaine, J. 227, 248
Culpepper, R. A. 244, 312 Fortna, R. T. 304
Fossum,J. E. 156,171, 191, 192,197,
Dahl, N. A. 45, 47, 386 365, 368, 377, 380
Dalman, G. 386 Freudenberger, R. 264, 359
Daniélou, J. 376 Fuchs, E. ix, 28-9
Dautzenberg, G. 267, 268 Fuchs, H. 385
Davies, J. G. 363 Fuller, R. H. 365
Deichgräber, R. 228, 229, 264, 272, Funk, F. X. 249, 266
279, 280, 285, 287, 288, 364
Deines, R. 322 Gabathuler, H. J. 278
Delbrueck, R. 50 Gager, J. G. 324
Delitzsch, F. 138 Gaselee, S. 327
Delling, G. 138, 145, 269 Geerad, M. 248
Denis, A.-M. 141, 374 Georgi, D. 278
Deqaeker, L. 195 Gerleman, G. 175
Index of Modem Authors 393
Gerold, T. 227 Heitsch, E. 254, 256, 259
Gese, H. 177, 214, 236, 285, 328, 369, Hengel, M. 27, 42, 50, 52, 78, 137,
385 140, 153, 156, 157, 158, 167,
Gnilka, J. 319 168, 170, 171, 172, 174, 186,
Goethe, J. W. x, 295, 361-2 201, 207, 212, 214, 215, 217,
Goltz, E. von der 237, 252, 265, 279 218,219, 220, 221,224, 235,
Goodenough, E. R. 302, 330 236, 238, 245, 264, 267, 277,
Goodspeed, E. J. 261, 262 281,285, 290, 299,312,316,
Goppelt, L. 60 319, 322, 323, 329, 337, 339,
Görg, M. 213 340, 342, 345, 347, 353, 354,
Gourgues, M. 135,137,138,143, 377 359, 360, 361, 363, 364, 365,
Grant, R. M. 261 368, 369, 371, 372, 373, 375,
Grässer, E. 160 377, 379, 381, 383, 384, 385,
Gressmann, H. 184 386
Grillmeier, A. 120, 129, 363, 377 Hennequin, E. 213
Grimm, W. 324 Heppe, H. 276
Grözinger, K. E. 228, 235, 267 Hess, W. 25
Gruenwald, I. 157, 191, 265 Heubner, H. 50, 328
Grundmann, W. 136, 233, 385 Higgins, A. J. B. 377
Guarducci, M. 242, 248 Hill, G. F. 329
Gunkel, H. 232 Hoffmann, E. G. 139
Hofius, O. 142, 146,148, 149, 153,
Haacker, K. 197, 200 156,161, 275, 281, 288, 365, 366,
Habermann, J. 163 373, 379, 380, 382
Habicht, C. 373 Hoh, S.J. 132
Hahn, A. 120,122,124, 125,126, Holl, K. 126
222, 241 Holladay, C. R. 190
Hahn, F. 9, 34, 35, 61, 134, 135, 138, Holleman, A. W. J. 254, 255, 257
139, 279, 365 Holm-Nielsen, S. 230
Hahn, L. 222 Holtzmann, H.J. 15, 18, 23, 24, 41,
Hall, S. G. 261 . 121
Halperin, D. J. 157, 181, 189, 190, Horton, F. L. 368
191,192,197,198,199, 377 Howard, W. F. 297
Hamman, A. 227, 258, 259 Hruby, K. 386
Hamman, A. G. 184 Hübner, R. M. 125,130
Hampel, V. 60, 61 Hultgren, A. J. 385
Hänggi, A. 132, 266 Hunger, H. 327
Hanslik, R. 360 Hurst, L. D. 163, 288
Harder, G. 279 Hurtado, L. W. 171, 288, 365, 379,
Harnack, A. von 174, 214, 232, 240, 381
241, 248, 253, 297, 366 Hurwitz, S. 386
Harnack, T. 239 Hussey, R. 257, 267
Harner, P. B. 370 Hyldahl, N. 127
Harvey, W. W. 301
Hatch, W. H. P. 373
Isaac, E. 186
Hay, D. M. 135, 377
Heckei, U. 154,192
Heekerens, H. P. 304, 305, 309 Jacobsen, H. 190
Heinemann, I. 237, 265, 386 Janowski, B. 328, 385
Heinemann, J. 386 Janssen, L. F. 360
Heinrici, C. F. G. 260 Jaubert, A. 315
Heitmüller, W. 295, 298 Jellinek, A. 196,197
Jeremias, J. 60, 88, 90, 121, 197, 200, Kuschel, K.-J. 163
237, 288, 315, 366, 369, 375, 383, Kysar, R. 294, 305, 312
386, 387, 388
Jervell.J. 382 Lacombrade, C. 248
Joannou, P.-P. 245 de Lagarde, P. 15
Johnston, G. 369 Lake, K. 34, 333
dejon ge, H. J. 316 Lamouille, A. 304
de Jonge, M. 305, 370, 385 Lampe, G. W. H. 283
Jörns, K.-P. 229 Lampe, P. 242, 243
Jungmann, J. A. 246 Lang, F. 5
Lapperousaz, E. M. 377
Lattke, M. 243
Kahle, P. 156 Laurentin, R. 233
Käsemann, E. 26, 28, 32, 116, 278, le Déaut, R. 316
369, 373 Leclerq, H. 377
Kattenbusch, F. 120, 122-3, 125, 129 Leisegang 270
Kaufmann, C. M. 209 Leitner, F. 227, 248, 274
Keel, O. 176 Leloir, L. 299
Kehl, A. 241,251 Leroy, H. 312
Kelly, J. N. D. 120, 121, 122 Liddell, H. G. 269, 321, 384
Kienle, H. 329 Lieberman, S. 191
Kilpatrick, G. D. 260 Lietzmann, H. 6, 120, 124, 125, 126,
Kim, S. 170, 387, 388 263, 369
Kittel, B. 230 Lightfoot, J. B. 272
Klauser, T. 254 Lindars, B. 309
Klein, H. 370 Lindemann, A. 41-4, 48, 51, 57, 58,
Klostermann, E. 233 156
Knopf, R. 277 Loader, W. R. G. 135, 138, 143, 146,
Knox, W. L. 326 147, 379
Kobelski, P. J. 184, 368 Lohfink, G. 128, 138,139, 140, 222
Koch, E. 120 Lohmeyer, E. 205, 272, 274, 288
Koch, K. 179 Lohr, H. 143, 149
Koehler, L. 171 Lohse, E. 181, 237, 376
Koenen, L. 258 Loisy, A. 233, 352
Kollwitz, J. 253 Longenecker, R. N. 377, 381
Koppelmann, F. 25, 26 Lücke 296
Körner, U. H. 316 Lüdemann, G. 17
Koschorke, K. 363 Lührmann, D. 335, 376
Köster, H. 305 Lust, J. 184
Kraft, H. 141 Luther, M. 119, 274, 276
Kramer, W. 279, 385 Luz, U. 165
Kraus, H.-J. 136, 176
Kraus, W. 161 Macdonald, J. 200
Krauss, S. 15 Mach, M. 171
Kreyenbühl, F. 25 Mack, B. 382
Kroll, J. 227, 235, 238, 239, 240, 241, Marcus, R. 197
246, 252, 254, 257, 259, 260, 261, Markschies, C. xiv, 122-3, 124, 126,
263, 264, 269, 287, 288 127, 128, 129, 130, 132,137,179,
Kuhn, H. W. 363 184, 242, 253
Kuhn, K. G. 202 Martin, R. P. 288
Kümmel, W. G. 60 Martinez, Garcia 39
Kurfess, A. 243, 254 Mastin, B. A. 366
Mattingly, H. 195 Paulus, H. E. G. 296
Mayser, E. M. 141 Peek, W. 209
Mearns,J. 235 Pellegrino, M. 254
Meeks, W. A. 197, 200, 312 Percy, E. 272
Merino, L. D. 170 Perler, O. 261
Merkel, H. x Pesch, R. 173, 296
Merkelbach, R. 375 Peterson, E. 280
Merx, A. 23, 24 Pfister, F. 373
Meshorer, Y. 315 Pietersma, A. 156
Metzger, B. M. 304 Pietri, C. 125
Metzger, W. 279 Plepelits, K. 327
Michel, A. 248 Pöhlmann, E. 255, 257
Michel, O. 238, 375 Pöhlmann, H. G. 276
Mildenberg, L. 315 Popkes, W. 385
Milik, J. T. 39, 100, 105, 111-12, 368 Porten, B. 213
Millar, F. 41, 329, 345 Potin, J. 314
Mommsen, T. 329 Preuschen, E. 241, 256, 317, 333
Moule, C. F. D. 365 Puech, E. 386
Mühl, M. 373 Purvis, J. D. 197
Mühlenberg, E. 257
Müller, U. B. 369, 379 Quandt, G. 283
Müller, W. B. 387 Quasten, J. 227, 245, 248, 250, 255,
Murphy O ’Connor, J. 287 256, 263, 265, 274
Musurillo, H. 357 Quecke, H. 259
Nautin, P. 261 Rad, G. von 104

Newsom, C. 230 Rahlfs, A. 235, 269
Neyrinck, F. 305 Rahmani, L. Y. 3
Nicol, W. 299, 309 Reitzenstein, R. 74, 259
Nilsson, M. P. 375 Richert, U. 232, 233, 234
Noetzel, H. 326 Riemann, H. 361
Norden, E. 228, 260, 269, 278, 279, Riesner, R. 140, 172, 174, 214
281, 284, 286, 287, 288 Rietschel, P.-P. 245
Norsa, M. 260 Riggenbach, E. 146
Ritter, A. M. 126
Odeberg, H. 192, 199, 368 Ritter, G. 130
Oepke, A. 374 Roberts, C. H. 260
Olshausen, H. 296, 299, 300 Robertson, H. 269
Olsson, B. 294, 309, 311-12, 313, Robertson, N. 373
314, 322 Roloff, J. 229, 312
Opelt, I. 361 Römer, F. 262
Opitz, H.-G. 124 Rösch, M. 156
Orbe, A. 363 Rose, H. J. 373
Osten-Sacken, P. von de 138 Rousseau, A. 233, 301
Overbeck, F. C. 253 Rousseau, F. 234
Ruckstuhl, E. 294, 305, 365
Page, D. L. 259 Rüger, H. P. 149, 377
Pahl, I. 266
Paranikas, M. 247, 254 Salzmann, J. C. 238, 277, 359
Par men tier, L. 267 Sanders, J. A. 39, 230
Paul, I. 132 Sanders, J. T. 364
Paulsen, H. 138, 266 Schaeder, H. H. 259
Schäfer, P. 149, 157, 179, 192, 193, Skeat, T. C. 236
195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, Smith, M. 201, 202, 323, 324, 326,
368 328-9, 361
Schäfke, W. 322 Smitmans, A. 297, 298, 299, 300, 304,
Schalit, A. 40 308, 314, 317, 324, 325
Schaller, B. 206, 207, 208, 269 Smothers, E. R. 254
Scheidweiller, F. 267 Snell, B. 269
Scheibert, G. 388 Soden, H. von 22, 23
Schendel, E. 163 Soggin, A. 136
Schermann, T. 258 Spengler, O. 342
Schille, G. 278 Spicq 267
Schimanowski, G. 149, 157, 214, 285, Staab, K. 281
382 Staerck, W. 24-5
Schlatter, A. 4, 32, 50, 60, 62, 140, Starcky, J. 99, 100, 101, 377, 385
302 Stenger, W. 287
Schlier, H. 375 Stern, M. 329, 346, 360
Schmid, H. 276, 312 Strack, H. L. 36, 317, 374, 387
Schmidt, C. 319 Straub, J. 373
Schmidt, K. L. 279 Strauss, D. F. xv, 295, 324
Schmithals, W. 9 Strecker, G. 27
Schnackenburg, R. 294, 299, 302, Strugnell,J. 376
304, 305, 340, 343 Stuhlmacher, P. 161
Schneider, C. 373 Stuiber, A. 248, 249
Schneider, H. 235 Suyman, A. H. 138
Schölten, J. H. 15 Swete, H. B. 281
Schräge, W. 208 Swroboda, O. 259
Schreiner, S. 175, 178 Syme, R. 360
Schriftlesung 277
Schultz, P. 199 Taeger, F. 373
Schültz, W. 258 Taschow, C. H. 276
Schürer, E. 329, 345 Teilhard de Chardin, P. 74
Schür mann, H. 234 Theisohn, J. 108, 186, 188, 387
Schwartz, E. 245 Theissen, G. 267, 322, 323
Schweitzer, A. 20, 59 Theobald, M. 365
Schweizer, E. 287, 305, 370 Thornton, C. 144
Schwemer, A. M. 143, 157, 184, 189, Thüsing, W. 138
194, 195, 196, 201, 228 Thyen, H. 294, 309, 365
Schwyzer, E. 141 Tondriau,J. 373
Scott, R. 269, 321, 384 Tripolitis, A. 254
Seeberg, A. 279 Tröger, K. W. 363
Segal, A. F. 192, 194, 195, 374, 377, Turner, C. H. 124, 125, 233
380
Seibt, K. 129 Uhlig, S. 185, 186, 213
Serra, A. M. 314, 315
Sherwin-White, A. N. 262, 264, 359, van Belle, G. 305
360 van der Horst, P. 190-1, 197
Siber, P. 205 van der Ploeg, J. P. M. 230
Sieben, H.-J. 257 van der Woude, A. S. 385
Siebenthal, H. von 139 van Esbroeck, M. 261
Siegert, F. 260 van Haelst, J. 235, 254, 256, 258, 259,
Simon, M. 195, 373 266
Sjöberg, E. 60, 95 van Loewenich, W. 300
Verheule, A. F. 21, 246 Werner, E. 235
Vermes, G. 324, 329, 345 Werner, F. 228
Vielhauer, P. 36, 92, 156, 234 Werner, M. 376
Vilborg, E. 327 Wernle, P. 22, 24, 25, 381
Vogels, H.-J. 120 Wessely, C. 183
Vogt, E. 190 Wettstein, J. 283
Völker, K. 248 Wikenhauser, A. 312
Volkmar, G. 15 Wilcke, H.-A. 163
Vollenweider, S. 248 Wilckens, U. 74, 144, 375
Völter, D. 233 Wille, G. 255
Voobus, A. 244 Williams, R. 377
Windisch, H. 300, 373
Wanamaker, C. A. 379 Winkelmann, F. 257
Waszink, J. H. 121 Wolbergs, T. 227, 241, 251, 252, 253,
Wead, D. W. 294 254, 255, 256, 265
Weber, R. 252 Wrede, W. xi, 7, 13, 15-16, 17, 18, 19,
Weber, S. 131 20, 21,24, 32, 33, 34, 41
Weismann, W. 249 Wright, N. T. 163
Weiss, B. 303
Weiss, H.-F. 142, 146, 160 Xella, S. P. 328, 329
Weiss, J. 13, 19, 21, 288
Wellesz, E. J. 254, 255
Wellhausen, J. 16,17,19, 32, 33, 44 Yadin, C. 230
Wendland, P. 259
Wengst, K. 156, 278, 279, 364, 369, Zahn, T. 140,172, 227, 233, 303
385 Zuntz, G. 384
Index of Names and Subjects
Ambrosius 247 Christ (continued)

angel christology 171, 221-2, 376-7 the Son 368-9, 373
Apollinaris o f Laodicea 125-6 Son o f God 375-6, 388
Apollonius o f Tyana 325, 335 Son o f Man 10, 34-5, 41,
Apostolic Constitutions 239, 245-6 58-63, 104-8, 114-15, 222,
Apostolic Creed 119-33 387-8
Arius 257 Suffering Righteous 115
Athanasius 257 Christian Platonists 124, 127
Augustine 340 Clemens, Titus Flavius 334
Ps.-Clement 249
Cassiodorus 324 Clement Alexandria 124, 159, 247,
Cassius Dio 49, 334 250-2, 265
Celsus 339, 361, 363 crucifixion, use o f 47-50
Christ Cyprian 248-9
ascension (see also enthronement,
o f Christ) 222
Kingdom, in John 333-57 David 194-6
as Messiah 1-72, 217, 219-20 Didache 239
and crucifixion 41-58 Dio Cassius 49
in history o f research 15-32 Dionysios o f Alexandria 256
and Jewish Messiah dogmatic Domitian 333-5
32-41 Domitilla 334
and ministry 63-72 Donata 357
in Paul 1-7 enthronement
in pre-Pauline tradition 7-15 o f Christ
and wisdom 104-8, 114-15 in Apostolic Creed 119-33
miracles see wine-miracle communality with the Father
preaching 90-3 148-51
resurrection 7-15, 217-19 intercession and dominion
song about see song 145-8
as teacher o f wisdom 73-117 in Paul 153-8
titles o f David 194-6
the Crucified 363, 382-3 o f martyrs 204-6
High Priest 159-63, 378-9 o f Metatron 191-4, 199
Lord 223, 377-8, 380-2 o f Moses 190-1, 196-200
Messiah 58-63, 376, 384-6 o f the pious 206-12
399
enthronement (continued) Qumran (see also index o f chief passages
and Qumran 201-3 cited) 34, 37, 41, 98, 312, 368
o f wisdom 212-14 Seneca 344
Ephraem Syrus 247, 258 Serapion o f Thmuis 266
Epictetus 342 Shepherd o f Hermas 265
Epiphanius 125, 129 Shmuel 36
Eusebius 49, 263, 333 Simon bar Kosiba 361
Socrates (Scholasticus) 266
Gnostics 124, 240-3, 253 song
Gregory o f Nazianzus about Christ
Hanina ben Dosa 323 as god 359-60, 364-5
Hegessipus 333-35, 341 New Testament fragments 277-
Hilarius 247 91 e sp .284-91
Hippolytus 239, 247, 248 in early Christian worship
paucity o f evidence 22,7-39
Ignatius o f Antioch 128-9, 264, spontaneous 246-62
266-7, 367 supplanted by psalter 239-46
Irenaeus 126, 130-2, 300-2, 312 esp. 244-6
types: songs and psalms 262-77
Josephus 2, 37, 40, 85, 340, 345 in Jewish worship 227-31
Judas the Galilean 345 in Luke 230-6
Justin Martyr 124, 126-8, 239, 261-2, Speratus 357
337, 348-9 Stoics 342
Leucippe and Clitophon 326-7 Suetonius 2, 48, 49, 172-3
Sulpicius Severus 346
Marcionites 241, 296 Synesios o f Cyrene 247
Melito o f Sardis 129, 132, 260-1 Synod o f Laodicea 245
Methodius o f Olympos 253-4 Syriac Didascalia 244
Metatron 191-4, 199, 368
Moses 190-1, 196-200 Tacitus 2, 49-50, 50, 85, 346, 360
Tertullian 244, 248, 249, 263
Nassene Hymn 253 Therapeutae 240
Nepos o f Arsinoe 256-7 Tome o f Pope Damasus 125
Trajan 334
Origen 257, 317 Trishagion 236, 265-6
Ovid 363-4 Trypho 361
Paul o f Samosata 245 Valentinus 253
Philo 367
Philostratus 334-5 wine-miracle (John 2:1-11)
Pliny the Younger 262-3, 334, 359- and Dionysiac influence 326-31
60 doubtful character 294-7
Polycarp 130, 167-8 external contours 320-6
Porphyry 172 and semeia-source theory 303-9
Prudentius 247 symbolic interpretation 297-303
Ps. 110:1 as unified story 309-20
age o f the tradition 172-5 wisdom 73-5, 212-14
and beginnings o f christology and beginnings o f christology
214-25 108-17
New Testament 133-53, 221 sayings in logia source 75-87
O ld Testament 175-84 and son o f Man and Messiah
Qumran 184 104-8, 114-15
Similitudes o f Enoch 185-9 and Spirit of God 93-104, 114
Index of Chief Passages Cited
Old Testament Matthew (continued)

11:28-30 87-9, 88-9
Genesis
12:41-42 77-8
1:2 94-5
91 19:28 188
4:17-18
23:34-39 84-6
49:10-12 315
25:31 188
Psalms
Mark
2:7 375
2:17 90
8:5-7 163-6,168-9
2:27a 90
16:8-1 lb 211 6: 1-6 82
80:18 168-9
11:15-18 56
110:1 119-225 passim, esp. 133-7 11:27-32 56
Proverbs 12:35-37 56-7
3:19 94 14:62 186-7
6:6-7 91 15 50-2
8:12-14 96 Luke
27:8 91 1:46-55 232
1:74-79 234
Isaiah
38, 57, 95 7:31-35 80-2
11:1-4
14:13-14 180-1 10:21 79-80
11:31-32 77-8
42:1 96
11:49 83-4
52:13 180
11:52 83-4
61:1-2 38
110 13:34-35 84-6
61:1-3
16:16 78
Daniel
lohn
7:9-14 181-4,185-6
1:1-18 285, 291, 365-72
2:1-11 293-331
New Testament 18 :33-1 333-57 passim,
esp. 354-7
Matthew
8:20 92 Acts
10:16 90 2:33-34 143
11:16- 19 80-2 5:31 143-4
11:25 79-80 7:55-56 144
401
Romans Apocrypha (continued)
1:3-4 157-8, 375-6 9:1-4 102
1:5 221 9:9-11 101-2
3:25 161 9:17-18 102
4:25 161
Sirach 36:31 [26] 92
8:34 138-43,144-5,151-2,158-60
11:33-36 280-1 1 Enoch 35-6, 105-8
42:2 92
1 Corinthians
48:1 107
8:6 113, 280
48:3, 6-7 106-7
14:15 269-71
49: Iff. 105-6
14:26 268
51:3 106,185,188
15:24-27 163-5
55:4 185,188
Ephesians 61:8 185,188
1:20-22 166 62:2 106,185
5:14 281-4 62:3 188
5:18-20 275-6 71:16 107
Philippians Testament o f the Twelve Patriarchs
2:6-11 153,155-7, 288-9, 379-83 Test. Lev. 18 37
Colossians Test. Lev. 18:lff. 98-9
1:15-16 113 Test.Jud. 24 37, 99
3:16-17 271-5
Psalms o f Solomon
1 Thessalonians 17 35-6, 96-8
5:19-22 271 18:7-8 97
1 Timothy
3:16 285-6
Qumran texts
Hebrews
IQ S 9:11 40
1:3 148, 152
1QM 11:7 39
1:3-5 372-3
1:13 377 4 Q 2 5 2 V 3 -4 39
2:17-18 378 4Q491 201-3
4:16 160 4 Q 590-1 100-1
5:7-9 378 4QFlor 376
7:25 160-1
8:1 148 llQ P s a 27:2-11 100
10:22 160 llQ M e lc h 39-40
12:2 148, 379 llQ M e lc h 3 II 1.16 184
12:22 161
13:13-14 379
13:20 153
Other texts
1 Peter
Exagoge o f Exekiel 190-1
3:22 144-5,145
Testament o fjo b 33 206-7
Revelation
3:21 150 Syriac Odes o f Solomon 231, 243,
7:9-10,17 151 246
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Rabbinic literature

o f the Old Testament
Tg. Isa. 53:5, 11 99
Wisdom o f Solomon Gen. Rab. 98:9 99
7:22-27 101 Midr.Teh. Ps. 21:1 100

Studies in Early Christology

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Studies in Early Christology

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

STUDIES IN EARLY CHRISTOLOGY

Copyright © T & T Clark Ltd, 1995

Figures 1 and 2, pp. 177-78, copyright © O. Keel, 1972.

All rights reserved. N o part o f this publication may be reproduced,

First published 1995

ISBN 0 567 09705 6 (H B )

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Typeset by Waverley Typesetters, Galashiels

1 Jesus, the Messiah o f Israel 1

Index of Modern Authors 391

CH ARLES KIN G SLEY BARRETT

Christology, the doctrine concerning God’s revelation in Christ

1Rom. 1:1; 15:16; 1 Thess. 2:2, 8f.

triune God. In my opinion, this is a matter which determines

serves as a point o f departure for Christology: tiç ap a outoç

5 Luke 10:21-22 = Matt. 11:25-27.

Was ihr den Geist der Zeiten heißt,

All too frequently, such works are neither a ‘real historical-

7 Willaim Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Göttingen, 1903, 3rd

o f scholarly dispute, but also - more significantly for our

8 C. Breytenbach and H. Paulsen (eds), Anfänge der Christologie (Göttingen,

110,1’ .9 Psalm 110:1 is o f fundamental significance for the

o f the Gospel o f Luke. These songs are heavily influenced by

incompetent attempts at source-critical analysis. Standing at

the earliest preserved Roman witness to Christians, Pliny’s

then any effort to consider the unity o f God and humanity in

Stuckenbruck (Foreword). Finally, I would like to thank Dr

Jesus, the Messiah of Israel

Paul, the earliest Christian author, whose oldest extant letter

Anointed, in particular, the first two kings, Saul and David. In

the substance o f his proclamation is ‘ [the] Christ crucified’ .

For Paul, Jesus was the Messiah o f Israel promised in the

Because the God o f Israel is also the God o f the Gentiles

With this Xpioxöv ôiaxovov yeyevqoöai iï8pixojjif|ç Paul

In Christ all the promises o f God, however many, have been

To this ‘Yes’ , manifest in Christ in the fulfilment o f all

ô ôè ßsßaiwv qjiâç oùv ùjilv eiç Xpioxöv Kai xpfoaç Qeoç, à

5 As formulated by F. Lang, Die Briefe an die Korinther, N T D 7 (Göttingen, 1986).

Except for a slight alteration, I follow Lietzmann’s rendering

7 H. Lietzmann, Korintherbriefe, HNT, p. 102.

To be sure, it may appear to be historically insignificant that

2. The Pre-Pauline Tradition and

If the original title XpiOTÔç already occurs as an established

when Agrippa I acceded as king o f all Judaea. The analogy

detestable messianic fanaticism. That the followers o f this (so

o f Israel, and thereby to offer the people a final opportunity

company with the statement concerning the raising o f Jesus.

disciples (Matt. 28:18f.), which in its turn is oriented on Dan.

problem has already been discussed in extenso by Johannes

In the resurrection accounts in the gospels, and Paul as well,

doubt, the giving o f the Spirit, and the commissioning o f the

incomprehension o f the disciples, albeit, to be sure, in a

3. The Problem in the History o f Research

The ‘doubt o f the messianic certainty o f Jesus’ self-

Understanding the Gospel of Mark. In the foreword he explains in

11 W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (third unaltered edition,

Wrede regarded the messianic secret in the Gospel o f Mark

16 So Wrede, Messiasgeheimnis, p. 131. Prof. Gerd Lüdemann told me that he has

‘fragmentary’ [historical narrative], I could agree with him.

In passing, I wish to note further that if Jesus was not regarded as

that Jesus’ condemnation could only have been effected on the

Nor did Bousset, Wrede’s critical comrade-in-arms, despite

Wellhausen too, who describes the question, ‘whether and

notwithstanding thatJesus was first transformed into the Christian