FirstpublishedinGermanin1913,K y r i o ~ Christostracesthedevelopmentofthe ChristianbeliefaboutJesusinthefirst andsecondcenturiesoftheChristianera, withparticularreferencetothetitle IILord." BoussettheorizedthatJesuswasfirst characterizedandaddressedas"Lord"in GentileChristianityratherthaninthe primitiveJewish-Christiancommunity. This,inturn,ledtohiscontentionthat themostdecisiveturningpointinthede-velopment of Christianity was itstransition toGentile-Christianterritoryinitsearliest days. Throughhisstudy,Boussetbroughtin-tofocusthedevelopmentsoftheReli-gionsgeschichtlicheSchule(history-of-reli-gionsschool)andposedthequestions whicharetodaytheconcernofNew Tes-tamentscholarship. cont'donbackflap ABINGDONPRESS cont'dfromfrontflap The importance of Bousset's totalviews ' andhisrepresentationofculticKyrios-worshipinHellenisticChristianitymake thisbookofcontinuingsignificance.The newGermaneditionwithanintroduction byRudolfBultmannatteststoitslasting prominenceasaclassicinthestudyof Christ. TheAuthor : WILHELMBOUSSET,Germanreligioushis-torianandcritic,wasoneofthefounders ofthehistory-of-religionsschool(Reli-gionsgeschichtlicheSchule).Hewasborn inLubeck in1865 andtaught at Gottingen andat Giessen.Hediedin1920. The Translator: JOHNE.STEELYisprofessorofhistorical theology,SoutheasternBaptistTheologi-calSeminary,WakeForest,NorthCaro-lina.TheChristianResearchFoundation presentedhimwithawardsforboththe translationofthisworkandforWalter Schmithals'TheOfficeofApostleinthe Early Church,alsopublishedby Abingdon. ABINGDONPRESS JACKETDESIGNBYGIORGETTABELL I ~ [ O O ~ [ ~O O @ ~ ~ ~ [ f f i o translatedbyJohnE.Steely AHistoryoftheBeliefinChristfrom theBeginn'ingsof ChristianitytoIrenaeus NashvilleABINGDONPRESSNewYork KYRIOSCHRISTOS Copyright1970byAbingdonPress Translation:fromtheGermanlanguagewiththeapproval ofthePublishingHouseVandenhoeck&Ruprecht,Goettingen. Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,Goettingen Allrightsinthisbookarereserved. Nopartofthebookmaybereproducedinany mannerwhatsoeverwithoutwrittenpermissionof thepublishersexceptbriefquotationsembodiedin criticalarticlesorreviews.Forinformationaddress AbingdonPress,Nashville,Tennessee. ISBN:0-687-20983-8 LibraryofCongressCatalogCardNumber:73-109684 SETUP,PRINTED,ANDBOUNDBYTHE PARTHENONPRESS,ATNASHVILLE, TENNESSEE,UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA TRANSLA TOR'S PREFACE NoargumentneedstobeofferedtojustifythetranslationofWilhelm Bousset'sKyriosChristos.Onecanonlywonderwhyitwasnotdonelong ago.Thesameintrinsicmeritofthebookwhichevokedsuchacontinuing appreciationofitinitsGermandress,andwhichhascalledforththefifth andsixtheditionswithinthepastfiveyears,maybecitedasexplanation enoughfortheworkofbringingittothepublicthatreadsnoGerman. Theworkoftranslatinghasbeenmademoreenjoyable,ifnoteasier, bytheauthor'screativeimaginationandhissometimeslyricalgrace.While thisbookbuildspainstakinglyuponafoundationofdetaileddocumentary evidence,thevigoroususeofaninformedimaginationisevidentonevery page.Thenecessarilytediousstyleofmuchofthebookgiveswaynowand thentoapoeticexpressionthatiseminentlysuitedtothetaskofsum-marizingamood,anoutlook,ayearning.Itwillbeevidentthatthese passageshavebeenthe most difficult part of the translator's work. ItisapleasuretoexpressthankstotheChristianResearchFoundation, Inc.,fortheprizeawardedthistranslationinthe1966-67competition. AppreciationisduealsototheSoutheasternBaptistTheologicalSeminary alumni,whoseAlumniFundhelpedwiththecostoftypingthemanuscript. Mrs.NormaOwensHashworkedfaithfullyandwithgreatskillinthe preparationofthetypescript.Mr.JamesAndersonandotherunnamed friendsgavehelpforwhichIamdeeplygrateful.Aboveall,mythanks mustgotomyfamily,whoencouragedandassistedmeininnumerable waystoward the completion of thisundertaking. WakeForest,NorthCarolina June1969 JOHNE.STEELY INTRODUCTORYWORD TOTHEFIFTHEDITION AmongtheworksofNewTestamentscholarshipthestudyofwhichI usedtorecommendinmylecturestostudentsasindispensable,aboveall belongedWilhelmBousset'sKyriosChristos.Irejoicethatthisworkisnow toappearinanewedition,forit isstilltruethatitsstudyisindispensable; indeedonecansaythatthishastodaybecomeallthemoretrue.Forthis workintroducesinincomparablefashionthequestionswhichtodayare stirringNewTestamentscholarship,andinfactfortheveryreasonthat theworkitselfhasbroughtaboutthepresentsituationwiththequestions anddiscussionswhichconcernit.Inthisworkthedemandsraisedby Bousset'spredecessorsandcontemporariesoftheso-calledhistory-of-religions school(I mention only W. Wrede,H.Gunkel, J.Weiss,and W.Heitmuller) forthefirsttimehavebeenbroughttofulfillmentinacoherentandcom-prehensive presentation. Ineedonlyatafewpointstoillustratethesignificancewhichthe history-o/-religionsschoolhashadforthestudyandunderstandingofthe New Testament. 1.Thesignificanceofeschatology-atopicwhichdowntothepresent dominatesthediscussiontoalargemeasure-wasfirstfullyrecognizedby thehistory-of-religionsschool.JohannesWeiss(in1892and1900)showed howJesus'preachingofthekingdomofGodmustbeunderstoodfromthe perspectiveofeschatology.InBousset'sKyriosChristosthetopicbecomes directlyrelevantinthepresentationoftheprimitivePalestiniancommunity, butindirectlyitremainscurrentthroughouttheentirework,because accordingtoBoussetin HellenisticChristianity thecultically revered ttKyrios Christos"hasappearedintheplaceoftheeschatologicalfigureofthe((Son of Man." The problem of the relation of eschatology andcultus isthusraised. 2.Thisindicatesasecondpoint.HellenisticChristianity,withinwhich PaulandJohnfirstbecomeunderstandable,istobedistinguished/romthe primitivePalestiniancommunity.Boussetnowhasclearlyseenthatitis 7 KYRIOSCHRISTOS necessarytodevelopapictureofpre-PaulineHellenisticChristianity,and heprefacesthechaptersonPaulandJohnwithjustsuchapresentation. Onemaysaythatthisviewinthemeantimehasbecomethecommon propertyofthehistoricalstudyoftheNewTestament. 3.ThethemeofthedistinctionbetweenPalestinianandHellenistic ChristianityincludesthestimulatingtopicsrrJesusandPaul"andrrThehis-toricalJesusandthekerygma ticChrist,"thesecondofwhichespeciallyis beingdiscussedtoday. 4.Alsothethemesofthesacramentandthechurch,whichtodayplay anessentialroleintheologicaldiscussion,havebeenmadecurrentbythe history-of-religionsschoolandespeciallybyBousset'sKyriosChristos. 5.BoussetsoughttogainanunderstandingofthepeculiarityofHel-lenisticChristianityfromthestudy of theinvolvementofChristianthought andconceptswiththethought-worldandconceptualizationsofpagan Hellenism.While hestressedthereinespeciallythesignificanceof themystery religionsandtheworshipof theKyrios,still healsokeptinviewGnosticism, andthepresent-daydiscussionoftheproblemofapre-ChristianGnosticism receivedanimportantimpetusfromhiswork. 6.Boussetintended,byportrayingthedevelopmentofbeliefinChrist downtothetimeofIrenaeus,toremovethewallofseparationbetween, NewTestamenttheologyandthehistoryofdoctrineintheearlychurch. OnlyareferencetotheTheologischesWorterbuchzumNeuenTestament isneededforproofthatthisintentionisjustified.Inconnectionwiththis also,thetraditionalinterpretationofthecanoniscalledinquestion,as WredehadalreadydonebeforeBousset.TheconsequenceofWrede'sde-mandnowbecomesveryevidentinKyriosChristos. ThecorrectnessofBousset'sposingofthequestionsandtheweightofall thesethemesandmotifsbecomeimpressivelycleartothestudentwhenhe seeshowtheyhavedevelopedintheworksof thehistory-of-religionsschool. Butinaquitespecialway,hecanlearnitfromBousset'sKyriosChristos, becauseinthiscomprehensivepresentationhebecomesacquaintedwiththe innerconnectionofthesethemes. It goeswithoutsayingthatsinceBousset,researchhasgonefurther,and thatinparticularmuchofacriticalnaturehasbeensaidaboutKyrios Christos.If thiscriticismisdirectedespeciallyagainstBousset'sthesisthat Jesuswasfirstcharacterizedandaddressedas"Lord,"notintheprimitive communitybutinHellenisticChristianity,stillitmustbesaidthatthe 8 INTRODUCTORYWORDTOTHEFIFTHEDITION correctnessofBousset'stotalviewandofhisrepresentationofthecultic KyriosworshipinHellenisticChristianityisinnowaydependentuponthe correctnessofthisthesis.Thoughitcanberegrettedaboveallthatinhis presentation,essentialmotifsoftheNewTestament,especiallyofPauline theology,havenotbeenbroughtintooperationadequately,onestillmust rememberthatinKyriosChristosBoussetdidnot intendtowriteatheology oftheNewTestament,but that hewrote amonograph,thethemeof which tobesurecanbecharacterizedasthecentralthemeofNewTestament theology:"the history of belief in Christ fromthe beginningsof Christianity downtoIrenaeus." Finally,awordshouldbesaidabouttheintentionofthehistory-of-religionsschooltorepresentthereligionofprimitiveChristianityandto usetheNewTestamentasasourceforthis.Todaywecanaskwhether thisintentioncandojusticetotheNewTestament,andwhetherweare notrathertoturnbackagaintotheoldquestionaboutthetheologyofthe NewTestament.Buthereitmustberecalledthatthatintention,to investigatethereligionofprimitiveChristianityinsteadofthetheologyof theNew Testament,isgroundedintheoppositionofthehistory-of-religions schoolto the view dominant upto that time(if weleaveout of consideration theoneexceptionofSchlatter),namely,inoppositiontotheviewwhich inquiredafterthe so-calleddoctrinalconcepts.Tothisextent the history-of-religionsschoolsignifiedadecisivesteptowardabetterunderstandingof theNewTestament.Forwheninquirywasmadeastoreligion,insodoing inquirywasbeingmadebasicallyastotheexistentialmeaningofthe theologicalexpressionsoftheNewTestament.Thisfurthermoreshowsup, also,in the factthat insteadof "religion,""piety" ispreferred,and Christol-ogy isinterpreted asChrist-oriented piety. RUDOLFBULTMANN Marburg,1964 9 FOREWORDTO THEFIRSTEDITION Thepresentworkhasgraduallygrown,asfromaseed,outofsomework onthemeaningofthetermKUPIOC;intheNewTestament.It couldalmost seemdoubtfulnow,aftertheconclusionofthewholework,whetherthe book'stitleKyriosChristosisfittingandmakessense.Andonecouldobject totheselectionofitthefactthatintheworkitselftheproofisadduced thattheprimitivePalestiniancommunitywasnotacquaintedwiththis designation.NeverthelessaftermaturereflectionIhavedecidedtohold tothistitle.ThethemettKyriosChristos"stilldominatesthepresentation ofthisbook;anyonewhosurveysthewholeworkwillreadilyrecognize that.At the sametime,withthistitleat itsheadapeculiarity ofthe present workshouldbeidentified.KyriosChristosisJesusofNazarethinessence astheLordof hiscommunity,veneratedinthecultus.Thepresentworkin generalattemptstotakeitspointofdeparturefromthepracticeofthe cultusandofthecommunity'sworshipandtounderstandthewaythings developedfromthisperspective.Thisisnotanentirelynewpointofview; inrecenttimestherehasbeenanincreaseinthevoicesthatvigorouslycall attentiontotheimportanceandnecessityofthisconsideration.StillIthink thatforourareathepresentworkhasprobablysoughtforthefirsttime toactualizetheprogrammaticdemandshereraised,inacoherentandcom-prehensive presen ta tion. Ihave,moreover,madeaneffortinthispresentationtoremove,asmuch aslaywithinmy power,adualrestrictionby whichthestudyintheseareas previously waslimited. In the first placethis involvedthe removal of the wall of partition between NewTestamenttheologyandthehistoryofdoctrineintheearlychurch. Longagoovercomeintheory,atleasttoalargeextent,itstilldominates practicequiteextensively,asaresultofthedivisionoflaborwhichindeed isnecessary.NewTestamenttheologiesconcludewiththeendoftheNew Testament,althoughmostoftheinvestigatorsprobablyareoppressedwith 11 K YRIOSCHRISTOS theunsatisfyingfeelingthatattheconclusiontheyarecompelledtooffer brokenfragments,andratherarbitrarilybrokenonesatthat.Thehistories ofdoctrineoftengiveaquickbackwardglanceattheNewTestamentage. But thisappearsthen asthe closedand,asit were,classical period;phenomena suchasthoseofPaulandJohnarenotactuallysetcompletelyintothe streamofthedevelopmentofthehistoryofdoctrine. HereatthesametimethegreatandyetperversebasicthesisofRitschl isstillexerting itsinfluence:that allthegreatphenomenaoftheNew Testa-mentareaboveallandinthefirstplacetobeunderstoodontheground oftheOldTestament,andthattheythereforestoodataspecificdistance fromallthefollowingformulationsofChristianity.Buteventhisviewwill notmaintain itself.Thegreatanddecisiveturningpointin thedevelopment ofChristianityismarkedbyitstransitiontoGentile-Christianterritoryin itsveryearliestbeginnings.Noothereventapproachesthisinimportance. ThehistoryofChristologypresentedhereseekstobringforwardaproof Qfthis,andChristologystillrepresentsthecenterofthewholedevelop-ment.InthepresentationthedistancebetweenthePalestinianandtheJeru-salemprimitivecommunities,betweenJerusalemandAntioch,willstand outsharply,andatthesametimeitwillbecomeclear,Ihope,towhatex-tent Paulbelongedfromthevery firsttothemilieuoftheHellenisticprimi-tivecommunities.Thusacontributionwouldthenbemadetothegreat ,problemofPaulandJesus.Thefirsttwochaptersofmybook,whichdeal withtheprimitivechurchinJerusalem,formonlytheintroduction,as.it were,thepreludetothefollowingpresentation,whichleadsoninasteady flowtotheendofthesecondcentury. It wasnaturallymoredifficulttodecideupontheendpointofthestudy. Forofcoursetheaccountmustbebrokenoffsomewhere.Ibelieve,how-ever,thatIhaveseencorrectlyherewhenIsetIrenaeusattheendofmy work.Onemayjudge,Ibelieve,thatwithIrenaeusaprovisionalconclu-sionisreached.It isactuallythefigureofthischurchfatherthatstands in atotallydominatingpositionattheendofthefirstvolumeofHarnack's DogmengeschiclJte.TertullianandHippolytusstandonhisshoulders,and forthedevelopmentofspecificallyecclesiasticaltheologyIrenaeusmeans morethanClementandOrigen,inspiteoftheirgreatintellectualsignifi-cance.IntherealmofChristologythepresenttreatmentwill,Ihope,make itespeciallyclearhowitispreciselyinIrenaeusthatallthelinesofthe previousdevelopment clearlyconverge.Withhim,infact,theconclusion 12 FOREWORDTOTHEFIRSTEDITION isgiven;theformationofchristologicaldogmaishereapproximatelycom-pleted,sothatallwhichyetcomesafterhimcanberegardedasfurther consequenceandexplication.Andwhileinmyopiniononecannowhere elseinthesecondcenturyconcludeacoherentpresentationwithoutan awkwardinterruption,yethereitcomestoanaturalconclusion. ThesecondrestrictionforthestudywhichIhavefurtherstriventore-moveinthepresentworkisthatoftheseparationofthereligioushistory ofprimitiveChristianityfromthegeneraldevelopmentofthereligiouslife surroundingChristianityinthetimeofitsearliestchildhood.NotthatI wouldsomehowraisetheclaimthatheresomething newandunexpectedhas happenedforthefirsttime.Inoneareathedemandshereexpressedhave alreadymetwithsuccess.ForthegospelofJesusandthetraditionofthe primitivecommunitynowpracticallyallstudentsarereadytoacknowledge thefruitfulnessofaconsiderationwhichtakesintoaccountthemilieuof lateJewishpatternsofthought inadeterminedandcomprehensiveway.For thelatertimeHarnackwithhisDogmengeschichtehaseffectivelydemol-ishedthedividingwallbetweenhistoryofthe Christianreligionandthesur-roundingoutsideworld,thoughhealsoturnshisattentionchieflytothe contactsofChristiantheologywithGreekphilosophy.Alreadyintheworks ofAnrichandW obberminontheGreekmysteriesandintheworkof AnzontheoriginofGnosticismthisconsiderationwassignificantlyex-pandedandextendedfromphilosophyandtheologytoincludethewhole ofpiety. Stillthereremainsoneareathat isdisputed,thatofthePauline-Johannine piety;indeed,onemaysay,thatofthedevelopmentofChristianityonce it passedoverintotheHellenisticmilieuwiththetransitionfromJerusalem toAntioch.Herethenewdemandspresentthemselves;inspiteofallthe influenceswhicharetoberecognizedforthisChristianityfromthesideof Judaismandthe Old Testament, yet in my opinion one will havetodecide to setthetotaldevelopmentwithintheculturalworldoftheGraeco-Roman empireinthelargerhistory-of-religionsconnectionswhicharehereset forth.Anditistobeexpectedthatthissortofworkwillresultinjustas greatorperhapsevengreaterfruitfulness,enrichment,andclarificationof ourknowledgethan initsowntimetheutilizationofthePalestinianmilieu fortheunderstandingofthegospelofJesusandtheevangelicaltraditionof theprimitivecommunity.Hereinthisareawestandatthebeginningofil 13 KYRIOSCHRISTOS newtaskwithfar-reachingandnotyetcompletelyforeseeableresultsand consequences. But wewould not besofaralongwiththesebeginningsif thework of the philologistshadnotcometoouraidhereina previouslyunheard-offashion. Onlysinceclassicalphilology,goingbeyondtheboundariesofitsearlier areaoflabor,hasapplieditselfineverincreasingmeasuretothelateantiq-uity ofthe ageoftheDiadochiandbeyond;onlysinceDroysen'sgreatplan forahistoryofHellenism,atthecenterofwhichtheinceptionofChris-tianitywouldhavetostand,hasmovedalongstridetowardfulfillment, havethingsreachedthepointthatnowthetheologicalworkinthisarea canalsobeginandcanfacethegigantictaskthatissetparticularlybefore it.Hereitistheobligationofgratitudetomentionawholeseriesofre-searcherswhohaveblazedthetrail.Withoutthegreatstimulationand advances,withoutthecomprehensivelaborsofsuchmenasUsenerand Dieterich,CumontandWendland,ReitzensteinandNorden,E.Schwartz andGeffckenandsomanyothers,theworkasitisnowposedforuswould stillbeanimpossibility,andthe presentworkwouldnotyetbewritten.But theologicalresearchersalsohaveforalongtimeplacedthemselvesatthe sideofthephilologistsasfellow-workerstowardthesamegoal;Ireferin thefirstplacetothestimuliwhichPfleiderer,Eichhorn,andGunkelhave provided,tothepenetratingstudiesofHeitmiiller,aswellastothelabors ofDeissmannandJ.Weiss,Lietzmannandothers.It isaparticularjoyto seehowtheoldmasterofourareaofstudy,HeinrichHoltzmann,whohas beentakenfromusbydeath,stillshowedinthesecondeditionofhisgreat work on New Testamenttheologyanopen mindandacleareyeforthe new taskswhichareheresetforth.Weyoungeroneshavetocontinuethework withthesamealertnessfornewquestionsandformulationsoftheproblems whichdistinguishedhim,andwithgratitude. Butontheothersidethestoutestreservationslikelywillbevoicedabout thisstrongassimilationofthedevelopmentalprocessofChristologyinto thegeneralhistory-of-religionscontext.Andattheoutsetpeoplewillpre-dictablyconfrontusnowwithCumont'slarge-scaleandfinelydrawnstate-mentsintheforeword 1tohiswork,DieorientalischenReligionenimromi-schenHeidentllm!Againstthiswecannotemphaticallyenoughdrawatten-tiontothefactthatCumonthimselflimitshisjudgmenttotherelationof Christianitytothedevelopedformofthemysteryreligioninwhichitcon-1IncorporatedintoGehrich'sGermantranslation(1910),pp.VI-XIII. 14 FOREWORDTOTHEFIRSTEDITION frontsusintheWestinthecourseofthesecondcenturyoftheChristian era.Ontheothersideheexplicitlypointsoutthatwithhisstatementsthe problemofhowChristianitywasrelatedtoHellenisticOrientalsyncretism wasnottobesettled."Thustheinvestigationofthedoctrinesandusages commontoChristianityandtheOrientalmysteriesalmostalwaysleadsbe-yondtheboundariesoftheRomanempireandbackintotheHellenistic Orient.Therewerethereligiousideasshapedwhichwerenaturalizedin LatinEuropeundertheCaesars;thereisthekeytostillunsolvedriddlesto besought." Thosestudentswhoaliminerejectourentireapproachbypointingto thefactthattheheydayofthemysteryreligionintheRomanEmpirefalls onlyattheendofthesecondcenturyA.D.maynolongerappealtothese statementsofCumont.It isindeedtruethatintheupperstrataofRoman (-Greek)society,religioussyncretismandOrientalmysticismonlybegin aboutthetimeofCommodus'reign.Intheliteratureoftheeducatedthis oppressivemysticismfirstcomesgraduallytoadominantpositioninthe secondhalfofthesecondcentury.ImentionsuchnamesasNumeniusof Apamaea,Aristides,Apuleius,MaximusofTyre,andothers.Theretofore Romanliterature-IthinkofSenecaandPliny,EpictetusandMarcus Aurelius-isdominatedthroughoutbythespiritofthegenuineStoa,and eventhestillrelativelymoderateOriental-mysticalelementswhichwith PoseidoniusofApamaeatwocenturiesearlierflowedintotheStoaandinto Greekphilosophyherecomeintoplaylesseffectively. Buthereanimportantdistinctionmustbemade.Romeandespecially Greece,inspiteofallthesyncretisticcurrents,arenottheOrient.What breaksforthintotheopenhereinthesecondhalfofthesecondcentury has alongprehistorywhichhastranspiredespeciallyinSyria(AsiaMinor)and Egypt.ButChristianitycameoutoftheOrient,andtheintellectualhome baseoftheGentileChristianchurch wasfirstSyria(Antioch)andsouthern AsiaMinor(Tarsus),and in the second placefromtheearliesttimesonward, Egypt.Andfurther,initsbeginnings,towhichespeciallyPaul,John,and Gnosticismbelong,Christianityhasnothing,nothingatall,todowith thetrulyphilosophicalliteratureoftheeducatedcirclesanditshistorical development.Whatherefirstbeginstoclimbuptheladderin thecourseof the secondcentury can have been lively for along time in a lowerstratum. Andthiswasinfactthecase.Recentlyithasbecomeevermorewidely recognizedthatthemovementofChristianGnosticismbecomesunder-15 KYRIOSCHRISTOS standableonlyunderthepresuppositionthatinitanintellectualcurrent alreadypresent inthe pre-Christianageanddevelopedindependentof Chris-tianity(andof Judaism),andof aquitespecificorientation,pushesitsway intoChristianity.InthesecondeditionofhisDiehellenistisch-romische KulturWendlandproperly removedhissectiononGnosticismfromthepor-trayal of Christianity and placedit beforethelatter.Thatthiscouldbedone withoutanyseriousalterationofthetext,indeedthatonlynoweverything inthepresentationappearsinitsproperplace,bestshowshoweverything ismoving in thedirectionofthisnew recognition.Afurtherbitof evidence forthisviewisofferedbytheobservationthatalongsidetheGnosticism especiallyaffectedbyChristianityandreshapedbyChristianinfluences,we possessapurelyHellenisticGnosticliterature.Now-thankstothemost recentresearchinthisarea-itliesbeforeus,clearlyrecognizable,inthe Hermetictractates,intheOraculaChaldaicaandotherrelatedmanifesta-tions;withNumeniusofApamaeaitentersintophilosophicalliterature,it extendswithitsinfluencedeepintoNeo-Platonicphilosophy.Foralthough Plotinusrejectedthiswholetendencyandengagedinbitterstrugglewith it,hissuccessorsfellfromthefreeintellectualheightsoftheirmaster. Now it istruethat inthefaceofthestriking parallelstoNew Testament pietywhichareofferedbyjustthisliteratureandparticularlybythe Hermetictractates,somehavethepracticeoftakingrefugebehindthe problemoftheproofofage.Theyreassurethemselveswiththefactthat herewasa literary circle whoseageonecould not with certainty and definite-nesstracebackbeyondthethirdcentury A.D.Overagainstthis,Reitzenstein isstillcorrectinhisattempttotracethisliteratureinitsfoundationsand oldestcomponent partsback intothe firstcentury.Ihopeto beableto carry theinvestigationevenfurtheronthispoint.Herewemayonlysaythat withthefoundationsoftheHermeticliteraturewefindourselvesinthe earlyageofGnosticism.Here,indeed,forthosewhohavereliedentirelytoo muchonthehithertoacknowledgedterminusadquemforthisliterature, everydaycanbringfreshsurpriseswhichwillcompelthemtodosomere-learning.InthisconnectionIreferonlytothefactthatrecentlyaLatin authorwhosenameoftenappearsinconnectionwiththismysticalliterature andwhommoststudentswereaccustomedtodatingintheNeo-Platonist age,CorneliusLabeo,hasdefinitelyassuredhisplace,itappearstome,in thefirstcentury,throughtheevidencethathewasusedbySuetonius.2 1ICf.thesplendidworkofB.Boehm,DeCorneliiLabeonisaetate,Diss.Koenigsberg, 1913. 16 FOREWORDTOTHEFIRSTEDITION NowitonlyneedsthefurtherdemonstrationthatthisCorneliuswas essentiallytheopponentwithwhomArnobiusiscontendinginthesecond book of hisAdv.Nationes-anassumption which alreadyhasoften and with goodreasonbeenmade-andthenthesyncretisticwritingoftheOracula ChaldaicaandinparticularthecentraldoctrineoftheolderHermetic tractate(the staining of the soulby the wickednessof the planetary spheres) wouldbedemonstrablyputbackintothefirstcentury,intothePauline-J ohannineera. Indeed,whenwegofurtherback,theJewishphilosopherPhiloalsoenters intothisconnection.Onegraduallybeginstorecognizethatthetotalphe-nomenonofPhiloisunderstandableneitherwhenonetakeshispointof departurefromGreekphilosophynorwhenonebeginswiththeOldTesta-mentandJudaism,norfinallywhenoneconceivesofPhiloasamixtureof thetwoelements.InPhiloathirdelementshowsitself,anditisthisthat firstgivestohisfigurethecharacteristicstamp,namelyastrongtouchof Hellenistic-Orientalmysticalpiety.Philoisneitheraphilosophernorsimply arepresentativeofJewish-OldTestamentreligiousness.In himisrevealedas a1tovumareligiousmysticismwhoseriseandoriginarestillaproblem. Andagain,ifweproceedfromheretoPlutarchattheendofthefirst century A.D.,we findin himanentireworldof psychological,eschatological, anddemonologicalviews,andinaddition,cosmologicalspeculationsand dualisticfundamentalattitudes,whichpeopleoftenhavepreviouslysought to ascribetoolder philosophical speculationsof a Poseidoniusor a Xenocrates. Herealsoisrevealedasurpluselementof halfpopular,halflearnedspecula-tions,syncretisticallyandorientallyconditionedfantasies,thesourcesof whichhavenotyetbeenexplored. Thusthelinkscometogethertoformachain:Philo,theHermeticlit-erature,thesourcesofPlutarch'spopularfantasticspeculations,Oracula Chaldaica,theforerunnersof Christian Gnosticism-and to this isassimilated apartoftheliteraturewhichgoesunderthenameofNeo-Pythagoreanism, andthusmanyfragmentsofreligiousliteraturewhicharepreservedforus amongthemagicalpapyri-allthisformsastrangeworldofitsownwith aspecialandunmistakablestructure. Thisliterature,ifonemaycallitliterature,alsostandsindiscernible continuity withthat practical-culticpiety which wecan hardly comprehend otherthanunderthenameofmysterypietyandtheconceptofmystery religion.BrehierinparticularinhisworkonPhilohassplendidlydemon-17 KYRIOSCHRISTOS stratedhowsomanybasicideasandbasicattitudesofPhilonicpietyfind theirexplanationonlyonthisbasis.ThecollectionoftheHermetictrac-tates,asit liesbeforeusinHermesTrismegistusasaselectionfromamuch moreextensiveliteratureandinrelatedfragments,isinthisformquite certainlysemi-philosophicalliterature.Butitclearlypointsback,onits ownpart,toareligiousliteratureofdirectlyculticpurposeandtoaprac-ticallyobservedpietyaswellastocirclesinwhichtheseweredominant. ChristianGnosticismisamovementofexplicitly practicalcharacter,apiety of mysteriousinitiationsandsacraments. Thisconnectionwithpracticalreligiousness,withcultandcommunal piety,givestothatentirebodyofliteratureitscharacteranditsstance. Thatcharacteristicblendingofreligionandaphilosophicalframingof ideas,ofmysticismandthoughtfulreflection,isexplainedinthisway.The frameofmindofthesmallreligiouslymotivatedcirclesoftheinitiated, whoareself-consciouslyinoppositiontotheworldandthemasseswithout, bymeansofallsortsofspeculationswrapsitselfinasharplydualistic outlook;theexperienceofecstasyengendersareligiouspsychologyofan amazinglysupernaturalistictendency;thecultuswithitsmysteriousiniti-ationsisintellectualized into a worldviewwhichrestsupon secretrevelation, inwhichheightenedintellectualityandnature-orientedsupernaturalismlie amazinglyintertwined. Inthefaceofthebroadconnectionsandofthequestionwhichcon-sequentlyforcesitselfuponourattention,astowhetherthedevelopment ofHellenisticChristianityandinparticularthethought-worldofPaul andJohnarenottobesetintothesecontexts,onewillnolongerbeableto answerfromtheoutsetwiththeinsistencethattheexactproofofage hasnotbeenestablishedformanyofthewitnessesbeingconsidered.Here IcannotfullyagreewithCumont(OrientalReligionsinRomanPaganism, p.xviii)whenhesays:HAllthesefactsconstituteaseriesofverydelicate problemsofchronologyandinterrelation,anditwouldberashtoattempt tosolvethemenbloc.Probablythereisadifferentanswerineachparticular case,andIamafraidthatsomecasesmustalwaysremainunsolved."For whatwehaveherearenotquestionsofliterarydependenceinparticular. NoscholarwillwishtoassertthatPaulhadreadthisparticularbitof Hermetica,or,moregenerally,thatChristianityisdependentuponthisor thatparticularmysteryreligion.NoteventhequestionofwhetherPaul andJohnwereacquaintedwithPhilowillyielditssolution.Themain 18 FOREWORDTOTHEFIRSTEDITION thingisrathertherecognitionofbroadintellectualconnections,theinsight thatperhapswiththeseabove-mentionedphenomenatheintellectualatmos-phere,withinwhichthegrowthoftheChristianreligionoccurredandfrom whichitsdevelopmentinconsiderablemeasurebecomesunderstandable,has beentransposed.Ontheotherside,whatisinvolvedhereisnotasetof relativelyirrelevantandmerely interestinganalogiesandparallels,butrather therecognitionthataformofpietywhichgrewinitsownsoilquiteearly mergedwiththegospelof Jesusandwith thelatterenteredintoanewform whichwouldremainbeyondourunderstandingsolongaswewereun-acquaintedwith theformer.One shouldconsiderthisquestionwith thesame freedomfromprejudicewithwhichoneconfrontsthecontactsofthe GospelsandthePaulineliteraturewiththeJewishliterature.If,forexample, weestablishcontactsbetweenPaulandtheJewishliteratureoftheendof thefirstcenturyA.D.andfromstilllatertimes,sayonthethemeoffaith andworksor onthetheologyof inheritedsin anddeath(IV Ezra,theSyriac Bookof Baruch) ;if weseethat laterfellow-rabbisof Paulalsoontheirown partwereacquaintedwiththe experienceof ecstaticascentintoParadise,we willnotmakeanissueofthedifferenceintime,andhardlyevenassumea dependenceofrabbinicthoughtuponPaul,butratherwill readilytracethe parallel phenomenabacktothecommon groundon whichthey grow.Thisis what Cumont alsodoesin hisjudicious and considered statements.In onepar-ticularcase(theinterpretationofreligionintermsofmilitaryservice)he demonstratestheimpossibilityofderivingaspecificChristianviewsomehow fromthecultus of the servants of Mithras.But then hecomes in hisexplana-tiontotheconclusionthatthisconceptionisapparentlyolderthaneither ChristianityorMithraism,andthatithaddevelopedunderthemilitary monarchiesoftheAsiaticDiadochi. Inanycasewepresupposethatonethingistoberuledout:thatisthe assumption that Christianity on itsown part influencedthereligiousenviron-ment ingeneralthroughtheanalogousphenomenawhichwehavebeencon-sidering.Thisseemstometoberuledoutbythewell-knownprincipleof Reitzensteinthatit issimplyinconceivablethattheChristianreligioncould haveinfluencednotmerelyonesinglereligionbutawholearrayofreligions in whichtheanalogousformationsareshowntobepresentinsimilarform. Thereisalsoasecondreasonforrulingoutthisassumption.Thephenomena whichareinquestionherearesuchasthesacrament,thesupernaturalist dualisticpsychology(thepneumadoctrine),theradicaldualismandpes-19 KYRIOSCHRISTOS simismofthePauline-JohannineChristianity,thereligiousgoalofdeifica-tionandthewaythatleadstoit,andthevisionofGod.Wecanevenadd tothislistthethemeofthisbook:thebeliefintheKyriosandthecultof theKyrios.Allthesearedistinctivephenomenawhichitwouldbevery difficult,andindeedevenimpossible,toconceiveofonthesoiloftheOld TestamentJewishreligionoroftheauthenticgospelofJesus.Ordoesone wishinallseriousnesstoassertthatthesacramentisanoriginalcreationof thereligionwhichbeganwiththepreaching of Jesusandwasthenborrowed bythereligiousenvironment?!Onewouldhardlybeabletodothis;one wouldthenhavetojoinAlbertSchweitzer,3whohoweverhassensedthe problemherebeforeusmuchmorekeenlythantheotherstudentswho rejectaliminethehistory-of-religionsapproach,inderivingtheChristian sacramentfromeschatology. But,somemayobject,onecannotthinkthatofallpeopletheapostle Paul,whohadbeenarabbi,wassofundamentallytobeunderstoodin termsoftheHellenistic-Orientalmilieu.IndeedSchweitzer4 hasrecently objectedtothemethodofresearchofthehistory-of-religionsschoolthatit makestheentiresubsequentdevelopmentincapableofbeingunderstood.If Paul hasbrought in something sostartlingly new,sotheargument runs,then itishardlycomprehensiblethatprimitiveChristianitywouldcontinueto harborhiminitsmidst.If PaulhasalreadyhellenizedororientalizedChris-tianity,thenthealtumsilentiumabouttheapostleinthesubsequentde-velopmentofChristianity remainsincomprehensible,thedevelopmentwhich itselfrepresentsthehellenizationofChristianity.Indeedwithitstheses thehistory-of-religionsstudywouldlendassistancetotheultra-Tiibingen view,i.e.,itwouldfavorthethesisthatwithPaulonehastomovefrom primitiveChristianityintoalaterperiod,oronehastogoalongwith GunkelandMaurenbrecherinpushingtheprocessofhellenizationand orientalizationbackintothePalestinianprimitivecommunity,andfinally withDrewsandB.W.SmithdissolvethepersonandthegospelofJesusin thisprocess.IcanbebriefherebecauseIbelievethatmybookpresentsa runningrefutationoftheseassertions.Theassertionthatitremainsincom-prehensiblehowtheabsolutelynewinPaulineChristianityaccordingto thehistory-of-religionsviewcouldhavebeenenduredinprimitiveChris-8GeschichtederpaulinischenForsch1tngvonderReformationbisaufdieGegenwart (1911), p.189. 4,Ibid.,pp.179 if. 20 FOREWORDTOTHEFIRSTEDITION tianity isrefutedbytheexplanationsinthethirdandfourthchaptersofmy book.If it istruethat inthemostimportantappropriation(theKyrioscult andthesacrament)whatisinvolvedismoreofanunconsciousprocessin thelifeofthecommunity,andthatPaulbuiltfurtheronthefoundation ofthisfaithofthecommunityandgaveexpressionandlanguagetowhat ishereinunspokenform,thenthatrapiddevelopmentbecomesunder-standableandconceivable.ThefactthattheChristianityofthefirsthalf ofthesecondcenturydoesnotreferdirectlytoPaul,andinfactpasses over him in silence,becomesunderstandable when oneseesthat the"helleniz-ing"ofChristianityintheapologistswiththeiroptimisticallyrationaltotal outlookissomethingwhollydifferentfromitsamalgamationwithorientally syncretisticmysticismwithitsdualismandpessimismasit isfoundinPaul (John)andinGnosticism.(Whatthenemergesattheendofthesecond centuryastheculminationofthedevelopmentisneithertheonenorthe other.WecancallittheecclesiasticallytemperedPaulinism,thePaulinism that hasbeendivestedofallGnosticdangersandtendencies;It is,if we wish tochooseourterminifollowingafamousexample,thegradualorientalizing andre-formingofChristianityintosyncretismasoveragainsttheacute orientalizinginPaulandinGnosticism.)Andthusalsoisthealtissimu1n silentiumabout Paul in thefirsthalf ofthe secondcentury A.D.tobeunder-stood.Inconclusion,wedonotatallneed,withtheassumptionofthat processof"hellenizing"ororientalizingofChristianity,togobackinto Palestinian primitive Christianity or intothegospelof Jesus.Forthedecisive turningpointofChristianity,notatalltobeexplainedaway,liesjustat itstransitionfromPalestiniantoHellenisticterritory.Hereandonlyhere liesthenaturalbeginningofthatstormydevelopmentwhichChristianity sufferedattheoutset. Butsomeonewillposethequestionofhowoneistothinkthatthebasic ideasandattitudesofHellenisticOrientalpietycouldhavecometoPaul, therabbinic allymindedJew.Thisisaquestionwhichisnoteasilysolved. But-quiteapartfromthealreadymentionedinfluencesoftheHellenistic primitivecommunity-forthepersonalpeculiaritiesofthePaulinetotal outlookonemaypointoutnowthatPaulwasaJewoftheDiaspora.To speakhereattheoutsetofanimpossibilitythenmeans,toputitplainly, todoviolencetothefacts.WealsohavenootherformerrabbiandPharisee topointto,whoknewhowtousetheGreeklanguageforhispurposesas Pauldid.TobesurewewillhavetoacknowledgethatPaulcanneverhave 21 KYRIOSCHRISTOS comeintoveryintimatecontactwiththepracticalculticpietyofhistime. BoththerabbiniccharacterofPaulandeventhenatureofthemystery religionswouldforbidourassumingon hispartanysortofpersonalknowl-edgeofamysteryreligion.ButwemaysupposethatalreadyinPaul'stime therewasabodyof religiousliteraturewhichhadbeencompletelyseparated fromtheconnectionsthathadtodoimmediatelywithcultandpractice andthuswasaccessibletoawidercircle.AndthesuppositionthatPaulwas acquaintedwithsuchsemi-literaryedifyingwritingsastheywereavailable intheHermetictractates,intheedificatory,purelyreligiouspartsofthe magicalliterature,appearstomemoreprobablethanthattheapostlemight havereadanyoftheactuallyGreekphilosophicalwritings.Inthisway, PaulthePhariseemayhavestoredupandmeditativelythoughtthrough many particularspeculationsandmysteriousattitudesin hisinnermostbeing, withoutneedinginanywaytofearforthepurityofhisinheritedreligion whichstillconsistedonlyof plain,elementaryprinciplesandwasmanifested essentiallyinriteandpractice.Thencamethestrongandstormyimpulses whichstormed inupon himfromthenewChristreligion.Andasinathaw thesluggishmassesslideintothestreamandtheicefloesstrikeagainstone anotherandpushandpileup,sonowthemassofthoughtsinPaulhas slippedintothestreamandhaspiledupinanamazingheap,andtheresult wasthePaulinetheology. Thisisintendedonlyasaneffortsomehowtomakeunderstandable:1 courseof eventswhichinfactisnoteasilyunderstandable.Ingeneral,how-ever,onewilldowellnottotheorizeaprioritoomuchaboutpossibilities andimpossibilitiesinthisarea,neitherononesidenorontheother.The actualhistoricalcourseofeventshasalwaysprovedtobemorestrange, morediverseandricherthanthetheoriesposedinadvance.Theworkinthe historyofreligionscertainlyhasnotdevelopedinthisareaoutofprecon-ceivedtheories;ithasbeenshapedunderthecompulsionofthefacts.And itcandonothingatallbetterthan,inevermoreintensivelabor,toletthe factsspeakforthemselves.Thenthedisputeovertheorieswillclearupby itselfandwillcometoanend.Whether inthepresentbookIhavesucceeded inlettingthefactsspeakforthemselvesandinapproximatingtheactual courseofeventsmaybelefttothejudgmentofthosewhosecallingitisto formsuchjudgments. ForatimeIintendedtowrite,inaworkconceivedonastilllargerscale, ontheemergenceofChristianityinthemilieuoftheHellenisticRoman 22 FOREWORDTOTHEFIRSTEDITION civilization.But moreand moreIbecameawarethat forsuch an undertaking thestatusoftheworkinthisfieldingeneralandinparticularmyability didnotsuffice.ThereforeIconcentratedmyworkonthisoneproblem.It istruethatthe historyanddevelopmentof the beliefin Christ stand sovery muchinthecenterofthegeneraldevelopmentofChristianitythatinmy presentationIhaveoftenapproachedthatmoregeneralandmorecompre-hensivetask.Ihopethatthefrequentglimpsesandexcursusesintothegen-eraldevelopment,however,willnotcruciallydisturbtheunityandprogress ofthewhole,butratherwillprovetobeusefulandevennecessary.The treatmentofathemethussituatedinthecenterofthewholeopensup vistastoward the peripheryinalldirections.But Ibelievethatthework still haspreserveditsrecognizablecenter.InthecitingofliteratureIhavebeen sparing;onlywhathasbeenofhelptomeisnamed.Imakenoclaimto exhaustiveness.Largerpolemicsanddiscussionsarerestrictedtotheessential points.ForsuchIhaveletthesourcesspeakforthemselvesallthemore extensively,particularlyinthelaterchapters. TheperceptivestudybyW.Haupt,WorteJesuundGemeindeuberlie-ferung,aswellastheessaybyJ.Weiss,DasProblemderEntstehungdes Christentums,andthewriting by Krebs,DasreligionsgeschichtlicheProblem desUrchristentums,onlycametomyattentionduringorafterthecom-pletionofmywork. ForfriendlyanduntiringassistancewiththeproofsIexpressmyhearty thankstomyyoungfriend,st.theol.Nahnsen. Gottingen September1913 23 WILHELMBOUSSET FOREWORDTO THESECONDEDITION ItiswithfeelingsofsadnessthatIletthisbookgofrommyhands.The recollectionofthetoo-soondepartedfriendandcolleague,thegreatscholar andtheunforgettableteacherpainfullyweighsuponmeanduponthose whohavesupportedmeinthepreparationoftheneweditionofhisfavorite work.Butthereisjoinedwiththisalsoasenseofthankfulnessthatithas beenpossibleforustogivehisbookintheessentialpartstheformwhich hehimselfwouldhavegivenit,ifithadbeenpermittedhimtoputthe lasttouchesonit.In hisliteraryremainswasfoundthenewversionofthe firstfourchapterscomplete,andtheassurancethatthesesectionsofhis presentation,whichhadbeenmosthotlydisputedbythecritics,would havereceivedhisimprimaturgaveusthecouragetoventureanewedition. Foreventhoughhecertainlywouldhaveputanimprovinghandtovarious aspectsofthefollowingsectionsindetail,itisnottobeassumedthat theircompositionwouldhavegivenhimanyoccasionforfundamental alterations.Hispersonalcopyalsocontainedanabundanceofnoteswhich couldbeworkedintothefootnotes.IndoingthisIhavehadthemost cordialassistanceofmycolleague,Dr.RudolfBultmann.Thechiefburden ofthework,however,felluponthetwogentlemenwhounselfishlyunder-tooktogivethebookthecleandressinwhichit ispresentedtothereaders, Privatdozent Lie.August Dell inGiessenandtheologicalstudentOtto Munk fromMainz.Theformersupervisedtheworkinpresswithactivepersonal participation,andthelattercheckedthegreaterpartofthequotationsand preparedthenewindex.Thuswemayhopethatthebookinitsnewform isnotunworthyvitallytopreservethememoryofthemanwhocreated it, even foracominggeneration. GUSTAVKRUGER Giessen,Pentecost1921 25 CONTENTS I:JESUSTHEMESSIAH-SONOFMANINTHEFAITHOFTHE PALESTINIANPRIMITIVECOMMUNITY.....................31 AppendixIResurrectedontheThirdDay..............56 AppendixIIDescent into Hades.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..60 II:THEFAITHOFTHECOMMUNITYANDTHEPICTUREOFJESUS OFNAZARETHINTHEFIRSTTHREEGOSPELS..............69 I.TheMessiahDogma..............................70 II.Miracle.........................................98 III.TheMessianicSecret.............................106 IV.Prophecy........................................109 V.TheSignificanceoftheDeath.....................115 VI.Conclusion......................................116 III:THEGENTILECHRISTIANPRIMITIVECOMMUNITY...........119 I.TheTitleKyrios................................121 II.TheCulticSignificanceoftheKyriosTitle...........129 Ill.TheReligio-HistoricalSourceoftheTitle...........138 IV.FurtherConsequences............................149 IV:PAUL...............................................153 I.ChristMysticismandCulticMysticism. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..154 II.TheIdentificationofKUPIOC;;and1TvEulla.............160 III.Religio-Historical Estimate of Paul's Christ Mysticism... ,164 IV.TheChrist-AdamTheology........................172 V.The Sourceof the Pneuma Doctrine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..181 VI.Religio-HistoricalAnalogies188 27 KYRIOSCHRISTOS VII.Consequences..................................200 VIII.Theology......................................205 V:THEBELIEFINCHRISTINTHEJOHANNINEWRITINGS....... ,211 I.DesignationsofTitleandDignity................. ,211 II.TheReconstructionoftheLifeofJesus............215 III.FadingofthePaulineViewofthePneuma..........220 IV.ThePeculiarityofJohanninePiety................227 V.TheSonofGodtheLight....................... ,232 VI.ChristMysticismandGodMysticism...............237 VII.John and Paul. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..240 VI:GNOSTICISM..........................................245 I.IntellectualFoundations..........................245 II.GnosticismandPaul.............................254 III.PaulineandGnosticAnthropology.................258 IV.PaulineandGnosticDoctrine of Redemption..........265 V.The Connecting of the Figure of Jesusof Nazareth with theGnosticRedeemerMyths......................271 VI.Jesus'EarthlyAppearing.........................275 VII.Summary......................................280 VII:THECHRISTCULTINTHEPOST-APOSTOLICAGE.............282 I.FadingofthePaulineDoctrineoftheSpiritandofthe Pauline-JohannineChristMysticism................282 II.TheTitleKyrios................................287 III.TheKyriosCultinthePost-ApostolicAge. . . . . . . . ..292 IV.TheSacrificialDeathandItsSignificance........... '305 V.KyriosCultandRulerCult......................310 VI.TheDeityofChrist.............................317 VII.TheologicalReflection............................332 VIII:THESTRUCTURINGOFCHRISTIANITYONTHEBASISOFTHE CHRISTCULTANDITSVARIOUSTYPES.................... ,350 I.Introduction....................................350 II.TheChristianityofIgnatius.......................353 28 CONTENTS III.TheChristianityofCertainEpistles................357 IV.TheChristianityofIClement....................367 V.TheSigni.:6.canceofthePersonofJesusforThisTypeof Christianity.....................................377 IX:THEAPOLOGISTS385 I.TheLogosTheology.............................385 II.AppropriationoftheLogosIdea...................399 III.ImportoftheLogosIdea..........................403 IV.ConcludingEstimate.............................413 X:IRENAEUS...........................................420 I.GodMustBecomeMan,inOrder That MenMayBecome Gods..........................................422 II.DeificationbyMeansoftheVisionofGod..........426 III.TheDeificationIdealofIrenaeusandtheCommunity Piety.........................................428 IV.TheChristologyThatArisesontheBasisoftheIdeaof Dei.:6.cation.....................................432 V.TheTheoryofRecapitulation....................437 VI.Irenaeus'TendencyTowardtheIdeaofEvolution... ,442 VII.IrenaeusandPaul...............................446 INDEXES.............................................454 I.IndexofBiblicalPassages.........................454 II.IndexofOtherLiteratureCited....................464 III.IndexofPersonsandSubjects.....................477 29 1 JESUSTHEMESSIAH-SONOFMAN INTHEFAITH OFTHEPALESTINIAN PRIMITIVECOMMUNITY WiththequestionastothepositionofJesusinthefaithofthePalestinian primitive community,westand on relatively firmground.Howeverdisputed thequestionsabouttheso-calledself-consciousnessofJesusmaybe,stillit canbetakenasfullyassuredthatthecommunityinJerusalemfromthe veryfirstwasunitedonthebasisoftheconvictionthatJesusofNazareth wastheMessiahwhowastobeexpectedbytheJewishpeople.Perhapsthey werenotaltogethersurefromtheoutsetaboutwhatthisJesusofNazareth inthetimeofhisearthlylifehadbeenorhadintendedtobe,butthey knewthatthehouseofIsraelhaseithertohopeforortofearthisJesus, whomheavennowhastakenupuntilthetimesoftheconsummation,as the onedesignated the Messiahfromthe very beginning.! However,weshallhavetoattemptstillmorepreciselytoanalyzethis confessionofthecommunitythatJesusis(orwillbe)theChrist.For inandofitself,thatstatementsaysverylittle.Theconceptionswhich contemporaryJudaismhadoftheMessiahandwithwhichtheconceptions heldbythecommunityofJesus'discipleswereimmediatelyconnectedare ofahighlyvariegatedandmanifoldnature.2 Theyoscillate,asitwere,be-tweentwopoles.Ontheonehand,peopleexpected-andindeedthiswas probably predominant inthe great massof the people-some sort of powerful kingfromDavid'stribewho,asavictoriousruler,wouldagainestablish 1Acts3:20-21;d.2:36;etc. 2Onthefollowing,cf.Bousset,ReligiondesJudent'llms,2nded.,pp.255-67,297-308. 31 KYRIOSCHRIST OS theancientthroneofDavid,woulddestroytheruleofthehatedRomans andwouldexercisehisrulefromJerusalemoverthewholeworldinjustice and holiness,sothatthenationsallwouldmaketheirpilgrimagetothegates ofJerusalemandwouldpaytohertheirtribute.Ontheotherhand,Jewish fantasyhadcreated,orratherhadtakenover,atranscendent,idealizedpic-tureoftheMessiahwhich,takenstrictly,hardlyhadanymorethanthe nameincommonwiththeformer.ThistranscendentMessiahofJewish apocalypticwasnottobebornofwomanuponearth;heisthoughtofas asupra-terrestrial,angel-like,andpreexistentbeing.Hewastoappearfrom aboveattheendoftimeinalmostdivinesplendor;indeed,heappeared plainlyatthesideofGodasfuturejudgeoftheworld.Theformermes-sianicconception issomewhat comprehended in the title of the Son of David,3 andthelatterisboundupwiththeenigmaticandmysteriousdesignation t'theSonof Man"(i.e.,theMan).4TheJewishmessianicexpectationoscil-latedbetweenthesetwopolesof interpretation,sothatalmostnowheredoes oneor theother emergein pureform.Evenwhereit isprimarilythe picture oftheearthlyMessiah,thekingofDavid'slineage,thatissketched,asfor example in the seventeenth Psalm of Solomon,transcendenttraitsareblended withthispicture;andagain,wherethetranscendentinterpretationhasthe dominantposition,asintheportraitsintheBookofEnoch,therearenot lackingthosepurelyearthlytraitsofthekingofvengeancewhoannihilates hisadversarieswiththesword. Accordinglyweposethequestion:t'InwhichsensedidthePalestinian primitivecommunity apply theideaof the Messiahof contemporary Judaism toJesus?"DiditadopttheearthlypoliticalidealoftheMessiahastheSon of DavidorthatstrangetranscendentidealoftheMessiah,orperhapseven inessenceablendingofthetwopicturesoftheMessiah? Inansweringthisquestionweshallnotbeabletoturntoasourcewhich appearstobethemostobvious.ImeanthebookofActs.Theauthorof Acts alreadystandsmuchtoofarfromthemilieuof the Jerusalemprimitive community,andwhathehastakenoverbywayofsourcematerialforthe presentationof the primitivecommunityis,insofarasit interestsusinthis connection,of amost meager sort.The speechesinthe firsthalf ofthebook, which come into consideration here in a special way,arealmost purely literary 8Ps.Sol.17.21. 'ParablesofEnoch;IVEzra,visio6;forafullertreatment,seefurtherthetext,4 inthischap. 32 THEPALESTINIANPRIMITIVECOMMUNITY witnessesofawhollystereotypednature;theyshowfrequenttracesofa demonstrablylatercomposition,andindeed,asweshallseestillmorespe-cifically,thatpreciselyinthemessianicterminology. Intheansweringofourquestion,therefore,thereremainforusnoother sourcesthanourSynopticGospels.Thegospeltraditionwhichisdeposited inthemwemayclaim,especiallyinitsolderstratum,asaworkofthe Palestinian primitivecommunity. We neednot hereat firstengage in a pains-takingpreliminaryinvestigation,withallitsuncertainties,astowhatof theseself-witnessesistobetracedbacktoJesushimselfandwhattothe theologyoftheprimitivecommunity.Weshallhavetoassumeapriorithat thecommunityofJesus'discipleshasdepositedinthegospeltraditionits faithanditsviewofthemessianicmeaningofthepersonofJesus,even whenithasfrequentlyonlyrepeatedgenuinematerialofitsmaster'smes-sianicself-expressionsandhasnotcreatedsomething.Forthegospeltradi-tionissketchedfromthefirstfromthestandpointofacommunityof messianicfaithandforthe purposeof bearing witnesstothismessianicfaith. TheGospels,however,offerabundantandvaluablematerialforthean-sweringof our questions.We shallbestarrangethismaterialifattheoutset weproceedfromthequestionofwhichmessianictitlesinthefirstplace areappliedtoJesusinthegospelliterature.For,aswehavealreadyseen, thesubstance isoftenboundupwith thetitlesintheclosestpossibleway. 1.Now it istruethataspecialsetofconditionsprevailsintheinvestiga-tionofthesehonorificdesignationsofJesus.Thematerialcomingintocon-siderationhereisrelativelysmallinscope.Buthereweimmediatelystrike uponafactoffundamentalimportance.Theentiregospeltradition(in-cludingtheGospelofJohn)needs,inthesimplenarrative,notitleatall forJesus,butonly hisown name,6' lr'}O"oOC;.It nevertellsoftheChrist,of theSonofDavid,oftheSonofGod,ortheSonofMan,butsimplyof Jesus.5 Inallprobabilitythisisrelatedtoafundamentalconvictionofthe Palestinianprimitivecommunity.Forit,JesuswasfirstthecomingMessiah (rrapouo"laXPIO"TOO)ortheoneelevatedbyGodthroughtheresurrection tobethe Messiah(Acts2: 36;Rom.1: 3) ;it couldnotat allspeaksosimply andobjectivelyoftheearthlyJesusastheChrist. ThusthereremainforourinvestigationonlythosecasesinwhichJesus ISdesignatedwithmessianictitlesintheaddressofotherpersons,orthose 5OnlyintheGospelofMatthewarefoundtheexceptions6Xplcnoc;;Matt.11 :2,and even'1I"]O"oOc;;XPIO"TOC;,16:21;d.also1:1(herealsouloC;LlaUElS),and1:18.Finallyalso theinscriptioninMark1:1. H KYRIOSCHRISTOS inwhichhehimselfspeaksofhimselfinthethirdpersonastheMessiah. If webeginbytakingcasesoftheformerkind,itisnotsurprising,but probablyevenrestsinpartingoodhistoricaltradition,whenhere-and indeedatdecisiveclimacticpoints-the mostgeneralandtoJewishmessian-ologythemostfamiliartitleXPIO'TOC;;appears:Mark8 :29(CaesareaPhi-lippi! );14: 61(thequestionofthehighpriest);15: 3 2(ridiculeatthe cross) .6 ThebookofActsmayalsobeclaimedasawitnesshere.Harnack? haswellobservedthatinthisbookttChrist"oftenappears,notyetasa propernameasitdoeswithPaul,butintheoriginalsenseofthetitle.In thetwenty-five passagesin whichtheword XPIO'TOC;;isassuredby themanu-scriptwitnesses,thecombination'I1")O'oOC;XPIO'TOC;;isfoundeleventimes, alwaysinfixedformulas,inconnection with QVOllaandKUpIOC;;.Intheother fourteenpassages,however,it isusedinthefullsenseoftheMessiahtitle; andofthese,eightbelongtothefirsthalfofActswhichweareconsider-ing(2:31,36;3:18,20;4:26;5:42;8:5;9:22). Forallthat,theseobserva-tionssayverylittlenewtous.ForthatJesuswastheXPIO'TOC;;tohisfirst disciplesisindeedguaranteedquiteapartfromthis. Further,thetitlettSonofGod"intheaddressofotherpersonstoJesus isalreadyfoundinaseriesof importantMareanpassages,whicharefurther tobediscussedbelowinbroaderconnections. 2.Butanimportantobservationcanalreadybemadehere,namely,that thetitle"SonofDavid"ishardlyfoundintheolderstratumofthegospel traditionatall.ThereisnotraceofitintheLogia.InMarktheaddress ttSonofDavid"occursonlyonce,onthelipsoftheblindmanofJericho (10 :47).Butitcannotbeshownfromthiscontextthatanysortofspecial significanceisattachedbytheevangelisttothisformofaddress.Instead, itischaracteristicthatuponJesus'entryintoJerusaleminMark11: 1 0 indeedtheEPXOIlEV1")f3aO'IAEla'ITaTpOC;;~ I l W Vb.auEl6isspokenof.Jesus himself,however,isintroduced, not asDavid's son,but as6EPXOIlEvoC;;.8,9In factwefindonepassageinourGospelsinwhichthereisadirectpolemic 6ForthisreasoninMark15: 12(30CTlAEUC;T&V'lou8olulVisintentionallyplacedonthe lipsofPilate:BvAEYETETClV(3oalAEoT&V'lou8olUlv.Matt.27:17,22:'l'laoOvTClV AEYOjlEVOVXplaTov.XplaToc;furtherinMatt.26:68;Luke23:2(XplaTOv(3oaIAEo, expressionoftheJewsbeforePilate);23 :39(24:26,46oftheMessiahgenerally). 7NeueUnters1lchungenZ1tYApostelgeschichte(1911),pp.72-73. 8Amysteriousmessianictitle,developedindependenceuponPs.118:25 -26;d.Matt. 11:3. 9OtherwiseinMatt.21:9,15,SonofDavid,andstillelsewhereinthelaterpassages of Matt.12:23and15:22. 34 THEPALESTINIANPRIMITIVECOMMUNITY againsttheassumptionofJesus'sonshiptoDavid.Io Forthatisthethrust oftheremarkabledialogueinMark12:35-37,whichishardlytobetraced backtoJesusbutratherobviouslybearsthetracesofabeginningchurch dogmatics;inthispericopetheviewofJesusasDavid'ssonisintendedto berejectedinfavorofaloftierview:JesusisnotDavid'ssonbutDavid's Lord.ll TheauthoroftheEpistleofBarnabashasrightlyunderstoodthe thrustofthepassage(12:10):"Nowsinceitwastobeexpectedthatthey (theJewishsinners)would saythatChrist isasonof David,David himself, becausehefearedandforesawtheerrorof thesinners,said(TheLordsaidto myLord'"(Ps.110).Thisviewoftheutterrejectionoftheidealofthe SonofDavidtobesurehasnotprevailed.Inlatertimes,asgenerallyin theevaluationofthepersonofJesusthespecificallyJewish-messianicideal recededintothebackground and lessvaluewasplaceduponthe morespecific interpretationofthisideal,andashereratheralldetailscameunderthe mechanicalperspectiveoffulfilledprediction,naturallyJesushadtobethe SonofDavidandinthisrespectalsotosatisfytheOldTestament prophecy.12Butthealmosttotalsilenceoftheolderstratumofthegospel traditionshowsthat in the primitivecommunity peoplewereatbestindiffer-entandevendistrustfultowardtheidealoftheSonofDavid. 3.Nowthisisanobservationwhoseimportanceisnottobeunderesti-mated,onewhichleadsusimmediatelytothekernelofthewholeproblem. It isilluminedbythefactnowtobeexplained,thatahithertounexplained messianictitle,namelythedesignation6ulOC;TOO actually dominatesthepresentationofourGospels. Ofcourse,withthistitlethereisapeculiarstateofaffairs.Itiscom-pletelylackingnotonlyinthegospelnarrativebutalsointheaddressof otherpersonstoJesus;itisfoundonlyasaself-designationofJesus,and indeedhereagaininanexclusivelydominatingposition,sothatotherself-designationsofJesusalongsideitalmostcompletelydisappear.13 Itisnot 10Onthis,cf.thesplendidlittletreatmentbyWrede,"JesusalsDavidsSohn,"Vortrage undStudicn(1907),VI,147-77. 11 Inthisconnectionitisnotthe"genuineness"orlackofgenuinenessofthissaying whichconcernsus.EvenifthepolemicagainsttheinterpretationoftheMessiahasDavid's sondidstemfromJesushimself,itwouldstillbecharacteristicoftheattitudeofthe primitivecommunitythatitwouldrepeatthispolemic. 12ThisisalreadyPaul'sevaluationinRom.1:3(cf.IITim.2:8).Thegenealogiesof JesusinMatt.andLukeareconstructedinthistendency.Itdominatesthebirthlegends inMatt.1:20;Luke1:27,32;2:4,11.Cf.Acts2:25,29,34;13:34. 13Jesus'self-designationastheXpICYT6C;belongstothetertiarylevelofourgospd tradition.Mark9:41,EV6v6J..lOTIchiXPIOTOUtOTE,isareworkingofthe(Logia-) K YRIOSCHRISTOS easytofindabasisofexplanationfortheseobservations,whichappear almostcontradictory.However,oneprobablycanpointtothefactthat thespecificallytranscendent-eschatologicalmeaningofthetitle(videinfra) andperhapsalsotheawarenessofitsmysteriouscharactermadeitimpos-sibleforthecommunity traditiontohavetheearthly Jesusalreadyaddressed byotherpersonsasuice,;TOOaV8pc.0TTOU,whileintheself-designationof Jesusthecharacterofthesubjective-prolepticandofthesecrecy-filled mysteryremainedwiththeterm. Inanycase,howeverthatmaybe,onlythenumerouspassagesinwhich Jesusspeaksofhimselfasuice,;TOOaV8pc.0TTOUofferusamoreextensivebody ofmaterialforansweringthequestionabouttheChristologyofthePales-tinian primitivecommunity,orof athrust whichcametobedominantin it. Tobesuresomewillbeinclinedaprioritodoubtanddisputethis.Since whatisinvolvedhereareself-expressionsofJesus,sotheargumentruns, fromthesetobediscernedinthe firstplaceistheself-consciousnessofJesus andnotaChristologyoftheprimitivecommunity.Accordinglywemust firstshow,notthatJesusneverusedthistitleofhimself,forthatdoesnot lenditselftodemonstrationwithcertainty,butratherthattheself-designationoftheSonofManinsurprisinglynumerouscasesdoesnotgo backtoJesushimself,butratheractuallystemsfromthecommunity tradition,andthathereifanywhere,intheconfessionofJesusastheSon ofMan,wehavebeforeustheconvictionoftheprimitivecommunity. Onecanindeedalsopointoutapriorithatthisoft-repeatedspeechof Jesusabouthimselfinthethirdpersonevokestheimpressionofacertain unnaturalness,ifitistakenseriouslyashistorical,butthatontheother handtheriddleisimmediatelysolvedifwemayhererecognizeingeneral astylizedformofthecommunity'slanguageandthatinparticularthe oft-recurringformulat;,,8EV6ulce,;TOOaV8pc.0TTOUfromtheoutsetcreates theimpressionofaspecificallyhieraticstylizing.Stillthisdoesnotrelieve usoftheresponsibilityofthepreciseinvestigationofparticulars. parallelinMatt.10:42,Eic;Dvollalla9Tl ToO.Matt.23:10,IlTlOEKATl9TlTEKa9TlYTlTai,OTI UIlQVtaTIETC;6XplaToc;istheadditionofaredactorwhointhepreceding distichmissedthereferencetoChrist,probablycorrectly,forin23: 8theolo6:aKaAoc;,for thesakeoftheparallelism,istobereferredtoGod.Notealsoinadditiontoand pa/3/3ithespecificallyGreekAboutthetitle"Son(ofGod)"onthelipsof JesusinMark13:32(mentionedintheparablein12:6)andMatt.1l:27=Luke10:22 (titleorfigureofspeech),seebelow.Themainthinghereisonlytomakeclearthesmall numberoftheseexceptionalcases. 36 THEPALESTINIANPRIMITIVECOMMUNITY Ibegin with the casesin which the title owesits origin to literary arbitrari-nessortothespecialtraditionofoneofthelatergospels.14 Hereaboveall belongstheframingofthequestionatCaesareaPhilippiinMatt.16: 13: TlvaAEYOUO'IV01O:V8pC.llTOIEivalTOVuiovTOO Thisawkward formulation,by whichtheanswerisanticipatedinthequestion,isexplained by acomparisonwith Mark8 :27.Similarly,Matt.16:28speaksofthecom-ingoftheSonofManwithhisKingdom,whileMark9: 1speaksonlyof thecomingofthekingdomofGodinpower,andLuke9 :27simplyofthe comingofthekingdomofGod.Thealreadydogmatic-soundingsentence, "TheSonofManhascometosavethelost,"isfoundinMatt.18: 11and Luke9: 5 6inaninterpolationsupportedonlybymanuscriptsoflittlevalue, andishereclearlytoberecognizedasasupplementtothefineconclusion ofLuke19:9(K.a8oTIKalalJToc;;uioC;;Af)pacq..lEO"TIV),forthepurposeof reinforcingthepoint.AgainLuke,inthegreatcommunitysayingin6:22, speaksofapersecutionforthesakeoftheSonof Man,ofwhichMatt.5: 11 stillknowsnothing.Andthispassage,Luke6:22,isespeciallyimportant becausewitheveryworditpresupposeslatercircumstancesofthecom-munitypersecutedbythesynagogue.Thiscommunitygathersitselfaround theconfessionoftheSonofManandispersecutedonaccountofthiscon-fession.TheconcludingwordsofthegreateschatologicaldiscourseinLuke (21: 3 6),EI-..lTTP00"8EVTOOuioOTOO arenotconfirmed byeitherofthetwoparallels.Similarly,Luke22 :48,(Whydoyoubetray theSonofManwithakiss?"standsalone.Tothislateststratumofgospel traditionalsobelongsthesecondaryinterpretationofanalreadysecondary parable(ofthetaresinthewheatfield),inwhichtheSonofMantwice appears(13:37,41),andsimilarlytheparableinMatt.25:31ff.withthe large-scaleportraitoftheSonof Manasjudgeoftheworld.Weshallspeak ofthismoreexplicitlylater.Thedogmaticcommentaboutthesuffering anddyingoftheSonof Manin Luke24:7standswithinanobviouslylater sectionwhichshowsthecleartendencytosuppressthetraditionofthe resurrectedoneinGalilee;Luke17:22(thedaysarecomingwhenyouwill longtoseeoneofthedaysoftheSonofMan)isatransitionalcommentof theevangelistonthelog ionfromQin17:23.Asimilarjudgmentisalso indicatedconcerningtheenigmaticandawkwardappendixtothespecial HSofarasIcansee,itistheachievementofWellhausen(Skizzen1tndVorarbeiten VI,187-215)tohaveshownemphaticallyinhowmanypassagesthetitle"SonofMan" hasfirstpenetratedintothe gospeltradition. 37 KYRIOSCHRISTOS pericopeinLuke18:8b:WhentheSonofMancomes,willhefindfaith15 upontheearth? Butsimilarlyalsoonthebasisofsimpleliteraryobservation,inourolder tradition,inMarkandintheLogia,someoftheremainingpassagesexhibit asecondaryreworking.ThusthesentenceinMark9:12b:"Whatiswritten concerningtheSonofMan?Thathewouldsufferandberejected,"awk-wardlyinterruptsthegoodconnectionbetween12aand13insuchaway thatitmustbeviewedasaninterpolationfromMatt.17:12b.Againthis Matthaeanpassageisshowntobeasecondaryadditionintheoldtextof Mark.AndthecommandofJesusonthedescentfromtheMountof Transfigurationthatthedisciplesshouldtellnooneoftheirexperienceis visiblyasecondaryadditionandfallsunderthesamejudgmentasdoesMark 16: 8("they told no man anything,forthey wereafraid") .16 Butespeciallydeservingofattentionarethepassagesinwhich,bya comparisonofouroldestsources,theLogiaandtheGospelofMark,astil1 laterinsertionoftheSonofMantitleevenintoourbettersourcescanbe demonstrated.Thusinthelogionabouttherewardforconfession,Matt. 10:32-33,with itsfourfoldcCI"-"whoeverconfessesme,himwillIconfess, andwhoeverdeniesme,himwillIdeny"-apparentlyhaspreservedthe originalwordingof itssource(the Logia).InMark8: 38,withtheinsertion oftheSon-of-Mantitleinthesecondhalf,thisdeformityhasresulted: uWhoeverisashamedofmeandmywords,ofhimalsowilltheSonof Manbeashamed." 17ThisformtheninturnhasinfluencedMark'sparallels inLuke9:26andMatt.16:27,andindeedwithintheLogiacontextthe passageinLuke12:8aswell.If hereMarkisshowntobesecondaryin relationtotheLogiatradition,thereverseisthecaseinthelogionofthe signofJonah(Matt.12:39-40==Luke11:29-30).Herethesourcecon-montoMatthewandLukehasfirstbroughtintheJonahclausefrom thefollowingpericopeandhasinserteditintothesayingtransmittedby 15Oneshouldnoteherethelaterconceptoffaith,otherwiseforeigntoourgospellitera-ture. 16 Inbothcasesthecommentsareintendedtoexplainwhytherespectivepreceding narrativehasbecomegenerallyknownonlyinalatertime;thustheyalsocontainan indicationoftherelativelylateformationofthelegendaryaccountsinwhichtheyoccur. Cf.alsowithMark9:9-10thesimple(original?)accountinLuke9:36b. 17ToassumewithWellhausenonthebasisofthispassagethatJesushimselfspokeof theMessiah-SonofManasastrangepersonmeansarbitrarilytosuppressthemostobvious explanationinfavorofaveryriskyandmoreremoteone.Cf.alsomyJesusderHerr (1916),p.10,againstWernle,"JesusundPaulus,"ZeitschriftfiirTheologieundKirche, 1915,pp.1-92. 38 THEPALESTINIANPRIMITIVECOMMUNITY Mark(8: 12:EIooSftO'ETatO'llllEiov)in itsoriginalform,andthen somehow hasreferredthesignoftheprophetJonahtothesignwhichthe"Sonof Man" istogivetothisgeneration. IS Oneofthemostimportantobservationsofsynopticcriticism,whichis alsoofspecialsignificanceforourquestion,maybemadeinacomparison ofMark10:41-45with Luke22:24-27.Foronthebasisofthiscomparison it isestablishedthatthelogionof Mark10:45,whichissoheavilyfreighted withdogmaticimport,"the SonofMan hasnotcometobem,inisteredunto but toministerandtogivehislifearansomformany,"hasitssimpleorig-inalforminthesaying,"I amin yourmidstasaservant"(Luke22:27) .19 QuiteevidentlythelogioninMatt.12:32:=Luke12:10aboutblas-phemyagainsttheSonofManisalsoalatercommunitysaying.Thecom-munityofthedisciplesofJesushereinterpretstheblasphemyagainstthe marvelousspiritatworkinthem(notethecontext)asanunforgivable sin.Onemayperhapsblasphemetheremote(sojourninginheaven)Son of Man,but notthe presentlyactiveSpirit!In Mark3 :28thelogionappears inanothercontext;anyconnectionwiththeSonofManislacking.2o NowthereremainintheGospelofMarkaswellasintheLogiaaseries ofpassagesinwhichtheSon-of-Mantitleappears,whereitcannotbeset asideforsuchsimplereasonsofexternalliterarycriticism.Theobservation issignificant-andparticularlyherethedoubledwitnessoftheGospelof MarkandoftheLogiacarriessomeweight-foritprovesunequivocally thatthetitlebelongstotheoldestandprimarystratumofcommunity tradition.Ontheotherside,however,thejudgmentwillhavetobemain-tainedthat in essencewepossessevenheretheearliestcommunitydogmatics andnotJesus'ownself-testimony. 18 ItappearstomeprobablethathereLuke,withoutexpressingit,isthinkingofthe signofthedeathandresurrection,justasdoesMatthew,whoexplicitlysaysit(andthus probablyalsotheircommonsource). 19LukehererepresentstheLogiatradition;d.alsoLuke22:29-30andMatt.19:28. Oneshouldnoteesp.theparallelismoftheentirecontextinMarkandLuke.Markhas connectedtheLogiapericope10:41-44withtheprecedingbymeansoftheartificialtransi-tionof10:40.ThedogmaticsayinginMark10:45hasdevelopedoutofthetextastrans-mittedbyLukethroughthefollowingprocedure:1.insertionoftheSon-of-Mantitle,2. insertionofthecurrentformulawithllA9Ev,3.introductionofthecontrastingclause"ov OlCXKOVTJ9TlVCXIaAACt.,"4.theglossingoftheoI CXKOVTlaCX Ibymeansofthereferencetothe sacrificialdeath.InJesusderHerr,pp.8-9,Ihavediscusseddoubtsabouttherelativepriority ofLuke22:24 ff. 20Intheentirecontextof3 :22-3 0,ofcourse,Markappearstobealtogetherdependent upontheLogia(seebelow).Inthisconnection,however,hehasinsertedthesayingabout theblasphemyagainsttheHolySpirit,whichhardlybelongedhereoriginally,inanolder wordingthan Matt.andLukeofferit. 39 K YRIOSCHRISTOS Firstofall,ashasbeenobservedbymany,theseself-descriptionsof Jesusmayfurtherbedividedintotwogroups.InoneofthemJesusspeaks ofhispositionasSonofManas'apresentstate;hemakeshimselfknown openlybeforeallthepeopleastheSonof Man,andassuchheclaimsrights whichhepresentlyexercises.Tothisgroupthefollowingpassageswould belong:theSonofManhaspoweronearthtoforgivesins(Mark2:10); theSonofManisLordoftheSabbath(Mark2:28);theSonofManhas noplacetolayhishead(Matt.8 :20==Luke9:58);theSonofMan(in contrasttoJohntheBaptist)cameeatinganddrinking(Matt.11:18ff.== Luke7:33-34).Heresomehavealreadylongsince,andaltogethercorrectly, pointedoutthatitishardlyconceivablethatatthebeginningofhis activity,openlyandbeforeallthepeople,withoutanysortofprecautions, JesuscouldhaveidentifiedhimselfasMessiahwiththetitleoftheSonof Man,21stillwellknownintheliteratureoflateJudaism.Besides,thisdoes notagreewithwhatweotherwiseknowfromtheGospelsaboutthereserve which Jesuspracticedin hismessianicself-consciousness;in particular it does notagreewiththeaccentwhichintheGospelofMark,whetherwithor withouttheintentionoftheevangelist,quiteevidentlyrestsuponthe confessionofPeteratCaesareaPhilippi.Andaboveall,iftheSonofMan canonly meanthesupra-terrestrialtranscendentMessiah,asnowisgenerally acknowledged,then wecannot explain how Jesusalready inthe presentcould claimforhimselfthepredicateandtherightsoftheSonofMan.There-forethereisageneralinclinationlikewisetoabandontocriticismthis entireseriesofself-expressionsofJesus,howeveronemaynowaccount forthedevelopmentofthiscommunitytradition.22 Therestillremainsthesecondgroupofself-testimonies.Inthemthe eschatologicalcharacteroftheSon-of-Mantitleisinfactpreserved.Here Jesusspeaksinthecircleofthosewhomhetrusts,andonceinthefinal officialhearing,inmysteriousallusions(andthereforealsointhethird 21IconsidertheeffortstodenylateJewishliteratureanyacquaintancewiththetitle tohavefailedcompletely.Seebelow,pp.42if. 22Cf.esp.H.WeinelinthecarefullyweighedpresentationinhisBiblischeTheologie desNettenTestaments,2nded.,pp.211ff.Itislargelycustomarytoattempttoexplain thesepassagesaslinguisticmisunderstandings(0ulce;TOOav9pCmou=av9pulTToe;).This appearstometobeutterlyimpossibleforMark2: 1 0(inspiteofthestrangeconfirmation whichMatt.9: 8seemstoofferforthisthesis).Dogmaticreeditinghasmuchmorepro-foundlydisarrangedthispericope(seebelow,Chap.II).Theassumptionappearspossible tomeinthesayingsinMark2:28,Matt.8:20=Luke9:59,andpossiblyMatt.11:19("a man"carne,ate,anddrank).M.Dibelius(FormgescbichtedesEvangeliums,p.76)seesin Matt.11:18-19=Luke7:33-34apostscriptofthecommunitytotheparableofJesusabout theself-willedchildren. 40 THEPALESTINIANPRIMITIVECOMMUNITY person),ofhisfuturepositionintheofficeoftheSonofManandofhis deathasthepointoftransitiontothisfuturepositionofhonor.It isfar frommyintentionheretotakeupthedifficultandnotentirelysoluble questionaboutthemessianicself-consciousnessofJesus.Atanyrateithas inthisconnectiononlyanindirectandsecondarysignificance.Istillthink, however,thataninvestigationofthepassagesunderconsiderationleads totheconclusionthatwehaveinthemanessentiallylatertradition,i.e., communitytheology.It maybegenerallyconcededthatthethrice-repeated predictionsofthepassioninMark(8: 31;9: 31;10: 3 3)inanalmost stereotypedformulation,whichacquiretheirpointbymeansofthetitle "SonofMan,"aswehavethem,createtheimpressionthroughoutofa schematizinganddogmatizingreworking.ThepredictionsofMark14:21, 41,23whichbearaquitesimilarstamp,aresubjecttothesamereservations. ThereferencetotheSonofManinMark13 :26-27standsamongthose eschatologicalstatementswhichwearegenerallyaccustomedtorecognizing asstemmingfrom aJewishor Jewish-Christianapocalypse.The onlyactivity hereattributedtotheSonofMan,thegatheringofthosewhoaredis-persed,fitsparticularlyintotheJewishmilieu.Thethreatwithwhich, accordingtoMark14:62,Jesusturnsduringthetrialtohisopponents appearsasanuttersurprise24 andinharmoniouslyinthiscontext,inwhich whatisinvolvedisasimpleyesornotothequestionwhetherheisthe Christ.AndeventhisfocusingofthetrialofJesusontheMessiahquestion issubjecttoserioushistoricalmisgivingswhichwilllaterengageouratten-tionincontext.Therestill remainthepassagesintheeschatologicaldiscourse oftheLogia:Matt.24:27==Luke17:23-24;Matt.24:37,39==Luke17:26, 30.25 Butherealsothequestionariseswhetherwemayactuallyholdit psychologicallyconceivablethatJesuscouldhavecomparedhisfuture appearing with theflashingof the lightning which shinesfrom one end of the earthtotheother,i.e.,actuallywhetherhemadehisownpersonintoa myth.Herealsothequestionmaybeposedwhichlaterwilloccupyusin 28Cf.inMark14:21thewhollysecondarygeneralreferencetothefulfillmentofOld Testamentprophecy(seebelow,Chap.II).14:41ofcoursehasitsparallelinMatt.butnot in Luke. 24Norden(AgnastasTheas,pp.194-95)stressestheecstaticcharacterofthisconfes-sionwhichbeginswithEyr:.,EifJlandpointstoCelsus'portrayaloftheSyrianwandering prophets(inOrigenVII,9)withtheirconfession:EY{,J"eE6e;EifJl~eEOOrrale;~rrVEOfJa eEIOV:iiKc.lBE,ilBIlyap"K6afJoe;cm6AAuTal KalOljJEaeEfJEaBele;fJET'oupavlou BUvafJEc.le;Erravl6VTa. 25Matt.24:44=Luke12:40isprobablyadoublettothesimplerandfigurativewording in Mark13:35. 41 K YRIOSCHRISTOS itsfullimport,whetherJesushimself,asithappensintheLucanpassage, could havespokenof adayof theSonof Manandtherewithcouldhaveput "his"dayinplaceoftheOldTestamentdayofYahweh,"orwhetherhe actually,asMatthewrecords,spokeofhisownparousiaintheplaceofthe parousiaoftheomnipotentjudgingGod.26 Forallthat,itisnottobedeniedthatperhapsoneoranotherofthe Son-of-Manpassagescouldhavecomefromthemouth)fJesushimself. Butoneisnotabletoescapetheimpressionthatonthewhole,intheSon-of-Mansayingswehavebeforeusthedepositofthetheologyoftheprimi-tivecommunity.Thatistheassuredandgivenpointofdeparture. 4.Atthispointwestandbeforeafactofeminentimportanceforthe historyofthebeliefinChrist,apointwhichwemustnowpursuefurther. Intheend,whatwehavetodoistogetaclearconceptionastothe source,meaning,andimportofthetitle"Son ofMan."Onthesepointswe canworkuponafoundationwhichhasbeensecurelylaidbyvariedand thoroughresearchfromthemostdiversesides. Firstastothelinguisticsignificanceofthetitle:6uioC;TOUeXvSpc;nTou correspondstotheAramaic(==Hebrew Wellhausen's investigationsinparticularhaveshedlightuponthelinguisticmeaningof thisterm.27 AccordingtoWellhausen,bar'naschainAramaicusagemeans nothingotherthantttheman"inthedefiniteandparticularinstance. is,ashehasmadeespeciallyclear,awordwithgenericmeaningand signifiesthespeciesttman."If theAramaeanwishestodesignateonepar-ticularman,hemusteitherchooseanotherword(e.g., theman, thewoman),ormakeuseofthatperiphrasticform.Asinour languagethewordttcattle"isgenericandwemaysayttsomanyheadof cattle,"justsotheAramaeansaysttasonofman" i:J),this"or ttthatsonofman"i:J "sonsofmen" andthus musttheexpression,"the"sonofmani:J)beexplainedinthiscon-text.28 Fromthissetoffacts,Wellhausenandtheotherresearcherswho 116SofarasIcansee,thereremainsonlythesayinginMatt.10:23:"Youwillnot havegonethroughallthecitiesofIsraelbeforetheSonofMancomes."Becauseofits particularismthissayinggivestheimpressionofbeingveryearlyandistobeascribedto theLogia.Butitplacesusinthetimeofthebeginningmissionaryactivityonthepart oftheprimitivecommunityratherthaninthelifeotJesus. 27Cf.aboveallhisdiscussionwithDalman'sattacks,SkizzenundVorarbeitenVI,pp. V-VII,and pp.187-215. 28Theinterpretationoftheexpressioninthesenseot"idealman"orofmanincon-trasttotheJewisnaturallyexcluded.If suchanideahadbeenpossibleatallinthemilieu withwhichweareconcerned,itwouldhavehadtobeexpressedbythesimpleand notbytheterm,:1. 42 THEPALESTINIANPRIMITIVECOMMUNITY followedhim29 havedrawn theconclusionthat thetitle "Son of Man" isnot tobeattributedtoJesus,becausesuchatitleneverexistedintheregionof theAramaiclanguageandforlinguisticreasonscannothaveexisted.It is inconceivablehowtheutterlycolorless"theman"(andbar6UICe;;TaU meansnothingmore)couldeverhavegainedthe senseofamessianictitleofdignity.Thereisratherhereamisunderstanding whichfirstaroseonthesoiloftheGreeklanguagethrough(anincorrect) translationwith6ulce;;TaU (forCivSpc.":l1TOe;;).30Sotheargument runs. Yetnosortofdecisiveproofcanbeconcededtothisconclusion.First ofall,therearereservationsofalinguisticnaturethatariseagainstit. Dalmanhasnotbeenable,inhissharpstatementsagainstW ellhausen, 31to demolishthebasiclinguisticthesesofthelatter,butatonepointhis statementsremaineminentlyworthyofattention.ForDalmanshowsthat inanentireseriesofdialectswhichheinvestigated(withtheexception,of course,oftheJewish-GalileanandtheChristian-Palestinian),theexpression bar'nascbrarelyappearsandisregardedasarchaic-poetic,andfurther, thatthedefinitebar'naschainthislanguageregionisutterlyunheardof. If thisiscorrect,thusif hereforthesingular"man"(inthedefiniteorthe indefinitesense)substituteformssuchas(the)man,(the)womanwere customary,thenthepossibilityiscertainlygiventhatawhollyextraor-dinarybar'nascbacouldtakeonaterminologicalmeaningwithoutthere-byintroducingthedangerofamisunderstanding. ButevenifDalmanisnotcorrect,andbar'nascbaingeneralusagefirst wastakenasnothingbutanexpressionfortheindividual(definite)man, thenitisutterlybeyondcomprehensionwhyaquitegeneraltermsuchas "theman"couldnotalso,undercertainconditions,havebecomea messianicterm.Jewishapocalypticismlovedtocoinsuchmysteriousand 29EspeciallyLietzmann,DerMenschensoh1t,1896.Eerdmans,Theol.Tijdschr.1894, pp.165ff. 30WellhausenandLietzmann,byplacingtheemergenceofthetitle"SonofMan"in Greek-speakingterritory,passoveroneeminentlyimportantdatumfortheunderstanding ofthemessianictheologyofprimitiveChristianity.Againstthishandlingofthequestion, inmyjudgment,anobjectionisofferedbythesynoptictradition,whichshowsthatthe titlebelongedtotheoriginalstockofthePalestiniantradition. 31Cf.Dalman,TheWordsofJesus,pp.234-41.Inthegenerallinguisticevaluation generic; ,:l"amemberofthehumanspecies";,:ltheemphaticstateof ,:l;theappearanceof,:l.'lasanalternateformforthedesignationofanindividual man),DalmancomesveryclosetoWellhausen'sopinion,onlyhelessdefinitelyworksout thegeneralprinciplesandproceedsmoreempiricallyandlexicographically.Cf.Wellhausen's reply,alreadyreferredtoabove. 43 KYRIOSCHRISTOS enigmaticterms.InitwefindsuchexpressionsfortheMessiahas 6EPX6!lEVOe;,theHshoot"(zemach,oreven(inlatertradition) theleper!32 Andtheconditionsunderwhichthistermcoulddevelopareinfact presentwithinJewishapocalypticism.Herethemattermustrest:thetitle 6uloe;TOOav9pwlTouistobeunderstoodoutoftheprophecyinDaniel (7: 13).Heretheseer,afterhehashadtheworldempiresappearinthe formoffearfulbeasts,beholdsthekingdomofIsraelintheimageofa manwhowasbroughtbeforeGod'sthrone:Andbehold,therecameone withthecloudsofheavenintheformofamani:l::l)andhewas broughtbeforetheAncientOne... andtohimweregivenpowerand honorandlordship."If forDanielhimselftheoneinhumanform33 isonly framedasasymbolforthepeopleofIsrael,thekingdomofthesaints, stillforOrientalimaginationitwasonlyashortsteptomakeoutofthe symbolaconcretefigureandtointerpretthispassagemessianic ally.Perhaps thisstephadalreadybeentakeninthetranslationoftheLXX,which translatedthesentence,"Andhecame(wasbrought)beforetheAncient One,"withK'att:le;lTaAalOe;(!)Suchreinterpretation certainlyispresentalsointheso-calledSimilitudesoftheEthiopicBookof Enoch.ThereEnochviewstheoneinhumanformasapersonallypre-existentbeingwiththe AncientOne in heaven(chap.46), andthishuman-figuredonethentakesover,intheSimilitudes,theroleofthe Messiah.Only onethingisstillunderdispute,whetherintheSimilitudesthecoinedtitle e'Sonof Man" isalready present or not.One may point to the factthat in the Similitudesitisalmostalwaysputasthis"or"that"SonofMan.35 And infacttheseerseemswiththesepronounsconstantlytopointbacktothat basicvisionwhichhehadhadatthebeginning(chap.46).Butitstillis nottobedeniedthatalongthewayofsucharepeatedreferencethetitle, "theSonofMan,"couldhaveandmusthavearisen.Andthuswefindin 32Bousset,Religiondes/udent1tms,2nded.,p.305,n.1. 33ThequestionwhetherthereisnotunderlyingtheDanielic,eschatologicalpicturea mythical,personalfigureofthe"man,"whichtheninDanielwasturnedintoasymbol andreferredtothepeopleofIsrael,doesnotneedtobepursuedfurtherinthiscontext. Forourpurposesitallcomesouttooneandthesamething,whetherthepersonalinter-pretationofthehumanfigurerepresentsareturntoapre-Danielicmythorasimplemis-understanding.Atanyrate,it happened. 34,Theodotioncorrectlyhas:KalEWe;TOU1Tap-alOuT&Vrll..lEp&vEq>9aO'Ev.Thewording oftheLXXcouldofcourserestuponasimplescribalerror. 35Cf.thecompilationofthepassagesbyBeerinKautzsch,Pseudepigraphm,p.262. Bousset,Religiondes/udent1l1lts,2nded.,p.301,n.2. 44 THEPALESTINIANPRIMITIVECOMMUNITY factalsoonceortwicethesimpleform"the"SonofMan(62.7;71.17 mss.,d.69.27) .36AsecondimportantwitnessinJewishliteratureis offeredbytheso-calledvisionoftheSonofManintheFourthBookof Ezra,whichofcourseispost-Christian.Herealsotheconditionsaresimilar. Ezrasees"onelikethefigureofaman"riseoutofthesea,and,looking back,callsthisoneille homo(13.3), ipsehomo(13.12).37Alltheseobserva-tionspointtothefactthatatleastincertainapocalypticcircles38 the title,the"SonofMan,fortheMessiahcouldverywellhavearisen.And thenevenourgospelliterature,withinwhich,aswehaveseen,thetitle "SonofMan"maybetracedbackintotheearliest(i.e.,thePalestinian) strata,provesbeyondanydoubtthatthattransitiontothetitleactuallydid takeplace.Sothenwewillbestbeabletoparaphraseandexplainthestrange andenigmaticdesignationbar'nascha,6uloTTOUEK6EI&V 6UV6:/lEVJC;[SEOO]42(Luke22:69) .43Accordingtothe accountinthebookofActs,Stephen,inecstasybeforehismartyrdom,sees 40ReligiondesJudentums,2nded.,pp.301-2. UCf.Acts2:36and5:31,and particularly John3:14;8:28;12:(32),34. ueEOUisaglossonTile;8UVO:IlEc.:>e;andislackingintheOldLatinmss.eand1(69: eEOUTile;8uvO:IlEc.:>e;).Cf.abovethetextofHegesippus. 403AscomparedwithLuke,theMareantextappearscomplicated:"Youwillsee SonofMansittingattherighthandofPowerandcomingwiththecloudsofheaven" (14:62).The"seeing"actuallyfitsinonlywiththeprophecyofthereturn.Obviouslytwo differentmotifsarecombinedinMark.Matt.26:64hasplacedcm'aPTI,correspondingto theLucancXiraTOUvuv,beforethewordingofMarkandtherebyhasmadethiscompletely meaningless.FromwhatsourcemayLukehavedrawnthelogion,atraceofwhichisalso foundin Matthew? 46 THEPALESTINIANPRIMITIVECOMMUNITY theheavensopenandtheSonofMan" 44standingattherighthandof God.TheLord'sbrotherJamesissaid(accordingtoHegesippus,inEus. CHII,23.13)tohaveansweredthequestionaboutwhathethoughtof Jesusthus:WhydoyouaskmeabouttheSonofMan?Heisseatedin heavenattherighthandofthegreatpowerandwillcomeagainonthe cloudsofheaven." Similarly,theconceptofthecomingoftheheavenlyMessiahistrans-ferredtoJesusandhisparousia.Heistoappearonthecloudsofheaven (Mark14:62), inthegloryoftheFather,surroundedbytheangels(Mark 8:38andpar.,13:26;d.IThess.4:15-16).Hewillsendforthhisangels togathertheelectfromallfourcornersoftheearth(Mark13 :27;d. Matt.13 :41) .45Thenfurther,connectedwiththisisthefactthatinthe gospeltradition,hereandthere,theconceptionofthekingdomofGodis displacedbythatofthekingdomofChrist.46 FortotheSonofManare tofallthepowerandhonorandlordship(Dan.7: 14).Sopeopleventured alreadytospeakoftheday"oftheSonofManjustastheOldTestament spokeofthedayofYahweh.47 AndjustastheJewisheschatologypredicts thecomingofGod,sotheChristianeschatologypredictsthecoming,the parousia,oftheSonofMan.48 Themostmomentousstepinthisdevelop-ment,however,consistsinthefactthatJesusastheSonofManalso becomesthefuturejudgeoftheworldandtherewith,appearinginGod's place,alreadybeginsinthefaithoftheprimitivecommunitytodisplace Godfromhisposition.WeseethedogmaofJesusasjudgeoftheworld inthegospeltradition49 growbeforeourveryeyes.Firsthebecomesthe witnessinthejudgmentbeforethethroneofGod(Luke'sbeforethe angelsofGod"isonlyacircumlocutionforGod)concerningthosewho deniedhimandthosewhoconfessedhim(Matt.10: 3 2-3 3 =Luke12: 8) ; thenhehimself,inthegloryofhisFatherandsurroundedbyhisangels, reckonswiththosewhodeniedhim(Mark8: 38),thenhebecomesthe HThefactthatinthebookofActsthetitle"SonofMan"isfoundonlyhereshows, amongotherthings,howlittlethiswritingmaybesaidfaithfullytoreflectthepreaching oftheprimitiveChristiancommunity. 45ThegatheringtogetherofthedispersedplaysamajorroleintheSon-of-Manvision ofIVEzra;d.alsotheparablesofEnoch,57.MandaeanapocalypseinReitzenstein,p.24. 46Cf.Matt.13:41;16:28;20:21;Luke22:29-30. 47Luke17:26,30;d. Luke17:22;ICor.1 :8,andActs2:20. 48Matt.24:37,39;d. 24:44;IThess.2:19;3:13;4:15,and5:23. UTheattitudeofJesushimselfinthisrespectisclearlyestablishedbysayingssuchas Matt.10:28andLuke12:5-6,andparticularlybyMark10:40.Cf.alsothedogmatic advancefromLuke12:32toLuke22:29. 47 K YRIOSCHRISTOS judgeoftheworldingeneralwhorewardseachoneaccordingtohisdeeds (Matt.16:27;d. Luke21:36).50Finally,Matthewsketches,inaparable, thelarge-scalepictureof theSonofManwhotakeshisseatuponthethrone ofhisglorytodividethethrongsofpeopleastheshepherddividesthe sheepfromthegoats.51 Andalltheseobservationsarefinallyreciprocally supportive;aslittleasJesusproclaimedhimselftobethejudgeoftheworld, aslittleashespokeabouthiscominginthegloryoftheFatherandabout tthis"kingdom,justsolittlealsodidhespeakofthedayoftheSonof Man andoftheparousiaoftheSonofManinjudgment.Allthisliesonthe samelineofthecommunity'sdogmatics,nowsorapidlydeveloping. OneideawhichalreadybelongedtothestockofJewishSonof-Man dogmas,tobesure,washardlytransferredatoncetoJesus;Imeantheidea ofhispreexistencebeforetheworld.Atleastintheentiretraditionofour SynopticGospelsthereishardlyatracethatwouldsuggestthatonemust taketheobscuresayinginLuke10: 18,ttlbeheldSatanfallingaslightning outofheaven,"asareferencetoanexperienceofpreexistence.Hereat firsttheearthlylifeofJesusandthelivelyrecollectionofhimposeda decisivehindrancetothefurtherdevelopmentoftheidea.Inthebeginning theopinionmaywellhavebeenpredominantthatJesussojournedhereupon earthasasimpleman(TIallrplv;stillitwouldperhapsbepossiblethatthismotifwas onlyaddedtotheoriginalmiraclestoryoftheMareannarrativeandthenfurtherex-pandeddogmatically. Herewemightfirstpointtoageneralobservation.Byandlargethenarrativetradition aboutthelifeofJesusflowsintwodistinctstreams.Wehaveontheonehandtheteaching anecdotesandontheotherthemiraclestories.Theattentionofthenarratororofthe hearerisdrawneithertothemiracleortothelogion.Naturallythisdoesnotprecludethat inateachinganecdoteamiracleofJesuswillalsobementioned,orthatalogionofJesus willstandinamiraclestory,extendingbeyondtheframeworkofthelatterandclaiming attentionforitself.Asarule,however,thestreamsremainseparate;theyappeartocor-respondtoavariedinterestinthelifeandthepersonofJesus. 17Accordingtothetextaswehaveit,thequestionruns:"Whydonotyourdisciples fast?"Itisverystrikingthatanobjectionismadetot.henonfastingofJesus'disciples, whilenothingatallissaidofhisownnonfasting,whichmustbepresupposed.Originally thequestionwillhavebeenraisedaboutthenon fastingofJesusandofhisdisciples.With thealteredanswer,analterationofthewaythequestionisposedbecamenecessary. 78 THEPICTUREOFJESUSOFNAZARETH Jesusproceedsfromthegeneralprinciplethat needknowsnolaws,andasan illustrationusestheexampleofDavidwhoinanemergencyatetheshow-bread.Onlythelooselyconnectedcontinuationin2:27-28hasintroduced theideaofthelordshipoftheSonofManovertheSabbath,anidea whichperhapsrestsonamistakentranslation.Thusnowthepreceding statementtakesontheappearancethatJesushereintendstoplacehimself inhismessianicdignitybesideKingDavid. TheexpressionofJesusin3 :27aboutthebindingofthestrongmanhas likewisealwayscauseddifficultiesforexegesis.Peoplehaveaskedinvain towhatexperienceofJesushimselftheconsciousnessofhavingboundthe devil couldberelated.For even thevictoriousovercoming of thetemptations, if indeedthisisahistoricaltraditionatall,cannotberegardedasabinding of thedevil.Alookinto theparalleltradition of theLogiamakestheoriginal meaningofthesayingclear.Immediatelyprecedingthisthesubjectunder discussionisthein-breakingofGod'slordship(Matt.12:28==Luke11:20)! ThusitisGodwhoaccordingtothiscontextbindsthestrongman. FromhisexpulsionofthedemonsJesusconcludesthatGodhasalready conqueredthedevilindecisivefashionandnowdividesthespoil,inthat heallowsJesustodriveoutthedemons.Thecontexthereisdestroyedby Markthroughanabbreviationof thetext,andatthesametime Jesusmoves intotheplacewhichGodhadoriginallyoccupied. Inthelogion:Whoeverwillsavehislifeshallloseit,butwhoeverwill losehislifeformysakeandthegospel'swillsaveit"(8: 35),wemustrule outtheadditionwhichexaltsthepersonofJesus,formysakeandthe gospel's," 18onaccountofthecompletelyclearrhythm ofthesaying,which demandstwoequalandbalancedparts.We:findthesameinterpolationalso intheparallelsMatt.16:25and Luke9:24,andevenin Matt.10:39.Inthe SynopticsonlyLuke17:33hasremainedfreeofit.ButtheGospelofJohn (whileLukehellenizes)hasbestpreservedthewording-albeitwithanew, easilyremovedaddition:6IA&ValhoOaTToAAuEI KCXI6 1l100&vcxlhoO[EV KOO"IlCtlTOUTCtlEIC;alc0vlov] (12: 2 5 ) . To thiscategory moreover belong the sayings in Mark in which alreadythe DVOIla:ofJesusisemphasized.IntheformulaEVQVOIlCXTI(hIXPIO"TOOEO"TE (Mark9 :41)oneseesimmediatelythelaterlanguageofthecommunity 18EuaYYEAIOVisfoundafterallonlyinsecondarypartsofthetraditionandisaword whichbelongstothecommunity,nottoJesus;Mark1:15;10:29;13:10(!);14:9;16:15 (d. Wellhausen'scommentaryonMark1: 15). 79 KYRIOSCHRISTOS (videsupra,pp.3-4,thecommentonthetitleXPlo"TOeaAlJeI>KalOKtlTTTPct>YPO:OUOIV.Chap.120TTO:VTCUVKUPIOC;(d. IJEyac;[3aoIAEuc;ElJEPyETTlC;).Chap.35TTO:OTlC;uypac;UOECUC;KUPIOC;KalapXTlYoc;.Chap. 490TWVapioTcuvTTO:VTCUV KalKUPIOC;"Oolpic;EOTIV.Chap.40(Isis)tiKupia yilc;eEOC;,etpassim. 143 KYRIOSCHRISTOS It ismoredifficulttosettleuponaconclusionastothetimewhenthe GreekKyriostitleappearedinSyriaanditsenvirons.Neverthelesswecan probablyconcludeapriorithattheusagemusthavebeenwidespreadhere veryearly.Hereindeedthelocaldeitiesofthedifferentplacesareexplicitly thelordsof thetribesandthedistricts.IrecallinbrieftheSemiticdesigna-tionsBaal,Adon(ofByblos),Mar,Mar'Olam,andalsothePhoenician Baalsamin(inPhiloofByblos=:KuploeOVOC;yap "KUPIOC;-Asclepius(Ps.Apuleius)8(p.43.2):dominusetomniumconformator;22 (p.58.9):deuspateretdominus;26(p.63.16):dominusetpater,deusprimipotens(d. chap.23,p.60.11;29,p.67.12etpassim).Stobaeus(Eel.I,744)0I-IEVKUPIOC;Kal nO:vTc..:lVOllI-lIOUPYoC;.KOPIlKoal-l0u,ibid.,p.944:TWVOAc..:lVKUPIOVKaieEOV.p.996: KupiaIsis.Cf."KUPIOC;TtI-lWVinahoroscopefromthefirstyearofthe EmperorAntoninus,in Reitzenstein,Poimandres,p.119. 145 KYRIOSCHRISTOS of Yahwehby meansofKUPIOC;,nowalsoentersintothiscontext.Thetrans-lationemergedjustonthesoilinwhichthismostgeneraldesignationof God(besideseE6C;)wascustomaryandwasunderstood.ThusJudaismwith itsBibleacknowledgedtheKUPI0C;towhomaloneitpaidreverence.101 Butwenowmakeasecond,stillmoreimportantobservation.It appears asifthetitleKUPIOC;wasespeciallygiventothedeitieswhichstoodinthe centerofthecultusofthefellowshipinvolved.Thusit ishardlyanaccident thatthosedeitiesintheworshipof whomlateEgyptianreligionwaslikewise concentrated,whosecultusalsopassedforthecharacteristicfeatureof EgyptianpietythroughouttheOikoumene,attracttothemselvesthetitle KUPIOC;morethandoallotherdeities:ImeanOsiris,Isis,andSerapis.That Syrianmendicantmonk"speaksplainlyofhisKyria(Atargatis)inwhose honorheundertookhisbeggingpilgrimages.Butespeciallystrikinghere aretheanalogiesoftheGnosticsects.TheSimoniansgatherthemselves aroundtheKUPIOC;SimonandtheKUPIOHelena.TheValentiniansworship theSophiaAchamothandnotJesusastheirKyrios.Tothiscorrespondsthe factthat,ascanclearlybedemonstrated,almosttheentiresacramental cultusoftheseGnosticsisconnectedwithAchamoth(orwiththeMf)TllP; thedoublingoftheheavenlyMf)TllPandthefallenAchamothisonlylater introduced) .102Achamoth(Mf)TllP)isthecult-heroineoftheValentinians oroftheearlierGnosticswhoseculttheyappropriated.Thereforesheis KUpIOC;.LikewisetheHermeticsectstowhichtheHermeticwritingsare tobetracedgatherthemselvesaroundtheworshipoftheKyrios-Nous-Hermes. It wasinthisatmospherethatAntiocheneChristianityandthatofthe otherprimitiveChristianHellenisticcommunitiescameintobeingandhad their' growth.InthismilieutheyoungChristianreligionwasshapedasa Christcultus,andoutofthisenvironmentthenpeoplealsoappropriated thecomprehensiveformulaKUPIOC;forthedominantpositionofJesusin worship.Noonethoughtthisout,andnotheologiancreatedit;peopledid notreaditoutofthesacredbookoftheOldTestament.Theywould hardlyhavedaredwithoutfurtheradotomakesuchadirecttransferralof thisholynameofthealmightyGod-actuallyalmostadeificationofJesus. Suchproceedingstakeplaceintheunconscious,intheuncontrollabledepths of thegrouppsycheofacommunity;thisisself-evident,it layasit werein 1011tisworthyofnotethatJosephusdoesnotfollowthisusageandalmostnever usesthetitleKUPIOC;.(Schlatter,"WiesprachJosephusvonGott,"BFcTXIV,No.1,9-10). 1.02Cf.Bousset,Hattptprobleme,pp.63if. 146 THEGENTILECHRISTIANPRIMITIVECOMMUNITY theair,that thefirstHellenisticChristiancommunitiesgavethetitleKUPI