Christ in Christian tradition [2 ed.] 0264660161, 9780264660165

Citation preview

ALOYS GRILLMEIER, S.J.

CHRIST IN CHRISTIAN From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon

(a d

451)

TRADITION MOWBRAYS

CHRIST IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION From the Apostolic A g e to Chalcedon A L O Y S G R IL L M E IE R , S.J. Translated b y ], S. B owden T he o r ig in a l o f this translation form ed the introductory essay to a three volum e collec­ tion, Das Konzil von Chalkedon, published in 1951 b y French and German patristic scholars to commemorate the fifteenth centenary o f the Council o f Chalcedon. Professor G. W . H. Lampe writes: ‘As a most lucid and learned account o f the main lines o f development in Christology during the first five centuries, this essay has provided a quarry for every lecturer, and, w ith or w ithout acknowledgement, its argument and its patristic citations have been borrowed b y every writer o f textbooks on the early history o f doctrine. Unfortunately, the great m ajority o f theological students have had to do this essential reading at second hand through the eyes o f lecturers and authors o f more or less potted textbooks, for it has hitherto been accessible only in the original and in libraries w hich could afford to possess the three formidable volumes o f the entire w ork. ‘This serious deficiency has n o w been remedied, and on a handsome scale. T he present volum e is not simply an English translation o f the original essay. It is greatly expanded and thoroughly revised. It stands in its o w n right as a major w o rk o f theo­ logical scholarship.’ In this book Dr. Grillmeier attempts to achieve w hat he calls an ‘historical under­ standing’ o f the Chalcedonian Definition. He shows that the Definition is no mere Hellenistic accretion to the Christian preaching that w e find in the N e w Testament, but that it is the consummation o f a long process o f drawing out the full significance o f the N e w Testament language describing h o w God'and man are one in Jesus Christ. Continued on back fla p

75s. net

St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church Church Library Durham, North Carolina 27707

t

CHRIST

IN C H R I S T I A N T R A D I T I O N

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/christinchristia0000aloy_z3z4

CHRIST IN C H R IS T IA N TRADITION From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (452)

By

A L O Y S GRILLMEIER, S.J. Translated by

J. S. B O W D E N

LONDON A. R . M O W B R A Y & Co. L imited

Imprimi potest: N ik . Junk , s.j ., Praep. Prov. Germ. Inf. Coloniae, die 20 Iulii, 1964 Nihil obstat: R icardus J. Foster, s.t . l., l .s.s., censor deputatus Imprimatur: + Franciscus, Archiepiscopus Birmingamiensis Birmingamiae, die 21 a Augusti, 1964

T h e N ihil obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal o r moral error. It is not implied that those w h o have granted the N ihil obstat and Imprimatur agree w ith the contents, opinions or statements expressed.

© A. R. Mowbray & Co. Limited, 196s First published in 1965

A. R.

P r in t e d in G r e a t B r ita in b y M o w b r a y & Co. L im it e d in th e C i t y o f O x fo r d 3490

FR. BERNARD LONERGAN, S.J. FR. KARL RAHNER, S.J. TO MARK THEIR SIXTIETH BIRTHDAY IN 196 4

pt:

ή

h is book is a full revision o f m y article ‘Die theologische und sprachliche Vorbereitung der christologischen Formel von Chalkedon,’ which was published in A. Grillmeier-H. Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon I (Wurzburg 1 9 5 1,19592,19633), 5-202. The original plan, suggested by the R ev. J. S. Bowden, was simply for a translation o f this study and an expansion o f the bibliographical notes on the basis o f the corrected reprint o f 1959. M r. Bowden also took upon himself the troublesome task o f translation, which steadily increased as the scope o f the revision enlarged. I am especially grateful for his help. I have been particularly concerned to describe the transition from the Apostolic Age to the time o f the emergence o f the christological problem proper, i.e. to give an account o f the christological development o f the second century. This calls for still greater consideration, and more adequate treatment than can be offered here. O n the whole, I have tried to understand and to describe each stage o f the development in its own particular character and to avoid introducing later dogmatic concepts. In m y opinion, however, this does not exclude the stressing o f the rudiments o f later developments where these rudiments are really present. As far as is possible, this investigation is to be continued, first o f all as far as the end o f the patristic period; the preliminary w ork is already quite far advanced. M y thanks are also due to the publishers, A. R . M owbray & Co. Ltd., and to their Chairman, Mr. Neville Hilditch, who undertook to publish the work and has waited with great patience for its completion. Finally, I should like to take this opportunity o f expressing my gratitude to Dr. F. L. Cross and the Oxford International Con­ ference on Patristic Studies, to which this work is much indebted.

T

T FRANKFURT, MAY 24ΤΗ, 19 6 4

vu

he

A

uthor

In the five years since this translation was begun the original has changed out o f all recognition. A vast amount o f entirely new material has been added to the article which appeared in Das Konzil von Chalkedon I, and even where passages which occur in that article have been retained in recognizable form, numerous alterations have been made to them in both text and footnotes. The result is an entirely new book which makes its first appear­ ance in an English version. Something is inevitably lost in the process o f translation, and where no recourse may be had to a published original there is not even a ready check on the accuracy o f the rendering. The author’s generosity in allowing his magnum opus to be made available first in another language thus both places English readers deeply in his debt and lays a considerable burden on the shoulders o f the translator. W hile the latter’s task is above all to remain unobtrusive, mention must be made here o f Professor Grillmeier’s friendliness and consideration which have made that burden so much lighter than it might have been. N o trouble has been too much for him to take to ensure an accurate English text. W ith his ow n good command o f English and with the help o f English speaking colleagues in Frankfurt and in Rome, he has read and corrected every page o f each draft and has also followed the proofs closely through all their stages. For any mistakes and obscurities which still remain the responsibility is, however, solely mine. I can only echo the author’s tribute to the publishers. In addition, I have received help from a number o f people. Miss Patricia Mahon typed the whole o f a long and difficult manuscript with promptness, cheerfulness and quite extraordinary accuracy. The R ev. J. R . Bartlett has most kindly undertaken the com­ pilation o f the main index. The R ev. D. E. Jenkins, Chaplain o f Queen’s College, Oxford, has offered advice and encouragement A*

right from the start. T o all these I am most grateful, and above all to m y wife, who has not only not grudged the additional demands this book has made on leisure time but has also given generously o f her own. Finally, it is a pleasure to record that this translation was awarded a prize by the Christian Research Foundation, Inc., o f America, in its 1963-64 competition. The support given by the Foundation to studies o f all kinds in the history and doctrine o f the Early Church deserves to be far more widely known on this side o f the Atlantic. J. S. B. THE UNIVERSITY, NOTTINGHAM OCTOBER I 9 TH, 196 4

CONTENTS a u t h o r ’s preface

.

.

.

.

vii

t r a n s l a t o r ’s pr eface

.

.

.

.

ix

ABBREVIATIONS

.

.

.

.

.

.

XVli

INTRODUCTION

.

.

.

.

.

.

x x iii

P A R T ONE THE B IR T H O F C H R IS T O L O G Y CHAPTER ONE: THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATION

1. The Present Situation

.

2. N e w Testament Outlines . . (a) The christology o f the primitive (b) The synoptists . . (c) Pauline christology . (d) Pauline christological formulas (1e) The ‘W ord made flesh’ CHAPTER

tw o

.

.

. 3

.

.

. 3

. . community

.

.

. 8

. . .

. . . .

6 6

13 .1 6 < 2 7

: FIRST GROWTH: THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE

SECOND CENTURY

.

.

.

.

36

1. Christological Variants . . . . 41 (λ) A n archaic heritage: Christ and the JewishChristian theology . . . 41 (1b) A popular picture o f Christ . . .6 2 (c) M yth, legend and belief: the popular theology o f the mysteries o f the life o f Jesus . . .7 5 (d) Solvere Christum (1 John 4. 3): on the christological heresies o f the second century . . 90 (c) Martyrdom and apology . . .101 2. The Testimony o f Pastors and Teachers o f the Church from Clement o f R om e to Irenaeus . .102 (a) Clement o f R om e . . . . 102 (b) Ignatius o f Antioch . . . .103 xi

(c) Justin, philosopher and martyr (d) Mehto o f Sardis . (e) Irenaeus o f Lyons .

. . .

. . .

.105 .111 .114

CHAPTER THREE: FROM HIPPOLYTUS TO ORIGEN: THE FOUNDA­ TION OF CHRISTOLOGY AS SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY AND THE EMERGENCE OF HELLENISM

.

1. The Logos Doctrine o f the Apologists 2. Hippolytus .

.

.

.

.

. 1 2 5

.

-127

.

.

3. Tertullian . . . . . . (a) Tertulhan’s christology in its historical context (b) Sermo in carne . . . . . 4. Novatian

.

.

.

.

5. The Alexandrines . . (a) Clement o f Alexandria . (b) Origen . . . .

CONCLUSION

.

. . .

.

.

.

.

.

157

.

.159 . 159 163

. . .

133 140 140 144

.

.172

PART TW O THE F IR S T T H E O LO G IC A L IN T E R P R E T A T IO N S O F THE P E R S O N O F C H R IS T From Origen to Ephesus (431) in t r o d u c t io n : t o w a r d s fo u r th - c e n t u r y

c h r is t o l o g y

.

175

S E C T IO N O N E T H E ‘L O G O S -S A R X ’ C H R I S T O L O G Y c h a p t e r o n e : a r ia n is m

.

.

.

.

.183

1. The Picture and Formulation o f the Arian Christ

.

183

2. The Importance o f Christology in the Arian System .

189

ch apter

tw o

:

betw een

SAINT ATHANASIUS

1. The Problem

a r ia n is m

and

a p o l l in a r ia n is m :

.

.

.

.

.

I 93

.

.

.

.

.

194

2. The Activity o f the Logos in Christ’s Humanity

.

197

3. The Death o f Christ as a Separation o f the Logos

.

203

PAGE

4. The Body as an Instrument .

.

5. The Tomus ad Antiochenos o f 362

.

.

.

.

6. St. Athanasius’ Christological Formula c h a p t e r t h r e e : a p o l l in a r ia n is m

1. The ‘Heavenly Man 2. Mia φύσις

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

217

.

.

220

.

.

.206

.

.

3. The Concept o f ‘Person’ retrospect

.

.

.

222

.

225

.

.

205

.

.

229

.

234

S E C T IO N T W O T H E ‘L O G O S -A N T H R O P O S ' C H R IS T O L O G Y INTRODUCTION

.

.

.

.

- 2 3 9

.

CHAPTER O N E: TWO WAYS OF OPPOSING ARIANISM

.243

.

1. Eustathius o f Antioch . . . *243 (a) The older tradition . . . . 243 (b) Eustathius as opponent o f the ‘Logos-sarx’ frame­ w ork . . . . . . 246 (c) Eustathius and Marcellus o f Ancyra . . 249 2. Eusebius o f Emesa CHAPTER

tw o

:

EARLIER

‘l o g o s - a n t h r o p o s ’

.

.

.

.

ANTI-APOLLINARIANISM

. AND

.

c h r is t o l o g y

250 THE

.

.257

1. The Action o f Epiphanius o f Cyprus and o f Pope Damasus . . . . . .

257

2. Diodore o f Tarsus

260

.

.

.

.

.

CHAPTER THREE: NEW TRENDS AFTER ORIGEN

.

.

2JI

1. The Alexandrine Development o f a Christological Psychology . . . . .

271

2. Cappadocian Christology

.

278

3. Evagrius Ponticus

.

.

4. Nemesius o f Emesa .

.

.

. .

.

CHAPTER FOUR: THE WESTERN CONTRIBUTION

. .

.

.291 .

.

299 * 3 0 3

CHAPTER FIVE! THE EVE OF EPHESUS

.

* 3 2 9

.

1. The Younger C yril and the ‘Logos-sarx’ Christology . 2. The Antiochene Picture o f Christ

.

.

329

-333

(a) John Chrysostom and his picture o f Christ

.

334

(b) Theodore o f Mopsuestia and classical Antiochene christology . . . . -338 (i) The critic o f the ‘Logos-sarx’ framework

. 344

(ii) Christological thought

.

.

.347

(iii) Christological formula

.

.

.358

P A R T TH REE KERYG M A— THEOLOGY— D O G M A Ephesus and Chalcedon (431-451) INTRODUCTION

.

.

.

.

.

363

SECTION ONE T H E S C A N D A L U M O E C U M E N I C U M O F N E S T O R IU S A N D T H E C O U N C IL O F E P H E SU S INTRODUCTION: ECCLESIASTICAL KERYGMA, THEOLOGY, AND THE ORTHODOXY OF NESTORIUS

.

.

369

i.

Nestorius and the Kerygma (or Dogma) o f the Church

2.

The Position o f Historical Research .

CHAPTER

one:

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

tw o

. .

2. The Christ o f the Patriarch Nestorius CHAPTER

-372

THE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT OF NESTORIUS

a t eph esus

1. Defence

.

369

. .

: THE NESTORIUS QUESTION AND ROME

1. The Case o f Leporius

.

2. The Case o f Nestorius at Rom e

.

373 374

-379 .

389

.

.

.389

.

.

.

392

PAGB

CHAPTER THREE: ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, THE ADVERSARY OF NESTORIUS

.

.

.

.

.

400

1. C yril and Apollinarius

.

.

.

.

400

2. Ambiguous Language

.

.

.

.

406

3. C yril and the Concept o f Person

.

.

.

409

CHAPTER FOUR: THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS

.

.

- 4 1 3

S E C T IO N T W O F R O M EPH ESUS T O C H A L C E D O N - 4 1 9

CHAPTER ONE: THE REACTIONS OF THE ANTIOCHENES .

1. Theodoret o f Cyrus

.

.

.

.

419

2. Andrew o f Samosata

.

.

.

.

427

3. Nestorius and his Liber Heraclidis

.

.

*433

(a) Theology o f tw o natures

.

.

.433

(b'j The christological formula o f the Liber Heraclidis .

438

(c) Christological formula and thought CHAPTER TW O : THE EVE OF CHALCEDON

1. Proclus

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

441

.

·

453

.

.

453

2. The Trial o f Eutyches and the Formula o f Flavian o f Constantinople . . . . . 456 3. Leo the Great and his Tomus ad Flavianum

.

460

(a) Leo’s christological thought in the pre-Chalcedonian period . . . . .

465

(b) Christological formula

474

.

.

.

.

.

SE C T IO N T H R E E TH E C O U N C IL O F C H A L C E D O N CHAPTER

one:

THE DOGMATIC FORMULA OF CHALCEDON

CHAPTER T W O : CHALCEDON AND THE HISTORY OF THEOLOGY

.

480

.

488

EPILOGUE: CHALCEDON— END OR BEGINNING?

.

a p p e n d i x : t h e n e s t o r iu s - q u e s t i o n i n m o d e r n s t u d y

BIBLIOGRAPHY

.

.

.

.

.

INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES INDEX OF GREEK WORDS

.

.

INDEX OF LATIN WORDS

.

.

CHRISTOLOGICAL INDEX

.

.

GENERAL INDEX

.

.

.

.

5 16 5 16

- 5 1 7

.

- 5 1 9

. .

496

.

. .

.

.

506

.

.

492

.

. .

.

.

52 0

ABBREVIATIONS AA A AAS AbhGottGW ACO ACW AnalBibl AnalBoll AnalGreg Angel Anton AugMag

BGBH BLE Byz BZ CCL CO D

CSC O CSEL DictAL

Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha post C. Tischendorf denuo edd. R . A. Lipsius et M. Bonnet. Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Romae 1909 ff.) Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft d. Wissensch. zu Gottingen, phil.-histor. Klasse (Gottingen) Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwartz (Argentorati-Berolini-Lipsiae 1914 ff.) Ancient Christian Writers, ed. J. Quasten and J. C. Plumpe, Westminster (Maryland) Analecta Biblica (Romae) Analecta Bollandiana (Paris-Bruxelles) Analecta Gregoriana (Romae) Angelicum (Romae) Antonianum (Romae) Augustinus Magister, Congres International Augustinien, 1954, Vols. I and II Communica­ tions, Vol. III Actes (Paris 1954-55) Beitrage zur Geschichte der bibhschen Hermeneutik (Tiibingen) Bulletin de Litterature Ecclesiastique (Toulouse) Byzantion (Paris-Liege) Biblische Zeitschrift (Freiburg im Breisgau) Corpus Christianorum, series Latina (Tumholti, Belgium) Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta. Edidit Centro di documentazione— Istituto per le scienze religiose— Bologna, curantibus J. Alberigo— P. P. Joannou— C. Leonardi— P. Prodi, consult­ ante H. Jedin (Herder 1962) Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium (ParisLouvain) Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum (Wien) Dictionnaire d’Archeologie Chretienne et de Liturgie, ed. F. Cabrol— H. Leclercq (Paris 1907 ff.) xvii

xviii

DThP

Dictionnaire de la Bible, ed. F. Vigouroux (5 vols, Paris 1895-1912; 3rd. impression 1926 if. Supplement 1920 fF.) Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Geographie Ecclesiastiques, ed. A. Baudrillart (Paris 1912 fF.) Dominican Studies, A quarterly review o f theology and philosophy (Oxford) Dumbarton Oaks Papers, ed. Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.) Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, ed. A. Vacant— E. Mangenot— E. Amann (Paris 1909 fF.) Divus Thomas (Piacenza)

EO EphThLov ET EtBibl EvTh

Echos d’Orient (Paris-Constantinople) Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses (Louvain) English Translation fitudes Bibliques (Paris) Evangelische Theologie (Miinchen)

Folia

Folia, Studies in the Christian Perpetuation of the Classics (New York) Franciscan Studies (St. Bonaventura, New York) Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Gottingen)

DictBibl (Suppi)

DictHGE DomStud DOP D TC

FrancStud FRLANT GCS

GOK G O TR Greg

Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, ed. KirchenvaterKommission der PreuB. Akad. d. W . (Leipzig); now: ed. Kommission fiir spatantike Religionsgeschichte der Deutschen Akad. d. W . zu Berlin Geschichte der Okumenischen Konzilien, ed. G. Dumeige— H. Bacht (Mainz) Greek Orthodox Theological Review Gregorianum. Rivista di studi teologici e filosofici (Romae)

HZ

Histoire des Conciles Oecumeniques, ed. G. Dumeige (Paris) Historisches Jahrbuch der Gorres-Gesellschaft (M iinchen-Koln) Historische Zeitschrift (Miinchen)

ITQ

Irish Theological Quarterly (Maynooth)

HCO Histjb

JBL JLH JTS

Journal o f Biblical Literature (Boston-New Haven) Jahrbuch fiir Liturgik und Hymnologie (Kassel) Journal o f Theological Studies (LondonOxford)

Litjb LThK

Liturgisches Jahrbuch (Munster i. W.) Lexikon fiir Theologie und Kirche2, ed. J. Hofer— K. Rahner (Freiburg im Breisgau 1957 if.)

Mansi

Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio (Florence 1759 if.— Venice 1769 if; ParisAmhem-Leipzig 1901-1927) Miscellanea Franciscana (Romae) Melanges de Science Religieuse (Lille) Le Museon (Louvain)

MiscF M SR Mus NF NGott

NRT NS NTAbh NTS N TT

oc OCP OrChr PG PL PLS PO PS

Neue Folge Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, phil.-hist. Klasse (— 1940); N.v.d. Akademie d. W. in G. (1941 ff) (Got­ tingen) Nouvelle Revue Theologique (Toumai) New Series Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen (Munster i.W.) New Testament Studies (Cambridge) Nederlande Theologisch Tijdschrift (Leiden) Orientalia Christiana (Romae) Orientalia Christiana Periodica (Romae) Oriens Christianus (Leipzig 1901-41; Wies­ baden 1953 ff) Patrologiae cursus completus, ed. J. P. Migne: Ser. graeca (Paris 1857-66) Patrologia cursus completus, ed. J. P. Migne: Ser. latina (Paris 1944-55) PatrologiaeLatinae Supplementum, ed. A. Hamman: I (Paris 1958), II (i960), III (1963) Patrologia Orientalis, ed. R . Graffrn— F. Nau (Paris 1903 ff.) Patristica Sorbonensia (Paris 1957 ff.)

PTSt PW K

Patristische Texte und Studien (Berlin 1964 if.) Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Realencyklopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart)

RAM RB RevEtGrec RevEtLat RevOrChr RevSR

Revue d’Ascctique et de Mystique (Toulouse) Revue Biblique (Paris) Revue des Etudes Grecques (Paris) Revue des Etudes Latines (Paris) Revue de ΓOrient Chretien (Paris) Revue des Sciences Religieuses (StrasbourgParis) Revue Thomiste (Paris) Rehgion in Geschichte und Gegenwart3, ed. K. Galling (Tubingen 1957 ff.) Revue d’Histoire Ecclesiastique (Louvain) See Bibliography See Bibliography Rivista degli Studi Orientali (Roma) Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques (Paris) Recherches de Science Religieuse (Paris) Recherches de Theologie Ancienne et Medievale (Louvain) Romische Quartalschrift fur Christliche Altertumskunde und fur Kirchengeschichte (Freiburg im Breisgau)

RevThom RGG RHE Richard, Athanase Richard, Hypostase RSO RSPT R SR RTAM RomQ

SBMiinchAk

SymbOsl

Sitzungsberichte der Bayrischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philos.-philol.-hist. Klasse (Miinchen) Studies in Biblical Theology (London) Sources Chretiennes (Paris) Scholastik (Freiburg im Breisgau) Les sciences philosophiques et theologiques (Paris Studi e Testi (Roma-Citta del Vaticano) Studia Patristka, ed. K. Aland and F. L. Cross, I-VI (TU 63—64. 78-81 (Berlin 1957-62 ff.)) Symbolae Osloenses (Oslo)

TD TG TheolStud

Textus et Documenta, series theologica (Romae) Theologie und Glaube (Paderbom) Theological Studies (Woodstock, Maryland)

SBT SC Schol SPT ST StudPat

Theologische Literaturzeitung (Leipzig) Theologische Quartalschrift (Tubingen) Theologische Revue (Munster) Traditio. Studies in Ancient and Medieval History, Thought and Religion (New York) Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift (Trier) Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchr. Literatur, ed. Ο. V. Gebhardt— A. v. Hamack, etc. (Leipzig) Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testa­ ment, ed. G. Kittel— F. Gerhard(Stuttgart 193 3 fF.) (ET by G. W . Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Michigan-London 1964). Remainder to follow) Theologische Zeitschrift (Basel) See Bibliography Vigiliae Christianae. A Review o f Early Christian Life and Language (Amsterdam) Vox Theologica (Assen, Ned.) Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte (GothaStuttgart) Zeitschrift fiir Katholische Theologie (Innsbruck) Zeitschrift fiir Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche (Berlin) Zeitschrift fiir Religions- und Geistesgeschichte (Marburg) Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche (Tiibingen)

INTRODUCTION C h r i s t i a n i t y takes its name from Christ (Acts n . 26). At the beginning o f its history stand the Christ-event, Christ’s revelation and, above all, Christ himself as a person. From the very begin­ ning, an intellectual struggle set in over this event and this person which is to be counted among the most profound o f all human controversies, within Christianity or outside it. It is essential to understand this struggle, which can only take place in full force on the level o f faith, i f we are to understand how Christianity and mankind appropriated the Mysterium Christi. W e do not understand the present condition o f our faith in Christ unless we have taken the measure o f this faith as it was in the past. W e m ay not be indifferent to any age in this past. Each generation o f Christian history has contributed something towards the appro­ priation o f the Mysterium Christi which deserves the consideration o f posterity. T o allow only those questions that are live issues for the present— and perhaps only for the present— to determine the interpretation o f the Mysterium Christi would be a dangerous limitation to our understanding o f Christ. But at the same time, the problems o f our day are o f the utmost value in understanding history. They teach us that we must show how a consideration o f the past is relevant to the present. This is not difficult for us in the particular case o f the history o f ancient christology. For ancient christology puts Christ in the middle o f time and sees in the development o f faith in him a process which w ill only end with the Second Com ing o f the Lord. There has often been a feeling o f deep suspicion towards ancient christology, and it has been said to have no value for our age because it made use o f a technical language and a Hellenistic presentation, both o f which must be rejected. But i f w e are to proclaim the Mysterium Christi in the language o f our time, we must first have understood what the Fathers wanted to say in the language o f their time. The inward, intellectual struggles o f the ancient Church testify that the christological writers o f that Church were concerned with something vital, namely the very nature o f Christianity.

PA R T ONE

THE B I R T H OF C H R I S T O L O G Y

THE B IBLICA L F O U N D A T IO N i.

T

he

P r esen t Sit u a t io n

T h e nineteenth century used all its energy to work out a purely historical picture o f Jesus by means o f the techniques o f historical investigation. In this investigation, the dogma o f the Incarnation was not to be accepted as a basic presupposition: the life o f Jesus was to be treated as a purely human life which developed in a human way. The attempt came to nothing.1 Thereupon there followed a return to the theological treatment o f the N ew Testament statements about Christ. M. Kahler2 stood at the beginning o f the new movement; he brought to German Protes­ tant theology the recognition ‘that the Christian faith is related to Jesus o f Nazareth as he was preached in the Apostolic proclama­ tion as the Crucified and the Risen One. The message o f the Apostles is the proclamation o f a kerygma for which they have been commissioned by the appearances o f the Risen O n e . . . . The reminiscences o f the Jesus o f history were preserved, shaped and interpreted within the framework o f the proclamation o f the Risen One and this interpretation is the right and legitimate one for the Christian faith.’3 The pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction; whereas the slogan used to be ‘the pure Jesus o f history,’ it is now ‘the pure Christ o f faith.’ T o this effect, R . Bultmann pursues Kahler’s views to their conclusion. As one o f the founders o f ‘dialectical theology’ he breaks with an isolated liberal scholar­ ship, though he incorporates its results extensively in his pro­ gramme o f ‘demythologization.’ The picture o f Christ offered

1 A. Schweitzer, Von Reim ams z u Wredc (Tubingen 1906), E T The Q uest o f the Historical (London 19543). 2 M. Kahler, D er sogenanntc historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus (Leipzig 1892, 18962, New impression 1953). 3 N . A. Dahl, ‘Der historische Jesus als gcschichtswissenschaftliches und theologisches Problem,’ Kerygma und Dogma I (1955) (104—32) 112. Cf. T. W. Manson, ‘The Lite ot Jesus. Some tendencies in present day research,’ in The Background o f the N ew Testament and its Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies—D. Daube in honour o f C. H. Dodd (Cambridge 1956), 211-21. Jesus

by Bible and Church, which represents Christ as Kyrios and Theos, is declared to be a myth the roots o f which lie partly in Hellenism, partly in Jewish Apocalyptic. It is impossible, he argues, for modem man with his unmythological view o f the world to accept the Chalcedonian Definition as a final result. W hile the ‘Christ myth’ o f the N ew Testament is not, o f course, to be excluded, as it was in the elimination-work carried on by the Liberals, it should be utilized for a Christian self-understanding by means o f the so-called ‘existential interpretation.’ This existential interpretation is to be independent o f any objective and affirmative statement about Christ and the acceptance o f it in faith, such as, say, Paul demands in i Corinthians 15. It is to be pure self-understanding before God in Christ, the Crucified One, and therefore pure faith which is not directed towards a content believed objectively. As a result, the problem o f the ‘Jesus o f history’ is bracketed o ff from ‘theology,’ and the latter is made dependent on itself. T o illustrate this theological position, occupied by a part o f German Protestant scholarship, the words o f one o f its best representatives may be quoted. H. Conzelmann writes: ‘W e (i.e. the representatives o f this radical kerygma theology) are accus­ tomed to begin our thinking with the gap which lies between the Jesus o f history and the community, marked by his death along with the Easter experiences, and with the difference between Jesus’ preaching o f the Kingdom o f God and the kerygma that has him as its subject, between Jesus the proclaimer and the proclaimed Christ. Yet self-evident as this viewpoint may seem to us, we must be clear that outside central Europe it convinces only a few. The majority o f English theologians either do not react to form criticism at all, or they acknowledge it merely as a formal classification o f literary types and contest that it leads to historical or systematic judgements. They thus reserve for them­ selves the possibility o f drawing a continuous line from Jesus’ understanding o f himself to the faith o f the community. Easter is in no w ay ignored, but the content o f the Easter faith, and with it the basic christological terms and titles, is traced back to Jesus’ own teaching. The theology o f the community appears as the working out o f the legacy o f the Risen Christ on the basis o f his appearances.’ . . . ‘T o the representatives o f this position the

form-critical reconstruction seems to be a rationalistic abstraction, foreign both to history and. to reality, and. from a practical point o f view a reduction o f Christianity to a general religious con­ sciousness, a formal dialectic o f existence.’ But Conzelmann himself has to recognize that: ‘The advantage o f this solution is that an established continuity is in itself historic­ ally more probable than the assertion o f a discontinuity which is hardly able to explain the formation o f the categories o f the faith o f the community. Furthermore, it can make plausible the transformation that the christological concepts (Servant, Messiah, Son o f Man) have undergone between their Jewish (Biblical and Apocalyptic) origin and their Christian usage: they received their present concrete meaning in Jesus’ interpretation o f himself. The w ay from here to the formation o f the Gospels also becomes clear: the material deriving from Jesus received its shaping in the teaching w ork o f the community; the proof from Scripture, for example, may have been a formative factor. And as Jesus used to w ork on the same basis, a substantial agreement is assured.’1 So to-day— and in a part o f German Protestant theology too— a synthesis is being sought between the extremes (pure Jesus o f history— pure Christ o f faith); the Jesus o f history is taken as a presupposition o f the Christ o f faith. There is a recognition that the primitive community itself already achieved this conjunction. It identified the humiliated Jesus o f Nazareth with the exalted Kyrios. W ith this twofold recognition it was in a position to withstand the error o f Docetism on the one hand and the denial o f the transcendence o f the Kyrios on the other. Indeed, it was just this tension, this war waged on two fronts by the N ew Testament authors, that demanded clarity o f expression in talking 1 H. Conzelmann, ‘Gegenwart und Zukunft in der synoptischen Tradition,’ ZThK 54 (1957) (277-96) 279f.; cf. W. R . Matthews, T he Problem of Christ in the Twentieth Century. A n Essay on the Incarnation (London—New York—Toronto 1950, 1951); G. V. Jones, Christology and M yth in the N ew Testament (London 1956). The N T is interpreted in accordance with the continuity mentioned above especially by Vincent Taylor, The Names o f Jesus (London 1953); T he L ife and M inistry o f Jesus (London 1954); The Person o f Christ in N ew Testament Teaching (London 1958). Worth noting is the conclusion of B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript. Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Acta Sem. Neot. Upsal. 22) (Uppsala 1961) 325; ‘This high christology (of the synoptic tradition) cannot be disconnected from the im­ pression made by Jesus on his disciples, and furthermore it must have some original connection with Jesus’ own view of his work, of his position, and of himself. The opinion expressed by so many scholars, that the christology of the N .T. is essentially a creation of the young Church, is an intelligent thesis, but historically most improbable.’

about Jesus and hence depth in theological interpretation. They knew that the earthly, crucified Jesus was to be seen only in the light ot Easter day. But it was also realized ‘that Easter could nor be understood adequately if no account were taken o f the earthly Jesus.’1 It follows from this that for the understanding o f the primitive Church ‘the history o f Jesus was decisive for faith, because the earthly and the exalted Lord are the same.’2 Recent scholarship also understands the special position o f St. John’s Gospel from this tension. Its special character lies in the fact that 'it portrays the abiding presence o f the exalted Lord precisely within the framework o f a history o f the earthly Jesus. . . . It is precisely the Fourth Gospel, deriving as it does from the period o f anti-Docetic struggles, which cannot and will not deny that revelation takes place on earth and in the flesh.’ According to E. Kasemann there is a consequence for us as well: ‘w e too cannot abandon the identity o f the exalted with the earthly Lord without falling into Docetism and depriving ourselves o f the possibility o f distinguishing the Easter faith o f the community from a m yth.’3 These are the lines along which we are here attempting to survey the course o f faith in Christ from the N ew Testament proclamation to the Council o f Chalcedon. 2. N

ew

T

esta m en t

O

u t l in e s

(a) The christology of the primitive community The earliest christology must be sought in the primitive JewishChristian community. It derived from the resurrection o f Jesus, wliich was understood as his appointment to heavenly power. In his resurrection, Jesus was made ‘both Lord and Christ’ (Acts 2.33-36). In other words, Jesus is now ‘Messiah’ in the full sense o f the Jewish expectation. He is the redeemer king who rules in the name o f God (cf. Matt. 28. 18). The use o f the language o f Psahn 2. 7 in Acts 13. 33 to say that he is the ‘adopted Son o f G od’ is not necessarily an indication o f a strict Adoptionism. ‘O n the con­ trary, only the career o f Jesus, which, while always Messianic, leads through humiliation to exaltation, is here approximated to 1 Cf. E. Kasemann, ‘Das Problem des historischen Jesus,’ ZThK51 (1954) (125-53) 134. n m 141. 3 ibid. 139-41.

Jewish thought. The ignominious death o f the Messiah, incon­ ceivable to Jewish sentiment, is the necessary prelude to his saving dominion which offers even to blinded Israel one more oppor­ tunity for repentance and the forgiveness o f sins (cf. Acts 3. i8ff.; 5. 31). Neither the baptism o f Jesus nor his resurrection are the basis for an ‘Adoptionist’ christology in the later sense.’1 The career o f Jesus is regarded as a revelation o f the divine work o f salvation. T w o stages or periods, however, were seen in it—-one earthly, in the flesh, and one heavenly, in the spirit [Rom. 1. 3f.; i Pet. 3.18; i Tim. 3 . 16a). Whenever Jesus is described according to his earthly descent as Son o f David, his transcendence is also being emphasized at the same time, in contrast to his ancestor (cf. Mark 12. 35ff.; Acts 4. 25ff). This title is in any case important for Matthew (1. 1; 9. 27; 12. 23; 15. 22; 20. 3of.; 21. 9, 15) and for Luke (1. 32, 69; 2. 4, 11). Even the Apocalypse still knows it (3 · 7; 5· 5 5 22. id). Jesus is the fulfilment o f the Messiahship

promised in David. As well as this title ‘Son o f David,’ the earliest christology also knows another, ‘The Servant’ (Matt. 12. 18 = Isa. 42. 1; Acts 3.13, 26; 4. 27, 30). A reference to the servant songs may justifiably be assumed here. The designation o f Jesus as ‘prophet’ was only short-lived; it had a reference to Deuteronomy 18. 15, 18 and served to explain Jesus’ mission to Jewish audiences (Acts 3. 22; 7· 375 J°hn 6 . 14; 7. 40). And even i f the Fathers arc right later in emphasizing that the transcendence o f Christ is something more than a heightened prophetical office, this title nevertheless em­ braces his mission as Revealer o f the Father and Teacher o f men.2 1 R . Schnackenburg, art. ‘Jesus Christus’ in LThK. V (1960) (932—40) 933. This article provides a selective bibliography; T. Dc Kruijf, D er Solm des lebendigen Gotten. Bin Be it rag zu r Christologi? des Matthausevangeliums (A nal Uibl 16) (Ronue 1962) 25-40 (Die Christologie der altesten Tradition); B. M. F. van Iersel S.M.M., 'D e r Sohn' in den synoptischen Jesusworten (Leiden 1961); G. Streckcr, D er It'eg der Gercchtigkcit. Untersuchung zu r Theologie des Matthaus (FR LA N T 82) (Gottingen 1962) 86-188 (Christology); 189-242 (Ecclesiology); F. Hahn, Christologisclie Iloheitstitel. Hire Geschichte im Jruhen Christentum (FR LA N T 83) (Gottingen 1963). As this important study was not available in time to be used for the present chapter, the relevant sections may be given brief mention here: Menschensohn (15-53); Kyrios (67-125); Christos (133-225); Davidssohn (242-279); Gottessohn (280-333). 2 L. Goppelt, Typos (Giitcrsloh 1939) 70ff.; O. Cullmann, T he Christology of the N ew Testament (ET London 19632) 13-50; F. G\\s,Ji!sus Prophete d'apres les Buangiles Syuoptiques (Louvain 1957).

In any case, it has a high soteriological significance. Finally he relation o f the exalted Lord to the Church and to the world is further expressed through the idea o f the Parousia. It is o f great importance in the Christian picture o f history, even though at first, in the Apostolic preaching, it stands in the background. For o f course the exaltation o f the Crucified One had first to be proclaimed (cf. Acts 3. 2of.). But a strong belief in the Parousia (Matt. 24. 3) was alive in the primitive community, and found its liturgical expression in the Aramaic cry o f longing Marana-tha (1 Cor. 16. 22; Apoc. 22. 20; i Cor. 11. 26). It is at the same time evidence o f worship offered to Jesus as ‘Lord.’ (b) The Synoptists B y now, faith in Christ has already found expression in several different ways in the individual writings o f the N ew Testament. The Synoptists are the interpreters o f the faith o f the primitive Church in the career o f Jesus the Messiah through humiliation to exaltation, in accordance with the w ill o f the Father and the witness o f Holy Scripture. Their purpose is furthered by the stressing o f the threefold announcement o f the Passion (Mark 8. 31; 9. 31; 10. 32ff. par.) and the whole interpreta­ tion o f the course o f the Passion (Luke 24. 25f, 45f.). The unity o f this course is demonstrated in the structure and the special linking o f the Passion and Resurrection accounts. This is particu­ larly pronounced in Matthew.1 N ow the one who follows this course is the ‘Son o f God,’ a title which, while affording a special insight into the primitive Church’s understanding o f Jesus (cf. Mark 1. 1, 11; 9. 7; 14. 61; Luke i. 35; 22. 70; Matt. 2. 15; 14. 33; 16. 16; 27. 40, 43), never­ theless has its basis in the unique consciousness o f divine Sonship in Jesus himself. This consciousness (Mark 12. 6; 13. 32; 14. 36), together with Jesus’ claim to be the only saving w ay to the Father (Matt. 11. 25-27), is the decisive starting point not only for the confessions o f primitive Christianity and the early Church, 1 See K. H. Schelkle, D ie Passion Jesu in der Verkiindigung des Nenen Testamentes (Heidel­ berg 1949); K. Stendhal, T he School o f S t. Matthew and its use o f the O ld Testament (Uppsala 1954).—The prevalent verdict to-day on the description o f the Synoptic Gospels as ‘a passion narrative with a detailed introduction’ (M. Kahler) is that this holds only for St. Mark’s Gospel. With Dahl, Marxsen and Bornkamm, J. Schreiber, ‘Die Christoiogie des Markusevangeliums,’ ZThK 58 (1961) 154—83, sees in Mark ‘the book o f hidden epiphanies’ and finds in it the christology o f the Hellenistic communities.

but also for the christology which developed from them and led up to Chalcedon.1 It is recognized that within these common basic features each o f the Synoptists forms his own picture o f Christ. The concept o f the Son o f Man stands as the central feature o f St. M ark’s Gospel. Jesus’ earthly w ork is interpreted from the Messianic secret, which the disciples do not understand (cf. 6. 52; 8. 17; 9. 10). In this w ay special emphasis seems to be laid on the darkness o f his sufferings, but at the same time the light o f the Resurrection, Ascension and Parousia (Mark 8. 38; 14. 6 if.; 16. 19) breaks through. St. Matthew’s Gospel is the ‘Book o f the Church’ in a special way. The reason for this is not the occurrence o f the w ord ‘ecclesia (16. 18; 18. 17), but the ecclesiology o f the Gospel itself, which has its basis in the christology.2 A t the climax o f this Gospel, winch has already spoken earlier o f the Kingdom that has come in Jesus, there also rings out the famous confession ‘Thou art the Son o f the living God’ (16. 16). In the view o f the evangelist this is without doubt an adequate expression o f the mystery o f the person o f Jesus. The figure o f Jesus is raised to divine transcendence, something which was already a concern o f the first chapters. The picture o f Christ, the bringer o f salvation, is drawn, as in the other Gospels, in three particular figures: those o f ‘Son o f God,’ ‘Servant,’ and ‘Son o f Man.’ In each o f these titles the close conjunction o f expressions o f exaltation and expressions o f humiliation should be noted. ‘Son o f God,’ say, is no more to be taken simply as a description o f transcendence than ‘Servant’ as an indication o f humiliation. For it is just tliis Son o f God who is at the same time the ‘Ebed Jahweh’ and the ‘Eked Jahweh’ w ho is at the same time the ‘Son o f God.’ The title ‘Ebed Jahweh,’ which is here understood from its Old Testament, patriarchal background, is well capable o f expressing the inward relationship o f Jesus to God, his Father. 1 Cf. R . Schnackcnburg, art. ‘Jesus Christus’ in LThK V (1960) 934; id., art. ‘Sohn Gottes, Gottcssohnschaft’ (I. NT) in LThK IX (forthcoming) with a good survey o f all interpretations o f the title ‘Son’ . S. stresses the distinction between ‘Son o f God’ and the absolute use o f ‘Son’ , esp. after F. Hahn, op. cit. 328f, 380-404. 2 G. Bornkannn, ‘Endcrwartung und Kirche im Matthausevangelium,’ in BornkammDarth-Held, Ubcrlieferimg und Auslegung im Matthdusevangelium (Neukirchen 19612) 13—47, E T Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London 1963); T. De Kruiji, D cr Sohn des lebendigen G ottes, 150-68 and G. Strecker, op. cit. (for details o f these see p. 7, note 1). B

It is in this relationship to the Father that the sayings about Jesus, the revelation brought by him (Matt, n ) and his Church (Matt. 16. 16) have their foundation. In Matthew n the ‘Son o f Man’ and ‘men’ are intentionally contrasted. The grace and salvation inherent in the ‘heavenly mystery’ o f the Son o f Man are derived from Jesus’ relationship with the Father. O nly God, only the Father ‘knows’ the Son. The twofold γινώσκειν is not to be given an intellectual interpretation: precisely in this twofold form it represents the mutual relationship between the Father, who chooses the Son in love, and the Son, who in love entrusts himself to the Father. In this section (Matt. n . 25-30), the statements about the Son, w ho extols the Father’s plan o f salvation, are intrinsically bound up with the interpretation o f the saving history. In ch. 11, Jesus, who is compared with the Baptist, is represented as the turn o f the ages. For he brings in the dominion o f God, because he is the bearer o f the spirit, the conqueror o f Satan, the beloved Son o f God. In concepts deriving from apocalyptic language (cf. Dan. 2. 2, 3) and perhaps also from wisdom literature, Jesus is proclaimed as Son o f Man (cf. Dan. 7. 14), Wisdom and Servant (after Isa. 52. 14; 53. 2). In his words and actions, in his person and his conduct, the revelation o f the Kingdom o f God, the new world o f God, is already present, but revealed only to the little ones and to the poor w ho treasure the w ork o f God. It is, then, in this context that the words describing the whole unique relationship between Father and Son stand. True, in the fust place they concern only the ordering o f revelation and salvation. Jesus ascribes to himself a special know­ ledge o f the mysteries o f salvation. But they can and must be carried back further to a transcendent relationship which is the basis o f this special knowledge. Jesus himself stresses dais unique relationship by distinguishing clearly between the address to the Father which he himself uses and that which he allows to men. At no time does he associate himself with men in this form o f address— a fact which can be noticed more frequently in St. Matthew’s Gospel than elsewhere. In using ‘Abba,’ an address impermissible to a Jewish man, as an intimate name for the Father, he is expressing a filial relationship that surpasses all Old

Testament precedent.1 The relationship o f the ‘Son o f God’ to the ‘Father’ is therefore not just a more or less technical circumlocution for a special election o f Jesus, say, to be Messianic king: it means a real relationship o f Son to Father. But that is not to say that the eternal generation o f the Son and the unity o f substance o f Father and Son already find explicit expression here (Matt. n . 25-7). It is not the metaphysical relationship between Father and Son but their personal relationship— one m ight almost say their moral relationship— that is described. Indeed, it w ou ld be better i f w e said ‘is suggested.’ For the intim acy o f Father and Son is not considered in itself; it is revealed as a mysteri­ ous reality because o f its relationship to the mystery o f the Kingdom . . . . Like the Son o f M an in Daniel, the Son has received ‘all’ from the Father. This ‘all’ includes kin gly might, ε ξο υ σ ία , but even more than that: the K ingdom itself is given to the Son. T he K ingdom is, how ever, no substantial earthly reality; it is realized b y the Son on earth in his powerless, yet authoritative, proclamation and in the revelation o f its mystery to the disciples. As revealer, the Son is mediator between G od and a number o f elect, but he is this precisely b y virtue o f his uniquely intimate relationship to the Father, w hich is more than that o f a prophet, a king, or a faithful servant: T he Son o f G od really is the beloved Son, to w h o m the Father can give all things.2

In Matthew 16. 13-19, too, Peter’s confession is more than a confession o f the Jewish Messiah. This is above all clear from the Old Testament background once more presupposed here, as in ch. 11— again Daniel, but also Numbers 11-13. The Son (of Man), to whom all was given by the Father, is not only the revealer o f the Kingdom ; in his revelation he also realizes the Kingdom. The basileia is the Kingdom o f Heaven, the Kingdom o f God. In so far as the Son realizes it, it is the Kingdom o f the Son (of Man— cf. Matt. 13. 41). In so far as the Kingdom is realized on earth, it is the ε κ κ λ η σ ία , the people o f the saints. The Son is mediator between the Kingdom o f Heaven and the ε κ κ λ η σ ία upon earth. Just as the Father has given ‘all’ to him, including precisely this position as mediator, so too the Son gives to Peter the ‘keys o f the Kingdom o f Heaven’ on the strength o f XJ. Jeremias, ‘Kennzeichen der ipsissima vox Jesu,’ in Synoptische Studien (Festschrift for A. Wikenhauser) (MUnchen 1953) 86-93; id., in ThLZ 79, 1954, 213f. 2 T. De Kruijf, D er Sohn des iebendigen Gottes (see p. 7, note 1) 75-6; for what follows cf. ibid. 80-8 (M att. 16. 16); 112-15 (M att. 28. 19); 142-9. See too A. M. Hunter, ‘Crux criticorum— M a tt. 11. 25-30—A Re-appraisal,’ in N T S 8 (1961-62) 241-9.

the latter’s confession o f faith in him as the Son. So there is a reciprocal relationship between the confession o f faith and the promise given to Peter. Peter’s confession o f faith is in fact a confession o f the ‘Son’ as the mediator between God and the people, between the Kingdom o f Heaven and the coming King­ dom on earth, the Church. But again, as in n . 27, Jesus can only be this unique mediator on the basis o f his unique relationship to the Father. So here too we already have another indication that Jesus has more than a purely functional significance. Matthew 11. 27 already points us on to Matthew 28. 18, with Daniel 7. I3ff. once again standing in the background: ‘A ll power (εξουσία) is given to me in heaven and in earth.’ The eschato­ logical realization o f the Kingdom has taken concrete form in the Church, which already exists in mice in the disciples and now receives the commission to extend itself. The command to baptize είς τό όνομα is an intimation o f the saving work o f the Father, the Son and the H oly Spirit. It expresses the living unity o f Father, Son and Spirit, particularly their common concern in the saving work. Just as this saving w ork had its beginning in the baptism o f Jesus, so too it begins in the faithful through baptism as the saving work o f the Church. So in the confession o f the ‘Son’ (είς τό ονομα . . . τοΰ υίού) we are to think o f the whole richness o f the Son o f God sayings in Matthew, and particularly Matthew 3. 17 and 11. 27 (the absolute use o f the ‘Son’). The role o f Jesus in the realization o f the Kingdom and the unique relationship o f the Son to the Father is thus summed up in the one word ‘the Son.’ In contrast to Matthew and Mark, the christology o f the evangelist Luke is moulded more by Hellenistic thought. Jesus is the ‘Saviour’ (2. 11), who still in the works o f his messengers ‘proclaims salvation’ to all the world (εύαγγελίζεσθαι is a favourite word o f Luke’s). He is the helper o f all (7. 13), doctor to the sick, the friend o f sinners (7. 36-50; 15; 18. 9-14; 19. 2-10; 23. 43), the succour o f the poor (6. 2of.; 14. i2 f.; 16. 19-31). He respects women (8. iff.; 10. 38-42; 23. 27f.) and attacks the powerful (13. 3 iff.; 23. 8f.). He is the living embodiment o f goodness, o f piety and o f patience in suffering (22. 44; 23. 34, 46).

A ll these synoptic statements about Jesus are related to the concrete situation o f salvation history 1 in which Jesus stands. The background o f the synoptic christology is the history o f G od’s doings w ith men. Jesus always begins from the Old Testament concept o f God. But in the O ld Testament God is a God o f history. For this reason Jesus also begins his preaching with the comprehensive announcement π ε π λ ή ρ ω τ α ι 6 κα ιρ ός κ α ί ή γ γ ικ β ν η β α σ ιλ ε ία τ ο ΰ θεοΰ (Mark ι. 15), that is, the decisive point in history has now arrived. The rule o f God is breaking in. But Jesus goes on to show that in these historical acts o f God he himself has a special, indeed, the one decisive, place. After God had sent ‘his servants,’ i.e. the prophets, to the Jewish people to recover his ‘fruit,’ he now last o f all sent ‘his beloved Son’ (Mark 12. 1-12 par.). W ith this, the climax o f the history o f Israel has arrived, and for the last time the ‘time o f visitation’ is offered to this people (Luke 19. 44). This history even becomes a time o f preparation for Jesus Christ; what the Scriptures prophesied about the Messiah has been fulfilled in his person (Luke 4. 16-30; Matt. 11. 2-6 par.; Luke 24. 25-27, 44-49; Mark 12. 35-37 par.). W ith Jesus, the acts o f God cease to limit themselves to the sphere o f Israel; they now extend to the whole history o f mankind (cf. Luke 4. i8f.). In this Jesus o f Nazareth, earthly and human as he was, who died a criminal’s death, the Son o f Man and Messiah and so the Judge o f the world has appeared among men. (c) Pauline christology The central christological ideas o f St. Paul are the notion o f pre-existence (though this is more presupposed than ex­ plicitly taught) and the worship o f Christ as Kyrios. Both, however, were already at hand for him to use. He simply deepened the ideas and adapted them for preaching in the Hellenistic communities, at the same time composing them into a universal vision o f the history o f salvation. The notion o f pre-existence already had strong roots in Judaism, not only in 1 Cf. H. Conzelmann, D ie M itte der Z c it. Studicn zu r Theologie des Lukas (Tubingen 19624), E T T h e Theology o f S t. L uke (London 1060); O. Cullmann, Christus mid die Z e it (Zurich 19623), E T C hrist and Tim e (London 19622). Cf. G. Strecker, D er W eg dcr Gercchtigkeit (see p. 7, note 1) 186: ‘The synoptists have in common a salvation-historical motivation for the life o f Jesus.’ On the idea o f salvation history sec J. Frisque, Oscar Cullm ann. Une theologie de I’ histoire du salut, Cahiers de V Acttudite Religieuse 11 (1960) 7-279.

apocalyptic, but also among the Rabbis and in wisdom specula­ tion.1 The visionary speeches o f Ethiopian Enoch attribute a heavenly pre-existence to the Son o f Man, sometimes the ‘Elect One’ (39. 6ff; 40. 5; 48. 2f., 6; 49. 2; 62. 6f.). According to other conceptions, the Messiah is first in a condition o f concealment, later to reveal’ himself (4 Esd. 7. 28; 12. 32; 13. 25b; Syr. Apoc. Bar. 39. 3; 39. 7; Sibyll. V . 4i4f.). Am ong the Rabbis, a pre­ existence o f the Messiah is assumed only as an idea in the thought o f God, though at the same time a real pre-existence o f his soul is held (Strack-Billerbeck Π 339-352). The Jewish-Hellenistic wisdom literature is more important for Paul than apocalyptic and the Rabbis. Here ‘Wisdom’ is extolled as something existing before the world and already working in creation (Job 28. 20-28; Bar. 3. 32-38; Prov. 8. 22-31; Ecclus. 1. 4, 9; 24. 3-22; Wisd. 7. 25f.; 9. 9f.). Paul begins from here (1 Cor. 1. 18-2. 16; 10. 1-5. In 10. 4 the ‘rock that followed’ is the pre-existent Christ. Philo had already interpreted this rock as W isdom: Leg. all. II 86; Deter. 115-18). The link with the wisdom teaching is particu­ larly close where Paul speaks o f the work in creation o f the pre-existent Logos, now made manifest in Christ. This happens in the ancient formula o f 1 Corinthians 8. 6 ( . . . καί Ας κύριος ’ Ιησούς Χριστός, Si οδ τά πάντα και ημΑς Si αυτού), further in Colossians 1. i5ff. (see below), in Hebrews 1. 2f. and finally in John i. iff. (see below). In addition, Paul also has his own way o f expressing pre­ existence, in that he speaks o f the ‘sending’ o f the ‘Son o f God’ into the world (Gal. 4. 4). It is in this title ‘Son’ that Paul expresses his own conception o f Christ. Jesus Christ is for him quite simply ‘the Son o f God’ (2 Cor. 1. 19 and often), he is ‘God’s own Son’ (Rom. 8. 32). In speaking o f the coming o f this Son, Paul can survey the whole o f his career, which leads to Incarnation and Crucifixion (Rom. 5. 10; 8. 32), but goes on to Resurrection, Exaltation, and finally the Second Com ing (1 Thess. 1. 10). In describing Christ as Kyrios, Paul is understandably influenced by the ideas o f the Septuagint. He does so whenever he speaks o f the redemptive work o f Christ towards his believers (Rom. 10. i2f.; 2 Cor. 3. 18) or celebrates his status as ruler over the cosmos 1 See E. Schweizer, ‘Zur Herkunft der Praexistenzvorstellung bei Paulus’ in EvTh 19 (1959) 65-70 (speaking about 1 C or. 8. 6; 10. 4; R om . 10. 6f.; G a l. 4. 4).

(Phil. 2. i i ; i Cor. 2. 8; cf. 15. 25f.; Eph. 1. 2off.). But this Kyrios is also described on the lines o f a Hellenistic cult-deity— by means o f a contrast. Christ as the only Kyrios is set over against the ‘gods’ and ‘lords’ that are worshipped in the world (1 Cor. 8. 5f.). As the community o f Christ, the Christian worshipping com­ munity has nothing to do with the pagan sacrificial cultus (1 Cor. 10. 21). Paul can therefore talk o f ‘our’ Lord Jesus Christ, as he is so fond o f doing. T o Christ the community o f believers belongs: he is its Lord and Saviour (σωτήρ, Phil. 3.20) and its inner unity (Eph. 4. 5). This is the way in which Paul has expounded the Kyrios concept as legitimate for the Greek world. The establishment o f the ‘cosmic christology’ in Colossians (1. i5ff.) represents a new step. It is directed against the so-called στοιχεία speculation (Col. 2. 8, 20) which threatens to leave no place for the mediation and redemptive work o f Christ; the Jewish-Gnostic angel cult (Col. 2. 18) and the worship o f ‘prin­ cipalities and powers’ seem to be taking up his place (Col. 1. 16). The space between God and the material world is occupied by these powers which have the rule and government o f the world. In the light o f the Pauline doctrine o f redemption, subservience to these powers represents voluntary slavery and loss o f Christian freedom. The primacy o f Christ in creation and history (the Church) is therefore displayed with full force (see below). Similar terms and ideas are used to advance this cosmic christology in Ephesians. The divine plan o f salvation reaches its climax in Christ. Through him the whole cosmos is being returned to its original ordering. Here the concept o f anakephalaiosis, so impor­ tant for the christological theology o f history to come, is intro­ duced (Eph. i. 10). The whole o f the past and the future, the earthly and the heavenly, is to be contained in Christ, the sovereign head. He is also peace among mankind, between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2. 14-18). Serious attention is being paid to this combination o f a cosmic and salvation-historical christology again only in modem times (O. Cullmann, J. Danielou and others). I f predominantly Hellenistic thought is to be detected in the interpretation o f Christ outlined above, Paul also has ideas that are determined more by Judaism. The most important o f these is his description o f Christ as ‘Second Adam .’ This Adam-Christ

typology is significant as much in the anthropological1 as in the theological and historical sphere. The ruin incurred by Adam is abundantly made good again in Christ. The ‘last Adam ,’ himself a ‘lifegiving spirit,’ w ill change us at the resurrection from ‘earthly, adamitic’ men into the image o f the ‘heavenly’ and spiritual, as he himself has already been changed in his resurrection (Rom. 5. 12-21; i Cor. 15. 44-49). Christ as the perfect image o f God (Col. i. 15) w ill in this w ay again restore in us the original likeness o f God. The ‘new man’ is inaugurated (Col. 3. 10; cf. Eph. 4. 24). The Fathers have here a firm starting point for their soteriological emphasis on the true and complete manhood o f Christ. N o w that w e have attempted to describe the Pauline picture o f Christ in a broad sweep, w e must move on further and in­ vestigate some o f the most important christological formulas.2 (d) Pauline christologicalformulas Romans 1.3,4. The character o f this inexhaustible passage can be seen to some extent just from its ordered construction.

(a)

v.

3 7τερί του υΐοΰ αύτοΰ

I

(b) τοΰ γενομενου (c) εκ σπέρματος Δαυ18 (d) κατά σάρκα (α)

V.

II 4 τοΰ όρισθεντος

νΐοϋ θεού εν 8υνάμει κατά πνεύμα άγιωσύνης εξ άναστάσεως νεκρών Ιησού Χρίστου του Κυρίου ημών

The symmetrical and antithetical arrangement o f the clauses is unmistakable. The subject o f all the statements stands out quite clearly: it is the ‘Son o f God, Jesus Christ our Lord.’ Like a pair o f brackets it encloses two sets o f clauses o f which it is the exclusive concern. This Son o f God is the whole Christ. Paul is not concerned here to put the divinity and the humanity o f Christ over against each other in the same sort o f w ay as the 1 W. D. Stacey, T he Pauline View o f M an (London 1956). Here the Christian character o f the Pauline anthropology is emphasized. 2 On what follows cf. L. Cerfaux, L e Christ dans la Theologie de Saint Paul (Paris 1951); E. Schweizer, Ernicdrigung und Erhohung bci Jesus und scincn Nachfolgern (Zurich 1955, 19622), E T Lordship and Discipleship, SBT 28 (1960).

later doctrine o f the two natures. His two formulas ‘kata sarka — kata ptteuma were soon understood in this sense. Certainly there is here, as elsewhere in Paul, belief in the pre-existent Son o f God and at the same time recognition o f the true humanity o f Christ. Philippians 2. 5-11 and also 2 Corinthians 8. 9; Colossians 1. 16; Galatians 4. 4 show this w ith sufficient clarity. They presuppose that Christ’s career has already begun before he enters into history, in a ‘being’ without beginning, since he already is in the form o f God when he sets out upon the historical part o f his life. Accor­ ding to Romans 8 . 3 ; Galatians 4. 4, he who is sent is already Son, and, moreover, Son o f God in contrast to all those who are to become sons after him and with him (cf. ό υΙός αύτοΰ i Thess. 1. IO; Row. 1 . 9 5 5· ΙΟ; 8. 29; τον όαντοΰ υιόν Row. 8. 3 5 του 181ου υΐοΰ Row. 8. 32, etc.). W e are not therefore compelled to say that Christ, originally only the Son o f David, became the Son o f God through the miraculous events at his birth, baptism, resurrec­ tion and ascension. O n the contrary, all this happens to one who is already the Son o f God, but now after the flesh is born o f the seed o f David (Row. 1 . 3 ; Gal. 4. 4). In other words, Paul is not concerned to set the divine nature and the human nature in Christ side by side and to describe them. He is rather concerned with tw o historical events, brought about by God, which God has brought about in Christ, so as to show him forth as bringer o f salvation. The first event— an event o f humiliation— is his birth o f the seed o f David. Seed here means the same as ‘house’ (Luke i. 55; Mark 12. 22; John 8. 33; Row. 4. 13, 16). ‘After the flesh’ need not be regarded, as in Galatians 4. 23, 29, as the w ay in which or the cause through which Christ comes to be descended from the house o f David, that is to say, it need not mean ‘in a fleshly, natural or human w ay’ as opposed to a more exalted mode o f conception. The tw o ‘modes o f conception’ are contrasted in Galatians 4. 23, 29. Here, in Romans 1. 3, 4, Paul is concerned to represent the birth from the seed o f David as a first saving event brought about by God, a saving event which, however, means a humiliation for Christ. Paul is probably not thinking here in the first place o f the conception by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1. 35), though this is certainly included. The coming o f Christ in the flesh is brought about by God because it is in fact the Son o f God w ho comes in the flesh. It is a humiliation because the Son o f b*

God appears as man. W ith the coming o f this Son in the flesh, the basis o f salvation is already laid. The order o f sons has already come into being (cf. Rom. 8; Gal. 4. 4-6). For this order o f ‘sons’ to be set up completely, however, Christ, humbled in his fleshly birth and in this fleshly nature crucified, had to be shown to be Son o f God in his existence in the flesh. This is stated in the second series o f expressions. They are concerned with the exaltation o f Christ in the resurrec­ tion by the power o f God in the Holy Spirit. There has been much debate about the meaning o f όρίζειν.1 The Greek expedient o f taking the word to refer not to the actual constituting o f the Sonship but to its revelation is possible, but does not fully repro­ duce the Apostle’s thought. ‘ Οριζαν need not be limited to a ‘revelation.’ Originally it means to ‘bound,’ ‘circumscribe,’ ‘define,’ hence to give a clearer definition to what is already there. It can refer to a real ‘elevation to the Sonship o f God.’ From its opposition to the γινομένου o f the first series we must assume that όρισθέντος too describes a fundamental event in the history o f the Son o f God. As in the first section we have a description o f the beginning o f his earthly existence, after the flesh, so here we have the beginning o f his heavenly existence, but again ‘after the flesh.’ Both are predicated o f one who is already Son before he starts on this career. Nevertheless, we have here a real ‘exaltation’ to dominion which is accomplished in the Son by the Father. But this is an exaltation o f the Incarnate (cf. Acts 10. 42, ‘appointed by God to be judge’). Christ is appointed not merely Son o f God, but ‘Son o f God in power’— unless iv δυνάμει refers to the power o f the Father in the resurrection, as in Ephesians 1. 19 (cf. Romans 6. 4). But even in this case it would mean the establishment o f the Incarnate in his place o f dominion through the resurrection and the ascension, as in Psalm n o (109). 1 (Sit thou at m y right hand), cf. Mark 16. 19; Ephesians 1. 2of.; Hebrews 1. 3. This ‘Son o f God in power’ is contrasted with the ‘Son o f God in weakness.’ In other words, Paul here uses basically the same features to describe the historical career o f the supra-historical Son o f God as he does in Philippians 2. 5-11. The elevation to be Son o f God (also after the flesh) and the elevation from the 1 M.-E. Boismard, ‘Constitui Fils de Dieu

(Rom .

1. 4),’ R B 60 (1953) 5-17.

form o f a servant to the dominion o f Kyrios and Son— these titles correspond one w ith the other— was accomplished ‘according to the spirit o f holiness, by the resurrection o f the dead.’ Κ α τά , σάρκα is opposed to κ α τά ττναΰμα, and it is just because o f this opposition that Romans i. 3, 4 exerted a powerful influence in history, as in a similar w ay did John 1. 14. But what is the christological significance o f the opposition? This becomes clear from what has been said earlier. Romans i. 3, 4 is not intended to contrast soul and body in Christ as anthropological factors. This would be to mistake the sense o f the whole passage. Does it then simply contrast the human and the divine nature in Christ? It is quite biblical to use sarx to describe the human nature. But is pneuma in Paul Christ’s divine nature? This interpretation is certainly possible, but is not valid for Romans 1. 3, 4. Paul is here contrasting not so much the tw o natures (in the same w ay as the diphysitism o f later christology) as two conditions under which Christ exists and the effects which these conditions have on one and the same kind o f existence in Christ, that is his fleshly nature. The condition o f humiliation, which is governed by the mere fact o f the Incarnation, is contrasted with the condition o f exalta­ tion, which is determined by the power o f the Spirit. T o be servant in the flesh, then, is contrasted with having dominion as Kyrios in the flesh. Being exalted, being Lord, even ‘partaking in the Lordship o f the Son after the fleshly nature,’ all are synony­ mous. This view o f Christ as humiliated because o f the Incarna­ tion, and exalted and in his exaltation declared to be Son, also after the flesh, is truly Pauline. But at this point it would be totally un-Pauline not to go behind the conditions under which Christ exists and to see there, as a background, what he actually is, both God and man. It then follows that while sarx-pneuma does not mean a formal opposition o f Godhead and manhood in Christ in the sense o f the later terminology, this opposition nevertheless underlies all the assertions in Romans 1 . 3 , 4 , because the divine Son o f the Father is born o f the house o f David after the flesh. Alongside Romans 1. 3, 4 and Colossians 1. I5ff., the most powerful and most concentrated expression o f the christology o f Paul’s letters is to be found in Philippians 2. 5-11. It is thought

to-day by many scholars that the passage is a hymn, and is, more­ over, pre-Pauline. According to J. R . Geiselmann,1 w ho draws largely on E. Lohmcyer, there are here three strophes which depict the ‘course o f events in the salvation history,’ pre-existence, kenosis and the ‘super-exaltation’ o f Christ, which has its founda­ tion in the kenosis: 5 (I) 6

το ύ τ ο φ ρ ο νείτε εν ύ μ ΐν ο κ α ι i v Χ ρ ισ τ ώ ’ Ιη σ ο ύ

os'

εν μο ρφ ή θεοΰ υ π ά ρ χ ω ν

ο ύ κ ά ρ π α γ μ ό ν ή γ ή σ α τ ο τ ο ε ίν α ι ΐσ α θεώ

7

α λ λ ά εα υ τό ν εκενω σ εν μο ρφ ή ν δούλου λ α β ώ ν

(II)

εν ό μ ο ιώ μ α τ ι α νθ ρ ώ π ω ν γ ε νό μ εν ο ς κ α ι σ χ ή μ α τ ι εύρεθεις ώ ς ά νθρω πος

8

ε τα π είνω σ εν εα υτόν γ ε νό μ έν ο ς υ π ή κ ο ο ς μ έ χ ρ ι θανάτου θανάτου δε στα υρ οΰ.

(III) 9

δ ιό κ α ί 6 θεός α υτόν ύπερύφ ω σεν κ α ι ε χα ρ ίσ α το α ύ τ ώ τ ο δ νο μ α τ δ ύ π ερ π α ν δνο μ α

ΙΟ

ινα εν τ ώ ό ν ό μ α τ ι 'Ι η σ ο ύ π α ν γό νυ κάμφτ) επ ο νρ α νίω ν κ α ι ε π ιγ ε ίω ν κ α ι κ α τα χ θ ο ν ίω ν

11

κ α ι π ά σ α γ λ ώ σ σ α ε ζο μ ο λ ο γ ή σ η τ α ι ό τ ι Κ ύ ρ ιο ς ’ Ιη σ ο ύ ς Χ ρ ισ τ ό ς ε ις όόξα ν θεού π α τ ρ ό ς.

In the first strophe, the hymn contains the idea o f the pre­ existence o f Christ, as has already been indicated: os εν μ ο ρ φ ή θεοΰ υ π ά ρ χ ω ν . N ow this μο ρφ ή should not be taken in the classical (Aristotelian) sense as meaning essentia, forma. The term is intended to define the sphere in which the pre-existent Christ stands, the sphere which determines him like a field o f force. N ow that is the w ay in which mode o f being is defined in Hellenism.2 Kasemann therefore translates ‘a mode o f existence in divine power and substance.’3 But even i f such a Hellenistic 1 J. R . Geiselmann, Jesus der Christus (Stuttgart 1951); P. Henry, art. ‘Kenose’ in DictBiblSuppl V (1950), 7-161; E. Kasemann, ‘Kritische Analyse von Phil. 2.5—11,’ ZThK 47 (1950) 313-60; G. Bornkaimn, ‘Zum Verstaiulnis des Christus-Hymnus P hil. 2. 6-11,’ in Studien z u A n tike und Christentum, Gesammelte A ufsatze II (Miinchen 1959) 177-87; E. Schweizer, ‘Die Herkunft der Praexistenzvorstellung bei Paulus,’ EvTh 19 (1959) 65—70. 2 E. Kasemann, op. cit. 330f. 8J. Dupont, ‘Jesus-Christ dans son abaissement et son exaltation d’apres P h il. 2. 6-11,’ R S R 37 (1950) 500-14 translates ‘condition divine.’ M. Meinertz, Theologie des Neuert Testamentes II (Bonn 1950) 64, ‘ Erscheinungswcise in gottlicher Majestat und Herrlichkeit.’

influence can be conceded, the content o f eV μο ρφ ή θεοΰ is still primarily to be defined from its opposition to iv μορφ ή δονλου. This servant-idea is fundamental to the hymn and points back to Isaiah 53 (cf. esp. vv. 3, 8, 12). O n the other hand, the appeal to the Adam-Christ typology (with the anthropos-myth as an alleged background) makes interpretation more difficult instead o f making it easier. It cannot be demonstrated that ο ύ χ ά ρ π α γ μ ό ν ή γ ή σ α τ ο is meant to refer to Adam’s aspiration to be like God. N or is there any indication that the pre-existent Christ had to resist a temptation that would have seduced him into grasping after the Godhead (as a res rapienda). Indeed, he is already iv μ ο ρ φ ή θεοϋ.

The most natural interpretation o f the passage yields the following meaning: He who was found in a divine mode o f being did not wish to cling to his position in selfish exploitation. Instead he gave himself up to the condition ofkenosis (cf. 2 Cor. 8, 9 8 l υ μ ά ς ε π τ ώ χ ε υ σ ε ν π λ ο ύ σ ιο ς ώ ν). But this kenosis is defined in the same sentence by a participle, λ α β ώ ν ! This means that by becoming man, the pre-existent Christ, who exists in a divine mode o f being, chooses a mode o f existence which is a conceal­ ment o f his proper being. Historical existence as man can never express what the pre-existent Christ is in himself. Because this kenosis is a ‘taking,’ or better an ‘adding,’ the first kind o f being is not done away with. He who is on an equality with God adds something to his divinity, the form o f a servant. This being which he assumes serves more to conceal than to reveal him. The εκ εν ω σ εν ε α υ τό ν is expressed from a human, not a divine, standpoint. For him it is a humiliation before us, but in accor­ dance w ith the w ill o f God. This humiliation can already be seen in his acceptance o f the form o f servant, i.e. in the Incarnation as such. But it is not the intention o f the hymn to isolate the Incarnation itself and to regard it by itself. It contains no reflection on the fact o f the pre-existent Christ’s equality with God in relation to God, nor does it say anything about how this ‘equality with God’ is related to manhood in a concrete way. W e have here neither a description o f two kinds o f being nor even a description o f tw o conditions o f being; attention is directed rather towards the course o f Christ’s self-humiliation. The hymn

portrays a drama o f salvation history, ‘the redeeming course which the pre-existent Christ has traversed through his selfsurrender and self-humiliation until that particularly significant event in salvation-history, his death, and his exaltation as Kyrios o f the whole world.’1 For this reason, the main stress lies on the second strophe, verse 8, i.e. on the depth o f the self-surrender achieved by obedience in suffering until death. The μο ρφ ή δούλου therefore does not just embrace the plain fact o f the Incarnation, but in verse 7b already points clearly towards the death o f the one who assumes human nature. But it would be false to over­ look this plain fact o f the Incarnation. A n y Docetic understanding o f the Incarnation is quite excluded by the first tw o verses o f the second strophe (iv ό μ ο ιώ μ a n . ..). E. Kasemann sees in κ α ί σ χ ή μ α π ‘. . . even a sharpening o f “ being made in the likeness o f men” ’ (iv ό μ ο ιώ μ α τ ι α νθ ρ ώ π ω ν γενό μ ζνο ς) and a protection against any qualifying o f the Incarnation.2 The pre-existent Christ has assumed a true μορφ ή o f manhood to offer the obedience refused by men. N o w that the lowest point o f this course has been reached with Christ’s death on the cross, the ascent begins (third strophe). In form, the presentation o f this exaltation has the style o f an enthronement, with the individual acts o f mounting the throne, proclaiming the new dignities, proskynesis and acclamation. Exaltation, described as an enthronement, means sitting at the right hand o f God. There is no mention here o f the resurrection, as the ‘humiliation-exaltation framework does not require it to be stressed, but it is not, o f course, excluded. It is here that we have the foundations o f the Kyrios cult, the biblical derivation o f which is at the same time demonstrated by the passage, as it is clear that verse 11 has been governed by Isaiah 45. 23: ‘for every knee shall be bowed to me (Jahweh).’ The divine name Jahweh, translated 6 Κύριος by the L X X , was transferred by the primitive Church to the σύνθρονο? o f God, to whom the rule o f the world has been entrusted. The Church, which unites itself with the spiritual powers, worships Jesus as God. This third strophe, then, betrays a connection with the ancient ‘exaltation-christology.’ According to R . Schnackenburg, this is also an indication that the first strophe docs not presuppose the

anthropos myth, but reflects on the pre-existence which precedes the humiliation.1 The Christ-hymn o f Philippians 2 depicts the ‘super-exaltation o f the Christian redeemer whose ‘humiliation’ is all the more inconceivable because o f his heavenly origin. Recent scholarship rightly emphasizes that this hymn is not in the first place concerned with Christ’s being, with the unfolding o f the Mysterium Christi in accordance with the framework o f the two natures doctrine, but looks towards the salvation event. O n the other hand, however, it would be false to refuse the later theology o f the Church the right to reflect upon the being o f Christ w ith the help o f this hymn. As the pre-existence o f Christ is included or at least pre-supposed in its approach, as the name Kyrios must be understood as a divine predicate, while neverthe­ less the true manhood o f the pre-existent Christ is being discussed, this reflection can find a legitimate starting point here. That Paul should depict Christ in such a w ay is o f tremendous importance for the whole tradition o f the Church. It is a ‘katagogic’ christology, which makes any ‘anagogic’ christology such as the Adoptionist spirit-christology impossible. And because everytliing that happens to the historical Christ has its essential resting-place in pre-existence, a clear place in the frame­ w ork can be accorded to the ‘exaltation.’ Colossians 1. 15-20 (with 2 Cor. 4. 4): (* )

(i3

· · .

εις την βασιλείαν του υΐοΰ της αγάπης αυτόν)

1 5 ο ς ε σ τ ιν ε ίκ ώ ν τ ο ΰ θεοΰ α οράτου π ρ ω τ ό τ ο κ ο ς π ά σ η ς κ τ ίσ ε ω ς Ι ό ό τ ι εν α ν τ ω ε κ τίσ θ η τ ά π ά ντα εν τ ο ΐς ούρανοΐς κ α ι ε π ί τ η ς γ η ς, τ ά ο ρ α τά κ α ι τ ά αόρατα ε ίτ ε θρόνοι ε ίτ ε κ υ ρ ιό τ η τ ες ε ίτ ε ά ρ χ α ί ε ίτ ε εζο υ σ ια ι τ ά π ά ν τ α δ ι α υ το ΰ κ α ί ε ις α υ τ ό ν ε κ τ ισ τ α ι 1 7 κ α ί α υ τ ό ς ε σ τιν π ρ ο π ά ν τ ω ν κ α ί τ ά π ά ν τ α εν α ν τ ω σ ν νεσ τη κ εν ΐ 8 κ α ι α υ τ ό ς ε σ τ ιν η κεφ α λή τ ο ΰ σ ώ μ α τ ο ς , τ η ς ε κ κ λ η σ ία ς, (η )

ό ς ε σ τ ιν α ρ χ ή π ρ ω τ ό τ ο κ ο ς ε κ τ ω ν νεκρ ώ ν ΐνα γ ε ν η τ α ι εν π α σ ιν α υ τ ό ς π ρ ω τε ύ ω ν 1 9 ό τ ι εν α ν τ ω ενδ όκη σ εν π α ν τ ό π λ ή ρ ω μ α κ α το ικ η σ α ι

1R.

Schnackenburg, LThK V, 935 .

20

κ α ι 8 ι α υτο ύ ά π ο κ α τ α λ λ ά ξ α ι τ α π ά ν τ α e ls α υτόν, €ΐρηνοποιήσας δ ιά το υ α ίμ α τ ο ς το υ στα υρ όν α ύ το ϋ , δ ι’α υ τ ου eiT€ τ α i n i τ ή ς γ ή ς e tr e τ α ev τ ο ΐς ούρανοΐς.

According to Ε. Schweizer (see p. 16, note 2) we probably have here a hymn which was used by Christians. In it, Hellenistic-Jewish ideas are used to explain the status o f Christ. The hymn stands within a thanksgiving for the mystery o f our election in Christ with the saints through the Father; the connec­ tion between this and the hymn is the mention o f Christ. In the second strophe (i8b-2o), in contrast to the ordering o f creation (15-18a), the ordering o f salvation is considered, that ordering which is brought about through the death and resurrection o f Jesus Christ. This antithesis is intentional and is also emphasized in the construction o f the verses. The first and second strophes are joined by an interlude (17, 18a), which in its first verse echoes Stoic terms and concepts, while being in the second half a wholly Pauline theological composition. (i) The subject o f the christological expressions o f Colossians 1 . 1 5f. The question considered is: ‘W hat sort o f a Christ is it who has received the Kingdom from the Father (v. 13)?’ Concern, then, is with the exalted Christ and therefore with the God-man. In addition, the statements about the pre-existent Christ are intended to strengthen faith in the exalted Christ among the Colossians. For this faith is in danger o f being constrained by their belief in the spiritual powers. Attention is therefore drawn to the Incarnate from the very beginning, to the Incarnate in the glory o f his exaltation. T o divide the expressions into those which concern only the pre-existent Christ, independently o f the Incar­ nation, and those which concern the Incarnate in that he is Incarnate is quite unjustifiable. The discussion is concerned not so much with the relationship o f Christ to the Father as with his relationship to the world, though, o f course, the latter derives from his relationship to the Father. (ii) The content o f the christological expressions. Here the expression €ΐκών, which also occurs at 2 Corinthians 4. 4, is o f particular significance.1 According to this latter passage 1 Cf. W. Eltester, Eikon im Neuen Testament (Berlin 1958), especially 130-52; J.Jervell, 1. 26f. im Spatjudentum, in der Gnosis tmd in den paulinischen Briefen (Gottingen 1959). Imago D ei, G en.

the glory o f God. is visible ‘in the face o f Christ.’ For Christ is the ε ίκ ώ ν τ ο υ θεοΰ. The phrase τ ή ς ό ό ζη ς το υ Χ ρ ίσ τ ο υ , ος ε σ τ ιν ε ΐκ ώ ν τ ο υ θεοϋ in verse 4 corresponds to the phrase τή ς ό ό ζ η ς τ ο ΰ θεοΰ εν π ρ ο σ ώ π ω Χ ρ ίσ τ ο υ in verse 6. The glory o f Christ is none other than the glory o f God which becomes visible in the face o f Christ; this is only a paraphrase o f what the predicate ‘im­ age o f God’ means: Christ as ε ΐκ ώ ν o f God is the one who makes possible knowledge o f God. God himself becomes visible in Christ, his image. Christ as image o f God is therefore the revela­ tion and the representation o f God. (In this the influence o f Jewish teaching about Sophia can be traced. ‘Sophia’ bears the title ε ΐκ ώ ν o f God and represents a heavenly being. But the expressions which Hellenistic Judaism applied to Sophia— still probably conceived o f as impersonal— are in Paul applied to the historical Christ in his total status: cf. 1 Corinthians 8. 6 and Colossians 1. 15 where Christ is described as mediator o f creation. In Paul the pre-existent Christ and the divine wisdom o f the Jews are one and the same figure.) In Colossians 1. i5ff., the cosmological significance o f Christ as the image o f God comes to the forefront. The Church is to be shown by the emphasis on this status o f Christ as image o f God that in him she has some­ thing which no angel can be and which needs no completion by another revealer and bringer o f salvation. But this making visible o f God who is himself invisible does not mean that he is made visible for human eyes here and now ; rather does it refer to that vision o f the glory o f Christ which according to 2 Corin­ thians 3. 18 is the possession o f all Christians in so far as they have a part in the oikonomia o f the Pncuma. God, the α όρ α τος, becomes in Christ his ε ίκ ώ ν visible, ο ρ α τό ς, i.e. is manifest not only through the person and w ork o f Jesus (cf. 1 John 1. iff.), but also through preaching and proclamation accepted in faith. Thus αόρατος is, as Chrysostom already recognized, an expression o f the incomprehensibleness o f God. In addition, a second expression became significant for christology, 7τρα)τότοκος π ό σ η ς κ τ ίσ ε ω ς . It is used to describe the pre­ eminent position o f Christ in the whole world (τά π άντα ). Christ’s office as revealer, as image o f God in the world, gives him a special status in the cosmos. He is the Firstborn. Π ρ ω τ ό τ ο κ ο ς should not

be read as a temporal definition. It says in biblical language that a factual ‘prc-’ corresponds to the temporal ‘pre-’ o f the firstborn (Ps. 89. 28; Exod. 4. 22; Heh. 12. 23). It simply indicates a ‘dig­ nity.’ Christ the Firstborn is to be displayed in his Lordship over the angelic powers and here a ‘temporal’ existence before the angels is not the point in question. True, the Fathers o f the fourth century, and later still John o f Damascus, interpret Colossians 1.15 o f the Son o f God w ho is o f one substance with the Father. This was because they wished to deprive the Arians, who made a contrast between Εικών an inferior copy, and the original, and saw in π ρ ω τό το κ ο ς an indication o f the createdness o f the Logos, o f the right to refer to these passages. In this w ay they were able to make what is contained implicitly in this passage into an explicit assertion. But at the same time, this interpretation did not allow the particular christology o f the passage to make itself felt later. Marcellus o f Ancyra, however, had already interpreted the Colossians passage as referring to the Incarnate as the image o f the Father (cf. G C S Eusebius- Werke Vol. 4, frags. 90-97). But Paul does not mean to speak explicitly o f pre-existence in the pure Godhead; he presupposes it. In π ρ ω τό το κ ο ς, therefore, he is not stressing the difference between the being and existence o f Christ and that o f men and spirits. ‘Firstborn’ has been chosen because o f the π ρ ώ το ς and expresses the element o f Christ’s dignity and Lordship. Christ enjoys absolute primacy over all creatures (comparative genitive) among which, as the context indicates, are included spiritual beings, angels and men. For in him (iv α ύ τω ) and through him (Si’ αυτού) and for him (ei’s αυτόν) all things have been created. W ithout distinction between his ideal pre-existence (Christ foreseen by God as a creature) and his personal pre­ existence as the eternal Son, Christ is described as the ‘Firstborn’ o f the whole creation. This primacy o f Christ in creation is the basis o f his primacy in redemption (second strophe). Christ alone is Lord o f the Church. It was the ordinance o f God that ‘He’ (αυτός!), he and no other, should have the rank o f a ‘Firstborn’ in the Church also. Since Christ has received this rank and fullness (cf. Col. i. 19, 2. 9) from his Father, he is, by virtue o f his pre-eminence over creation, capable o f redeeming the universe from the

dominion o f the powers. God’s decision ‘to re-establish all things in Christ’ (Eph. i. io) has laid all things under his feet (Eph. i. 22). A new and living bond comes into being between Christ and that part o f the universe which accepts his Lordship: Christ and the Church take on the unity o f head and body. Christ pours out the whole fullness o f life and grace (pleroma, Eph. i. 23) over this his Church, as he himself is the fullness, the pleroma, o f the Father (Col. 1. 19; 2. 9). O f the universe, only the Church m ay call itself the body and fullness o f Christ. In it he therefore also remains present in the world. A ll the Pauline letters regard christology from this salvationhistorical viewpoint. In Christ, the rule o f God become event and reality and at the same time the salvation o f the world. To such an extent is God active in Christ that the name o f God, which is elsewhere reserved for the Father, is, in one text con­ cerned w ith the salvation history, Titus 2. 13, applied to Jesus Christ (cf. Phil. 2. 11). W e w ill just mention briefly the introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, which shows some affinity to the Colossians hymn. Here, too, creation and redemption are closely linked together. Christ, sitting at the right hand o f the Father and inheritor o f the Kingdom o f God (cf. Col. 1. I2f.; Heb. 1. 3), could receive this rank and become universal redeemer because he is the brightness o f the Father and mediator o f creation. Christ fulfilled his mission as redeemer through kenosis. He became lower than the angels and tasted o f death, and has therefore also been crowned with glory and honour (Heb. 1. 9; cf. Ps. 8). He now sits at the right hand o f God, exalted above the angels. In this his w ay o f humiliation and exaltation he has fulfilled the function o f the true H igh Priest w ho alone could bring about eternal redemption (2. 17, 18; 2. 14-5. 10; 9. 1-10, 18). (e) The ‘ Word made flesh’ The climax in the N ew Testament development o f christological thought is reached in John. His prologue to the Fourth Gospel is the most penetrating description o f the career o f Jesus Christ that has been written. It was not without reason that the christological formula o f John 1. 14 could increasingly become the most influential N ew Testament text in the history o f dogma.

The Johannine christology1 has a dynamism all o f its own. Christ appears as the definitive W ord o f God to man, as the unique and absolute Revealer, transcending all prophets. As α ν τ ό π τ η ς he and he alone can bring authentic tidings from the heavenly world (John i. 18; 3. 11, 32ff.; 7. 1 6 ; 8. 26, 28, etc.). He is not only lawgiver, as Moses, but also giver o f grace and truth. In him God is present: ‘He that seeth me seeth the Father also’ (14. 9). His revelation therefore has as its theme not only the Father, but also the person and mission o f Christ. ‘He himself’ belongs to the content o f his message. This is expressed in the many ‘I’ sayings, in which he describes himself in particular as ‘Light’ and ‘The Life o f the W orld’ (8. 12; 9. 5; 11. 25; 14. 6; cf. i. 4), but most strongly in the absolute ε γ ώ ε ίμ t (8. 24, 28, 58; 13. 19).2 This last is a theophany formula. The wonders (‘signa) also play their part in Jesus’ revelation o f himself (2. 11; 11. 4). But this activity o f revelation is directed completely towards the salvation o f men, for it brings life. W hoever believes on the Son o f Man (9. 35) or the Son (μ ονο γενή ς, υίός) as the eschatological ambassador o f God has (eternal) life (3. 15, 36; 5. 24, etc.). For this Son is the true God (ουτός ε σ τιν 6 α λη θινός θεός, ι John 5. 20). In John, Christ’s activity o f revelation and redemption is represented as a dramatic descent and ascent.3 The course tra­ versed by Christ begins in the heavenly world (1. iff.) and leads to the earthly world (1. 11, 14), to the cross (19. iyff.). The return then follows in the re-ascent o f the Risen One into his earlier glory (3. 13, 31; 6. 62; 13. 1; 14. 28; 16. 28; 17. 5). Thither Christ also leads those who become his own from ‘this world’ and 1 P.-H. Menoud, L ’ Evangile dejean d’ apres les rechcrches recentes (Neuchatel-Paris 19472); J. Behm, ‘Der gegenwartige Stand der Erforschung des Johannes-Evangeliums,’ ThLZ 73 (1948) 22-30; W. F. Howard, The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation (revised by C. K. Barrett, London 19554); F. M. Braun, ‘Oil en est l’etude du quatrieine evangile,’ EphThLov 32 (1956) 535-46; R . Schnackenburg, BZ NF 2 (1958) 144—54 (Eng. Lit.;; James M. Robinson, ‘Recent research in the Fourth Gospel,’ JB L (1959) 242-52. 2E. Schweizer, Ego Eitni (Gottingen 1939); H. Zimmerinann, ‘Das absolute Έ γ ώ t ip i als die ntl. Otienbarungsformel’ : BZ 4 (1960) 54—69, 266-76; id., ‘Das absolute “ Ich bin” in der Redeweise Jesq,’ in TThZ 69 (1960) 1-20. 3 Cf. M.-E. Boismard, L e Prologue de s.Jea n (Paris 1953); this dynamic consideration of the Logos in the prologue is not confused by Boismard with a mere ‘functional’ christo­ logy, i.e. the Logos being a mere ‘function’ o f the Godhead. See L. Malevez, ‘Nouveau Testament et Theologie fonctionelle,’ R S R 48 (1960) 258-90 (on Cullmann, Christology o f the N ew Testament, who takes Dupont and Boismard as representatives o f such a functional theology).

who therefore can participate in the world o f life and light. For he is to all ‘the W a y ’ (14. 6), the sole access to the life to come (‘the door,’ 10. 7, 9). The way in which St.John’s Gospel marks the turning points on the course o f redemption, the ‘becoming flesh’ (1. 14) and the ‘being exalted’ ( = ‘being glorified,’ cf. 3. 14; 8. 28; 12. 23, 32; 13. 3if.; 17. if.) is o f extraordinary significance for future theology. It is principally the Incarnation o f the Logos which occupies the centre o f theological reflection. W hat is the reason for this? It is surely the tension which is present in the Johannine formula ‘Logos-sarx.’ It is our intention to attempt to measure its force. i. Logos: Christ is here for the first time in Christian literature described by a name which is to be repeated countless times. First o f all, let us try to paraphrase its content from John himself. The first element which underlies the Johannine Logos-concept is the idea o f ‘revelation’ and the ‘revealer.’ Christ is the W ord o f God, already existing before the world, and spoken into the world. The office o f ‘revealer’ is so closely bound up with the person o f Jesus that Christ himself becomes the embodiment o f revelation. N ot only his words, but the very fact o f his coming and o f his being are in themselves a divine self-revelation. In Apoc. 19. 11-16, the office o f the divine ambassador is described in the imagery o f the rider on a white horse. His name, ‘ 6 Λ ό γ ο ς τ ο ΰ Θ ε ο ΰ ,’ is quite explicit. It is his task to bring to man the ‘W o rd ’ o f God. This he can do because he is this W ord. In John, ‘Logos’ is primarily the spoken word in contrast to the Logos as reason (ratio). This also forms the basis for the close relationship between Logos and revelation. A further description o f the intrinsic and essential relationship between the person o f Christ and his office occurs in 1 John 1. 1-3, though it is a disputed point whether ‘Logos’ here is to be understood o f the person o f Jesus Christ or o f his teaching. Both are certainly included. Christ is the personal ‘W ord o f Life’ which comes from eternity and is sent to men. These are themes from the prologue. Essential as the idea o f the revealer is for the Logos concept, it does not exhaust it. The associated expressions θεός and μο νο γενή ς serve to deepen and clarify the concept decisively. The content o f the teaching and the authority have their particular source in the conjunction o f the activity o f the revealer and the status o f

the Son o f God (i. 18; P 6 6 and P 75 now show that the reading in this verse is certain. So at the beginning and at the end o f St. John’s Gospel (cf. 20. 29) we have a declaration o f Christ’s divinity). True, the tw o concepts Logos and Son are not to be equated formally. But in fact Aoyos·, θεός, μ ο νο γενή ς at the least imply one and the same subject w ho is to be understood as pre-existent, beyond time and beyond the world. The Logos is God in God, mediator o f creation and bringer o f revelation— and this in the full sense by virtue o f his appearance in the flesh. He ‘is’ the W ord o f God in the flesh. The sources o f a theology o f this kind have often been sought all too far from the material revealed in the O ld and N ew Testa­ ments— scholars have been misled in particular by the Logosconcept.1 Yet the obvious course would seem to be to begin from the spiritual home o f a disciple o f John the Baptist and Christ, such as John is, i.e. from the O ld Testament. The O ld Testament ‘Theology o f the W ord ’ gives us a first point o f contact. This theme o f the W ord o f God recurs constantly. It contains not only the idea o f the revelation o f God but also the conception o f the W ord as power and wisdom, which are made manifest in the cosmic workings o f God.2 But it is impossible to derive the Johannine Logos-concept from the O ld Testament ‘Theology o f the W ord’ alone. The idea o f cosmic power and revelation is still insufficiently developed, and, above all, the notion o f the ‘W ord’ as personal is missing.3 The Old Testament Wisdom teaching takes us considerably further. The Wisdom o f the Old Testament and the Logos o f St. John have many features in common. Both exist from the beginning (Prov. 8. 22; Ecclus. 24; John 1. 1; cf. Gen. 1. 1) and dwell with God (Ecclus. 24. 4 L X X ; Prov. 8. 23-25, 30). Common to both is their work in the world, though this is emphasized μ ο νο γενή ς θεός

1 See R . Schnackenburg, art. ‘Johannesevangelium,’ LThK V (I9602), 1101-5, especially II (Intellectual milieu; special tendencies); relations to the Qumran texts are mentioned there. For St. John and Qumran see F. M. Braun, EphThLov 32 (1956) 540f.; id., Rev Thom 54 (1954) 22-12, 259-99, 523-58; id., R B 62 (1955) 5-44; id., Recherches bibl. 3 (Louvain 1958) 179—96; O. Cullmann, N ew Testament Studies (1958-59) 157-73. 2 Cf. Gen. 1.1; Ps. 107. 20; Wisd. 18. 14—16; these passages describe the sending out o f the Word and its work in the world. Ps. 33. 9 (32. 9) (He spoke, and they were made) shows the connection between Word and event. See L. Diirr, D ie Wertung des gottlichen Wortes im A T und im antiken Orient. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des ntl. LogosBegriffes (Leipzig 1938). 3 M. J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint-J'ean (Paris 19366) 29.

more strongly in Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus than, for example, in John i. 3, io. W isdom and Logos come to men (Ecclus. 24. 7-22 L X X ; Prov. 8. 31) and ‘tabernacle’ with them (Ecclus. 24. 8 L X X John i. 14). So strong is the similarity between the Johannine Prologue and Proverbs 8 and Ecclesiasticus 24 that one can speak o f a literary dependence. But in that case, w h y did John not retain the name ‘W isdom ’ ? His choice o f the name Logos may have been influenced by the Rabbinic identification o f Wisdom and Torah.1 Moreover, the feminine form ‘Sophia,’ and her place in Gnostic speculations, would be no recommendation in the Greek cultural sphere.12 A further influence on the evangelist John w ill have been the N e w Testament formulas and ideas which had already taken shape before him. In Paul, moreover, the O ld Testament con­ fronts him once again. True, 1 Corinthians 1. 24 (Christ as the ‘Power o f God’ and the ‘W isdom o f God’) may be not so much a christological expression as a definition o f Christ’s part in the economy o f salvation, and in this w ay may refer more to the w ork than to the person o f Christ. But Colossians 1.15, 2 Corin­ thians 4. 4 and Hebrews 1. 3, which speak o f ‘effulgence’ and ‘image,’ certainly refer to Wisdom 7. 26 and contain an expression o f Christ’s essential being. The cosmological status o f Wisdom in Proverbs 8. 22-31 and Wisdom 7. 22-28 may have had an influence on Colossians 1. 15if. But the Pauline expressions themselves, such as the formula o f ‘equality with God’ (ίσα d v a 1 θαω) and ‘form o f God’ (μορφ ή θξθΰ) or even Hebrews 1.3 (α π α ύ γα σ μ α 1 G. Kittel, T W N T 4, 138ff. and H. Strack-P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum N T aus (MCinchen 1922-28) III. 126-33, 353, are perhaps to some extent right in attempting to understand the Logos-concept in the Johannine prologue as an antithesis to the Rabbinic Torah-speculation. But the attempt as such must be rejected. The Torah-speculation extracted only subsidiary features from the Old Testament Wisdom teaching, and these were certainly the less significant ideas. The same is true of the comparison o f the Rabbinic Memra-teaching with the Johannine Logos. 2 F. M. Braun, EphThLov 32 (1956) 540f. stresses the relations to Qumran: ‘Entre l’£vangile de Jean et les documents de 1’Alliance, les affinites litteraires et spirituelles sont aujourd’hui trop connues pour qu’il faille les deinontrer longuement. On en peut conclure que l’evangeliste avait non settlement l’esprit sature des Ecritures proto- et deuterocanoniques, mais qu’il etait cgalement familiarise avec la litterature apocalyptique et pseudoepigraphique en honneur parmi les sectaires de la mer Morte. II n’est pas certain que l’auteur du quatrieme Evangile ait ete en relation directe avec la Communaute de FAlliance ni qu’il ait eu connaissance du M anuel de discipline, du Document de Damas, ou du recueil des Hymnes. Mais ce que l’on peut affirmer sans exageration, e’est que l’arriere-fond de ces Merits et celui du Quatrieme Evangile est sensiblement le me me.’ Talm ud und Midrasch

already point in the direction o f the Johannine concepts and terminology and stand on the same theological plane as John does. Finally, however, i f the Apostle chooses a particular word and a particular concept which is borrowed from Greek philosophy, there must be some connection between the two. D o John and his Logos-concept, then, already point in a direction in which the history o f the dogma o f the Incarnation is to lead us again and again— to Alexandria? The Epistle to the Hebrews indicates that there is already some connection between the N ew Testament and Alexandrine theology and exegesis. Alexandrine influence on John goes hand-in-hand with the place given to O ld Testament Wisdom teaching in his theology. According to Irenaeus, the Fourth Gospel is directly opposed to Cerinthus, a Jew from Alexandria, who comes to Ephesus to preach his Gnosis there, a Gnosis in which Hellenistic theosophy plays a predominant role. There can be no doubt that we have in John a witness o f the encounter between Christianity and the spirit o f Hellenism at this early date, and it would be most remarkable i f no trace o f this manifested itself in his Gospel, not only in a positive w ay by the recognition that Christianity and Hellenism were connected, but also in a negative w ay by repudiating the baleful influences o f the latter.1 It can certainly be assumed that the prologue to the Gospel is directed primarily, i f not exclusively, towards the Greeks. It stands apart, like a Greek fagade to the Jewish-Christian building that is behind— the Gospel. It was the Logos-concept that moulded this fagade. The analogy should not be pressed, for the facade too is essentially o f the Old Testament, and Christian, even though Hellenistic influence is unmistakable. This Logos con­ cept is certainly more than a mere frontage, put up on the outside; it is intrinsically bound up with the Gospel. But at the same time it represents a real acceptance o f ideas from the Greeks, even though the content assigned to them by John gives back to the Greeks infinitely more than they were able to bring to him. The Greek view o f the Logos is in itself by no means sufficient τ η ς δ ό ξη ς κ α ι χ α ρ α κ τη ρ τη ς ν π ο σ τά σ εω ς α ντο υ )

1 See F. X . Monse, ‘Johannes und Paulus,’ 200.

:N tlAbh.

5, 2. 3 (Miinster 1915) 85-96; 176—

explanation o f the Johannine concept.1 W hile Heraclitus and the Stoics make the Logos the principle governing the cosmos, they allow that it is immanent. The Logos o f the Prologue, on the other hand, is at the same time both personal and transcendent. N or, despite the great similarity o f many o f his formulas, is Philo sufficient to explain the heights reached by John.2 Granted the Philonic Logos is already a being distinct from God, with divine properties and a function embracing the creation o f the world and G od’s relationship with men; in the two writers the relation­ ship between God and the Logos is completely different,3 and, most o f all, in Philo the the idea o f Incarnation is missing. 2. The Logos in the flesh. John now says o f the divine Logos that ‘He was made flesh and dwelt among men.’ The personal presence o f the revealer is a presence in the flesh. The W ord o f God has appeared visibly (i John i. iff). The Logos o f God is man. The peculiarly Johannine contribution lies in the sharpness o f the antithesis and the depth o f the synthesis o f Logos and sarx. In no book o f the N ew Testament is the christological opposi­ tion o f pre-existent being and fleshly nature so sharply drawn out as in John. Divine though the Logos may be in his abode with God, beyond the senses, beyond time and beyond the world, his presence in true fleshly nature is none the less absolutely real. The Apostle ‘in his tripartite introduction in i John i. i, 2, 3 can never be satisfied in stressing over and over again that he who has appeared (έφανερώθη) has done so in the concreteness o f time and space.’4 A statement on the Incarnation in these terms musi have made an unimaginable contrast to the background o f the Hellen­ istic Logos-concept in its different forms. The expression ‘sarx,’ ‘flesh,’ would, it is true, emphasize the visibility and genuineness 1 From the Catholic side, the relationship of the Johannine Logos-concept to Hellenism, and in particular to the philosophy o f Heraclitus, has been emphasized by A. Dyroti, ‘Zum Prolog dcs Johannesevangeliums,’ Pisciculi, Festschrift fiir F .J . Dolger (Miinster 1939) 86-93. The essentials are in H. Kleinknecht, art. in T W N T 4, 76-89. Similarly M. Pohlcnz, Stoa I (Gottingen 1948) 405f.; see C. H. Dodd, 'Flic Interpretation o f the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge 1954) 263-85. 2 This despite the ‘kaleidoscopic variety o f meanings’ (H. Kleinknecht, in T W N T 4, 87). 3John places Christ as Logos clearly on the side o f God, and as man equally clearly on the side o f men. Philo, on the other hand, says o f the Logos oure ά γ ίν η τ ο ς ώ ς ό deos ω ν o v r e y e votos ω ς ν μ ε ΐς , ά λ λ α μ ίσ ο ς τω ν ά κ ρ ω ν (Q uis rer. div. her. 42, ed. CohnWendland III206: on D eu t. 5. 5: Ego . . . medius fui inter dominum et vos). 4 T W N T 4, 130.

o f the divine and immortal Logos, but in so doing would point to the mortality o f his human nature. A Greek could certainly think o f no greater opposition than that o f ‘Logos’ to ‘sarx,’ especially i f the idea o f suffering and death was associated with it. For this reason, the Christian proclamation saw ever-repeated attempts o f a Docetic kind to deny the reality o f Christ’s flesh or to loosen the unity o f Logos and sarx. These tw o factors were those which Irenaeus stressed against Cerinthus. It is precisely to meet such attacks that the Apostle chooses the strong expression the ‘flesh’ o f the Logos, by which he surely understands a com­ plete human nature. He intentionally mentions what is most visible in man to demonstrate that the coming o f Christ, the God-Logos, was visible.1 It is hardly a fault o f John’s that such an emphasis could turn into heresy again and again. W e will, however, see how it was that jus., this pointed antithesis gave occasions for far-reaching misrepresentations o f the nature o f Christ, just as it inspired the theology o f the Church to its deepest expressions. In view o f the later misrepresentations it is important to point out how John represents his Christ as a real man, with body and soul, and therefore capable o f spiritual feeling and inner emotion. The Apostle who has an unparalleled vision o f the Logos in Jesus always sees him as having a human psychology ( n . 33; 12. 27; 13. 27). The Logos-concept has not been able to obliterate the true picture o f Christ’s humanity. The reality o f his life stands too clearly in view. The Greek thought-world w ill experience the same idea as a temptation and w ill largely succumb to it. This attempt to obtain a general view o f N ew Testament christology has— as far as possible— taken the present state o f exegesis as its starting point. The transition from the Apostolic age to the post-Apostolic and Patristic period confronts us with other conditions. The study o f the use and understanding o f Scripture would be o f the greatest significance for the whole o f Patristic christology. Up to now, however, there have been very 1 1 John 4. 2 Ί η σ ο ΰ ν iv σ α ρ κ ι (λ η λ υ θ ό τ α . On the question o f Docetism cf. A. Grillmeier, art. ‘Doketismus,’ LThK III (1959) 470f.—R . Schnackenburg, id. V (1960) 939 says o f this Johannine christology: ‘This opened the door to the later two-natures doctrine; this christology is no longer purely “ functional,” even if it does not separate the person o f Christ from his work.’

few studies o f the subject,1 and these differ both in method and in results. The mere position o f St. John’s Gospel in the Church and among the Gnostics during the second century throws par­ ticular light on the spiritual state o f the early Church. 1 Cf. E. Massaux, L ’ influence de VEvangile de saint M atthieu sur la litte'rature chretienne avant saint Iretiee (Louvain-Gembloux 1950); H. Koster, Synoptische (Jberlieferung bei den A postolischen Vdtern (TU Berlin 1957), arrives at somewhat different results; he does not appear to know Massaux’s work. On John, see: W. v. Loewenich, D as Johannesverstandnis im zw eiten Jahrhundert (Giessen 1932); J. N . Sanders, T h e Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Its origin and influence on Christian Theology up to Irenaeus (Cambridge 1943); F.-M. Braun, Jean le theologien et sonevangile dansI’ Egliseancienne (EtBibl) (Paris 1959); id., ‘Le quatrieme fivangile dans l’Eglise du second siecle’ in Sacra Pagina II (Paris-Gembloux 1959) 269-79; J. S. Romanides, ‘Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospel’ in G O T R 4 (1958-59) 115-34. On Paul: E. Aleith, Paulusverstandnis in der alien Kirche (Berlin 1937).

FIRST G R O W T H T

he

C

h r is t o l o g y

of th e

Secon d C

entury1

i t h i n the limits marked out on the one hand by the Synoptists and on the other by John and Paul, the christology o f the N ew Testament itself already displays considerable diversity. W e have, for example, the contrast between a Messianic christology (the Acts speeches, the Synoptic Gospels) and the Johannine idea o f the Logos; the factors which determine a portrayal o f Christ may be salvation history (Synoptics, Romans, Galatians), cosmology (Ephesians, Col. i. I5ff.), liturgy (Hebrews) or apocalyptic (Apo­ calypse). The picture o f Christ given by the N ew Testament already shows sometimes predominantly Judaistic, elsewhere predominantly Hellenistic features. It would, however, be a mistake to remain completely sceptical about the essential unity o f the christological tradition because o f such differences. Com ­ mon to all sources is a firm recognition o f Jesus’ transcendence and his central position in the salvation history. This clearly rests on living experience (primarily o f the Resurrection, but also quite simply o f the words and actions o f the Lord) and finds its climax in belief in the Lordship o f God and the divinity o f Christ. This single recognition, or this single experience, is also the bond which links the post-Apostolic and the Apostolic age. The general tendency o f contemporary scholarship is to regard the possession o f H oly Scripture as the only psychological bridge between the tw o epochs. W ith regard to the O ld Testament and

W

1

On the whole o f this and the following parts see J. A. Domer, Entwicklungsgeschichte 1845; Berlin 18512) ; Vol. 2 (Berlin 1853); 1940); A. Michel, ‘Jesus-Christ,’ ‘Incarna­ tion,’ ‘Hypostase,’ in D T C 8, 1108—1411; 7, 369-568; 1445—1539; J. Lebreton, Histoire du dogme de la Trinitd Vol. 1 (Paris 1927®); Vol. 2 (19284); G. L. Prestige, G o d in Patristic Thought (London-Toronto 19562); J. N . D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (London I9602); A. Vogtle, R . Schnackenburg, A. Grillmeier, K. Rahner, W. Pannenberg, ‘Jesus Christus’ in LThK V (1960) 922-64; Per Beskow, R e x Gloriae. T he Kingship o j C hrist in the Early Church (Uppsala 1962); K. Baus, Von der Urgenieinde zu r friihchristlichen Grosskirche (Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, edited by H. Jedin, Vol. 1) (Freiburg-BaselWien 1962) with a good bibliography. dvr Lehre von dvr Person Christi, Vol. 1 (Stuttgart R . V. Sellers, Tw o ancient Christologies (London

the way in which it is used, this is to some extent correct. The role o f the canonical books o f the N ew Testament, and particu­ larly the position o f the Synoptic tradition, which may lay prime claim to transmitting the words and deeds o f the Lord, is a question all on its own. A t the time o f the Apostolic Fathers, the N ew Testament writings, even the Synoptic Gospels, did not yet have the norma­ tive character which they were to acquire in the course o f the second century, when the Canon was being formed. A detailed examination o f the use o f the Synoptic Gospels by the Apostolic Fathers has produced the following conclusion: ‘In this period, even our three Synoptic Gospels play a completely subordinate role as a source for the citing o f synoptic sentences.’1 W e are still in a period when the real motive force behind the tradition was the all-pervading influence o f a great reality o f experience,2 the Christ event, that is the life and teaching o f Jesus Christ. The written Synoptic Gospels were not the only expression o f this event nor were they the only w ay in which the reality might be possessed. The Church knew that she was in full possession o f the words and deeds o f the Lord and o f his whole history, even independently o f the written Gospels. In the Apostolic age, this full possession formed the basis o f teaching and preaching, the basis o f the Church’s formulation o f her proclamation o f Christ, even the basis o f the written Gospels, themselves meant as an expression o f the ‘one Gospel.’ This phase o f the Christian tradition was therefore dominated by the living, oral proclama­ tion. I f this was accompanied by a consciousness o f the Scrip­ tures— as was, in fact, the case from the very beginning— prime concern was w ith the O ld Testament. Thus in the immediate post-Apostolic age there was a Christ-tradition, but this was as direct a source for the Apostolic Fathers as it had been for the written Gospels. I f this oral tradition is also an integral part o f the nature o f the Church, the consciousness o f the position o f Scripture in it can 1 H. Koster, Synoptisclte Oberlieferung bet den Apostolisclien Vatern (TU, Berlin 1957) 257. E. Massaux (p. 35, note 1 above), however, asserts that the Fathers o f the second century used a distorted text o f the New Testament and thus restricts the part ot oral tradition. Investigating the Didache, J.-P. Audet achieves a similar result to Koster: La Didache , Instructionsdes A potres (Paris 1958) 166-86;cf. F.-M. Braun, Jeanletheologien (seep. 5, notel). 2 B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 325 (see the quotation on p. 5, note 1); cf. J. Danielou, R S R 47 (1959) 65.

develop further. This was the case from Justin onwards; ‘he already “ uses” the gospels to a great extent. In Justin’s writings, the sources o f the synoptic tradition are almost exclusively our Gospels, and therefore the history o f the tradition is in Justin for the first time a history o f the exposition o f our Gospels.’1 A multilinear development now begins. In combating Gnosis and its ‘traditions’ the Church increasingly reflected upon its ‘one’ tradition. This meant being committed to the canon o f N ew Testament writings, though not o f course simply to the written word, and in addition the formation o f the creed and the stress on the regula fidei in teaching and in preaching. Thus even the didactic formulas acquired a special significance, although it was precisely this age which still permitted a considerable variation in them. The special position o f the formula, which is already evident in the N ew Testament (i Cor. 15), meant that the auditus fidei played a great part. ‘Faith from hearing’ (cf. Rom. 10. 9-15) corresponds to the clearly defined word, the formula, the formu­ lated tradition, and makes a link reaching back to the revelation which was completed in Christ. The place o f the auditus fidei is catechesis, the sermon coming within the framework o f the liturgy, which, through its holy signs, actions and rites, is itself a powerful support to tradition and the source o f a particular tendency towards conservatism.2 Here it fulfils another special function which cannot be valued highly enough for the life o f the Church: i f the formulated tradition runs the risk o f historicizing the picture o f Christ and the whole reality o f faith and objectifying it so that it becomes too impersonal, the living liturgy has the task o f providing and bringing alive a direct link with the Lord o f glory, the Christus praesens, which transcends all history. It is peculiarly well suited for achieving the transition from the formula to the inner, spirit-governed faith which must support everything. Throughout the early Christian period we notice a great simplicity in formulas. It was this simplicity alone which could 1 H. Koster, Synoptische Dberlicfenmg 267; F. E. Vokes, T h e N ew Testament To-day, Oxford Conference ll-15th September, 1961, sees the same situation reflected in the Didache and therefore dates it after 150. See now B. Gerhardsson, op. cit. 194-207, 324—35; J. Beumer, ‘Die miindliche Uberlieferung ais Glaubensquelle’ (HDG I 4) (Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1962) 15-22. 2 Cf. H. E. W. Turner, T h e Pattern o f Christian Truth (London 1954) 361.

secure uniformity o f preaching amidst the deficient theological education o f most o f the Church’s spokesmen and, above all, could keep heresy away from the Church. It is astonishing how the Church o f the ‘Illiterates’ was able to cope with the powerful onslaught o f Gnosis in the second century. Hippolytus gives us an example o f an encounter between faithfulness to the formula o f the Church and newly emerging heresy which would certainly apply to Christian preaching in preceding years as well. Noetus o f Smyrna came forward and declared that the words o f Scripture concerning Father, Son and Spirit are really said only o f One, o f one person. Therefore in Christ the Son o f the Father did not take the form o f a servant. This constituted an attack on the fundamentals o f the Christian proclamation. The matter was brought before the presbyters o f the Church o f Smyrna. They were confronted for the first time with a difficulty towards the solution o f which centuries were to labour. But the presbyters did not resort to high theology; they contented themselves with the simple formula which they had heard: W e too worship only one God, but as w e understand it. W e too hold Christ to be the Son o f God, but as w e understand it— w ho suffered as he suffered, died as he died, and rose again the third day and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand o f the Father, and w ill com e to ju d ge the living and the dead. This w e say as w e have learned (βμάθομεν). Thereupon they con­ victed him (Noetus) and expelled him from the Church, because he was carried to such a pitch o f pride that he founded a sect.1

From this w e see that already at this time the simple framework o f a christological confession forms, so to speak, the backbone o f the Church’s tradition about Christ, something in which she can find support. W e must always take into consideration the presence o f such a christological confession with belief in the Godhead and manhood o f the one Lord, i f w e are to understand the development o f the Church’s teaching about Christ.2 The author o f the ‘Little Labyrinth,’ transmitted to us in extracts by 1 Hippolytus, A ntinoetus 1: ed. P. Nautin, H ipp olyte, C ontre les heresies (Paris 1949) 23518-2373. C. H. Turner, ‘The blessed presbyters who condemned Noetus,’ JT S 23 (1922) 28-35. 2 It is not our task here to sketch the history o f the Creed in itself. See the excellent chapter in H. E. W. Turner, T h e P attern o f C h ristian Truth (London 1954) 309-86; J. N. D. Kelly, E a r ly C h ristian C reeds (London 1950). A good survey of the creeds is forthcoming in the new edition o f H. Denzinger, Enchiridion Sym bolorum , revised by A. Schonmetzer (1963) 1-76.

Eusebius, includes even the Apologists, who certainly signify a new departure in theology, the emergence o f a theologie savante, without further ado among the first simple witnesses o f the Church’s belief. They too describe Christ as God (Θεολογ52). This idea would also be prompted by anti-docetic and anti-gnostic tendencies. It contrasts with the idea o f the ‘fair Christ.’ Ct. A. Oiilhneicr, ibid. 47 *>. In all this we have a popular, pictorial idea of Christ, which was o f course also utilized for theological purposes. 3 ‘ I'he hands of the father’ are the Logos and Spirit as mediators of creation, in Ircnacus, Adt>. f/iier. IV 20, 1; IV Preface 4; V 5, 1; see A.Orbc: Greg 43 (1962)451-6.

away the yoke, the yoke o f slavery so hard to bear, from our necks, and to free us from impious ordinances and powerful fetters. Recognize him as thy God, the Son o f God. Praise him, cherish him in thy heart, love him with all thy soul and bear his name. Lay aside the former (gods) and wash thyself with his blood; for he w ill be reconciled not with thy songs, nor through entreaties, nor does he heed the transitory sacrifice, unchanging as he is. But i f a prudent mouth lets the song o f praise sound forth it recognizes who He is and then wilt thou see the Creator’ (324-36). The Eighth Book again sets out to describe the Godhead and manhood in Christ, his double nature. T or he is the Logos, who counselled thy heart1 before all creation, the maker of man and the creator o f life’ (439). hi a w ay rare for the ‘Sibyl,’ the divine acts in the Incarnation are described with great solenmity: ‘But in the last times he (the Logos) went down to earth, and appeared small and emerged from the womb o f the Virgin Mary as a new light, and, coming from heaven, he assumed human form’ (456fF.). The message o f the angel is depicted as though by the Minne­ singers (459-69) and the conception is described in a very profound w ay: ‘The W ord flew into her body, gradually became flesh and, gaining life in a mother’s womb, gave itself human form2 and became a boy through being born o f a virgin; among men this is indeed a great miracle, but nothing is a great miracle for God the Father and God the Son’ (469-73). Through God’s ordinance and choice Bethlehem was ‘named the home o f the Logos’ (47X). The poet has probably been stimulated in many ways by the Apocryphal writings and describes the birth ( γ ο ν α ί ) o f his C!od Jesus Christ in a Hellenistic way. But such influences are com­ pletely subordinate to the faith o f the great Church, which says, ‘The W ord was made flesh and dwelt among us, in Bethlehem.’ The Christian interpolator o f the otherwise Jewish book I (II), who probably writes about a . d . 150, produces a formula o f 1 The Logos and the heart o f the Father was a favourite conjunction particularly about the turn o f the second and third centuries: Or/. Sol. 41, 10: ‘For his abundance has begotten me and the thought o f his heart.’ Tertull. A do. Prtix. 7: proprie tie vulva cordis ipsius. Hippol., Com m , on Song o f Songs, 2, 4; 13. s For the Logos as creator o f his own humanity see: Justin, A pol. 23, 32; Dialog, c. 103; Epist. A post. C opt. VII 10; Tertull. A do. I‘ rax. 26; Clem. Al., Exr. ex Tlteotl. 60; Strom. V 3, 16, 5. Similarly, but with typical Gnostic illustrations, cf. Hippol., lilettch VI 33, 3. 4; 35, 7. Cf. J. Barbel, Christos Angelos 241-7. D

the Logos christology which is not far distant from the title Theotokos, Mother o f God, which emerged about the middle o f the third century. He speaks o f the ‘young maiden’ w ho ‘w ill bear the Logos o f the Highest God’ (323a). O f the Sixth book, with its Gnostic-inspired hymn to Christ (1-28), which describes the Incarnation, the work and the suffering o f Christ, only the conclusion need be mentioned. This is a glorification o f the wood o f the cross: ‘O blessed tree, on which God was hung! N o longer will the earth contain thee, but thou wilt look upon the house o f H eaven.. . .’ Here again there is a clear formulation o f the communicatio idiomatum such as became frequent about this time: ‘O blessed tree, on which God was hung!’1 (v. 26). So from these heterogeneous poems o f the Sibylline Oracles we are faced with authentic and inauthentic matter. Neverthe­ less, the Sibyllines formed their characteristic, even powerful picture o f Christ. The persecuted Christians found considerable comfort in it. The Eighth book in particular is a valuable book o f devotion from the second century and a witness o f a living faith in Christ already deeply rooted in the people. The poets know Scripture and tradition well and have done well in adapting the pictorial theology, the knowledge o f the christological sym­ bols o f the second century.2 The figure o f Christ has been created from a living grasp o f the times. Many verses already proclaim a better future for the beliefs for which they fight. In Book XII (28-34), the poet or interpolator o f the third century already guesses at a different relationship between Christendom and Rom e: ‘But when the star (the star o f the Magi) appears from heaven at midday shining like the sun, then the W ord o f the Most High will come secretly, bearing flesh like to the mortal; yet with him will grow the might o f Rom e and the illustrious Latins.’ W h y then are the Christians suspect as enemies o f state?— this is the question o f this ‘Apologist,’ who perhaps already envisages a Christian Empire.3 1 See the paraphrase in Andrew o f Crete , PG 97, 1033. See p. 71, note 1 above. 2 The christological characteristics o f the early period o f the Church are reflected in particular in its love for pictorial symbols. See my detailed description in D er Logos am K reu z (Miinchen 1956) 33-66; also the theological symbolism of the sign o f the cross: ibid. 67-96. 3 Cf. A. M. Kurfess, ZRelGG 7 (1955) 270-2. 6 Esdras is a similar book o f devotion for the period o f early Christian persecution (second-third century), but has nothing relevant for christology.

(c) Myth, Legend and Belief— The popular theology of the Mysteries o f the Life o f Jesus There was an extraordinary interest in the life o f Jesus in the period o f the Apocryphal writings.1 This is no historical interest, like that o f the ‘Quest o f the Historical Jesus’ in the nineteenth century. Quite the opposite. There is no trace whatsoever o f historizing. M yth and legend and faith in an objective reality stand side by side. But all is subordinate to a theological ex­ pression, albeit an expression in a popular form. Orthodoxy and heresy alike declare their interest in this form o f elaborating the life o f Jesus. To-day w e too have discovered that mythical forms o f expression can have their own theological content.12 Even orthodoxy need not therefore renounce mythical and legendary statements. It can express a great deal by means o f them. But the bounds within which myth, legend and saga may be accepted must be drawn very carefully and in accordance with the inner meaning o f Christian reality. Demythologization may not be extended to the point at which it does away with any o f the substance o f Christianity. If it does this, it has a deadly effect. Such would be the case i f the appearing o f God in our world, the incursion o f the transcendent into our realm and the presence o f the eternal in our time were on a priori grounds interpreted as myth, without objective reality. It is well known that R . Bultmann makes the primitive Christian proclamation so dependent upon the old two-storied view o f the universe (‘above’ and ‘below’) that any objective saving presence o f God in our history and any objective reality o f salvation is dissolved along with the modern dissolution o f this view o f the universe. ‘M ythology is the use o f imagery to express the other w orldly in terms o f this world and the divine in terms o f human life, the other side in terms o f this side. For instance, divine transcendence is expressed as spatial distance. It is a mode o f expression which makes it easy to understand the cultus as an action in which material means are 1 C f. W . B au er, D as Leben Jcsu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichai Apokryphat (T u bin gen 1909). 2 C f. W . Stahlin, Symboloti. Vom gldchnishaftcn Detiken (Stu ttgart 1958): 40—53 (M y th o­ lo g ica l th o u g h t in H o ly Scripture).

used to convey immaterial power.’1 W ere this the case, then the whole o f the Christ-event as understood by the Bible and the Early Church would be ‘m yth,’ and would only have validity for us in so far as it could be reinterpreted as an existential self­ understanding before God in Christ. For Christ is the presence o f God in our world and in our history. N o w Bultmann evi­ dently presupposes a Gnostic-mythical concept o f incarnation and not the spiritual, refined understanding which became more and more clear in the course o f the discussion o f christological dogma. The Gnostic redeemer-figure is a mythical figure in so far as a pre-existent being traverses the spheres in a real, physical way, is present in the lower world and again vanishes from it after fulfilling his task (see (d) below). The Incarnation as understood by Christians presupposes no physical journeyings o f the Pre-existent One, by the accep­ tance o f a human existence in the world by God’s W ord o f power. It presupposes no two-storied view o f the universe, hut simply the two entities God and the world. God acts no differently in the Incarnation from the w ay in which he acted at Creation. He is concerned with his world as he always has been. But this act o f creation results in a new relationship between God and the world. From the creation God appro­ priates for his eternal Logos a human existence in the world, through a human birth, but without the necessary consequence o f a physical descent o f the Logos qua Logos. R . Bultmann rightly demands that the transcendence o f God be not violated. But it was precisely the significance o f the discussions over the Incarnation with Arianism, Apollinarianism and Monophysitism that they made it clear how a true unity o f God and man could be achieved without the violation o f this divine transcendence and without the physical journeying o f the Pre-existent One into this world. In the face o f Docetism and Gnosis the Church insisted on a real presence o f the incarnate God in the world and thus on an objective history o f the acts o f God which cannot be allowed to dissolve into merely an existential self-understanding. The Church’s concept o f Incarnation is the personal, objective 1 R . Bultmann in Kerygma und Mythos I (Hamburg-Volksdorf 19512) (15—48) 22, note 2, E T Kerygma and M yth (London 1953) (1—4-4·) 10, note 2. Cf. Kerygma und M ythos II 180, note 2.

unity o f God and man in Christ and is here already demythologized when compared with the Gnostic conception o f the descent o f a redeemer. True, even Scripture speaks in a way o f the descent and ascent o f the Redeemer (John 3. 13; 6. 41; Eph. 4. 9). It was, however, the aim o f the orthodox christology to interpret these statements in an ungnostic way. N o w the literature o f the early Christian period shows us that a mythical understanding o f the Incarnation gained a footing in the same w ay as the legends which adorned and expanded the Gospel narratives about Jesus o f Nazareth. It will be our task to extract the genuine nucleus from early Christian myth and apocryphal legends. W e are therefore not concerned to com­ pile all the individual details which the apocryphal age added to the life o f Jesus.1 Our interest is in the theological expression. The conception and birth of Jesus from Mary are the first Mysteries o f the life o f Jesus.2 According to the Scriptural understanding, the Virgin conception means that God appoints the beginning o f the messianic life o f Jesus and prepares the salvation o f men in Jesus, the Messiah, the Son o f the Most Highest (Luke 1. 26-38). The narrative is theocentric and christocentric and looks towards a Messiah and a theology o f salvation. In the Protevangelium of James emphasis is on the virginity o f Mary.3 The Annunciation itself falls into two scenes: Mary goes to the well. There she hears a voice, ‘Hail, thou that art highly favoured (the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou) among women’ (Luke 1. 28 and 42). It is only in the house, to which M ary has rushed trembling to pray, that the angel appears in visible form. His message is already framed in more theological terms than that in Luke, Συνλήμψτι εκ Λόγου αύτοΰ (i i . 2). The Logos is the power which effects the conception. M ary’s question is formulated in such a w ay that the real aim o f the Protevangelium emerges clearly, a defence o f the virginity o f M ary: ‘Shall I conceive o f the Lord, the living God (and bear) as every woman bears (ibid)? T o put this virginity above all suspicion, great emphasis is placed on the 1 This is done in W. Bauer, D as Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Tubingen 1909); he summarizes the most important points in E. Hennecke, N il. A pokryphen (1924) 75fF. * Cf. W. Bauer, D as Leben Jesu 29-87. 3 Protoev. Iacobi, here after N ew Test. Apoc. (London 1963) 370-4 (Introduction), 374ff. (text). E. de Strycker, S.J., L a form e la plus aticienne du Protevangile de Jacques (Subsidia hagiogr. 33, Bruxelles 1961) 147-67. 467-9.

physical separation o f Joseph and Mary. W hen on Joseph’s return Joseph makes the discovery described in Matthew i. i8ff., manifest evidence o f the innocence o f the two must be produced. Both are given a cup with the ‘water o f the conviction o f the Lord’ (Num. 5. n -3 1 ) and the decision from heaven is awaited (16. i ; Ps.-Matt. XII). Ps-James sends both into the hills, Ps-Matt. has them compass the altar seven times. Finally their innocence is confirmed in the sight o f all the people.1 The birth o f Jesus, like his conception, is also described as a miraculous event. According to the Ascension o f Isaiah (11. 7-14)» the Acts of Peter (24), II Enoch (an imitation o f the Ascension of Isaiah) and the Odes of Solomon, stress is laid on the inviolateness o f Mary, and the painlessness o f the birth, which needs no human assistance. The Protevangelinm of James describes all this vividly. Attempts are made to demonstrate the greatness o f the new-born child by a whole series o f miraculous events. Tertullian perceived in this a danger o f Docetism and therefore gave a very matter-of-fact and realistic picture o f the birth o f Jesus.12 W e are led back to the Messianic theology through the depict­ ing o f the wonderful star, which shines either at the birth o f Jesus or at the coming o f the Magi. Matthew 2. 2 and Numbers 24. 17 (A star shall come forth out o f Jacob) are the basis o f this Messianic feature.3 Justin goes on to link these two passages with Zechariah 6. 12 (LXX) (anatole, oriens is his name) or even with Isaiah 11. i .4 For Origen, the star which appeared at the birth and was prophesied by Balaam becomes the symbol o f deity.56 Recourse was at one time made to Hellenistic astrology to explain the ring o f stars in Ignatius (Eph. 19. 2),6 but perhaps there are more Jewish ideas in it than appear at first sight. Perhaps, in fact, Genesis 37. 9, the dream o f Joseph (‘the sun and the moon and 1 Cf. the description of the Annunciation in Epist. A post. (Coptic) VII 6fF. (T U 43, 51f.); see N ew T est. Apoc., 198-9 . The archangel Gabriel is the visible manifestation o f the Logos, who speaks to Mary. The Logos himself forms his own body. In the Gnostic Pistis Sophia (ch. 8), in a similar way Christ himself appears in the form o f the angel and ‘thrusts’ the divine power into Mary. For the theological question o f the conception o f Christ by the Logos see p. 73, mote 2 above. 2 Tertullian, A dv. Marcion. 4, 21; D e came C h r. 23. 3 Ign., Eph. 19. 2-3; Protoev. Iacobi 21, 2; Orac. Sibyll. XII, 30-3; J. Danielou, I 239-47. 4Justin, D ial. 106, 4; 126, 1; A p ol. 32, 12-13. 6 Origen, Horn, in N um . 18, 4. 6 So H. Schlier, Religionsgcschichtlichc Untersuchungen z u den Ignatiusbriefen (Giessen 1929) 14-15.

eleven stars were bowing down before me’), a passage which has been given a christological interpretation by Hippolytus, had some effect here.1 Joseph saw Christ beforehand. According to Justin and Origen the Magi were subjects o f evil powers. They served them by their magic and astrological practices.2 But now Jesus in the guiding o f the Magi by the star appears as the con­ queror o f the evil powers even before his birth. Luke 2. 41-52 seemed to provide the justification for shaping stories o f Jesus’ childhood. Following Gnostic patterns, the Child­ hood Gospel of Thomas creates the picture o f the precocious boy Jesus w ith his downright impertinent and dangerous use o f his omnipotence.3 Jesus as a moral figure is abandoned in favour o f demonstrating this omnipotence. ‘The acts o f the apocryphal Jesus are destructive and, indeed, morally reprehensible. He places his power at the service o f his greed for revenge and his impiousness, and i f he feels slighted, spares neither health (ch. 3; 5. 2) nor life (ch. 4).’4 The Gnostics manifestly strive to reveal Jesus quite simply as a Gnostic. He ‘alone knew the unknown’ (Iren. Adv. Haer. I 20. 1). O f course, the majority o f these Gnostics, like the Valentinians and Cerinthus, the Gnostics o f Irenaeus (I 30. 13 and 14), showed no interest in the childhood o f Jesus. Christ as a man is superior to any human limitations. Others, like the heretic Justin and the Pistis Sophia (ch. 61), abun­ dantly elaborated the childhood o f Jesus with manifestations o f his deity. Because for the Adoptionists Jesus’ acceptance as Son only took place at his Baptism, they were, o f course, unable to make use o f his childhood. It is passed over, as the Gospel of the Ebionites shows.5 The Baptism of Jesus by John is eminently significant for the interpretation o f the mission, life and person o f Jesus. The Jewish Christians as such and not merely the Ebionites seem to have been particularly interested in it. The events at the Baptism are inter­ preted w ith the aid o f mythological ideas. The descent o f Jesus into the water is a descensus into the realm o f death and o f the dragon, w ho is thereby destroyed. Thus the Baptism o f Jesus is 1 Hippolytus, Betted. Is. et lac.: PO 27, 3; after J. Danielou, I, 220. 2 Cf. I Enoch 8, 3; evil angels teach men magic arts: Horn. Ps.-Ctem . VIII 12-24; IX 13-19. 3 N e w Test. A poc. (London 1963) 388-401. 4 W. Bauer, Lehen Jesti 91. 5 On Theodot. cf. Hippolyt., Elenchus VI 35; for the view o f the great Church see Justin, A p o l. I 35; D ia l. 88.

connected with the descent into hell. It achieves the purification o f the waters, which are ruled over by demons, and thus frees the baptized from their domination. A t the same time, baptism by water is associated with baptism by fire (cf. Matt. 3. 11). It has a messianic-eschatological significance. According to Justin, the Jordan is on fire as Jesus ascends from it.1 According to the Sibylline Oracles this occurrence means that Jesus escapes this fire o f wrath for us and in the dove sees the God o f grace coming to meet him. According to the Excerpta ex Theodoto (76. 1) there is a threefold soteriological parallel: The mystery o f the M agi’s star frees us from fate, the Baptism from the fire o f judgement and the Passion o f Jesus from suffering.2 In addition, the Baptism becomes the manifestation o f Jesus, an interpretation which is permitted by the biblical scene and which is now developed in greater detail. As well as the appearance o f the dove and the sound o f the voice, a light shines out. The Baptism o f Jesus is made into a scene parallel to the Transfiguration.3 Against the bright background o f the Baptismal theophany, the encounter o f the Messiah with Satan, depicted by the Gospels in the report o f the Temptation (Matt. 4. 1-11 par.), appears all the more gloomy. According to Matthew the tempter only appears after Christ has already fasted and prayed for forty days. Mark and Luke do not exclude the possibility that Satan already approached Jesus during this period (Luke 4. 2; Mark 1. 13). The Pseudo-Clementine Homilies make the whole event a forty-day testing: O u r Lord and Prophet, w ho sent us out, told us that the Evil One disputed (δίαλξχθζίς) with him for forty days.’4 Origen too assumes a forty-day temptation.5 The Gospel of the Hebrews 1Justin, D ial. 88. 3. Even two MSS of the Old Latin Version know o f the shining of a great light over the water. Cf. Huck-Lietzmann-Cross, Synopsis o f the first Three Gospels, 13; also the Gospel o f the Ebionites (4) and the Sibyllines (VI 6; VII 84). See W. Bauer, Leben Jesu 132-9. 2 Cf. Justin, D ial. 88, 2, 4; J. Danielou, I, 228. 3J. Danielou, op. cit. 231, finds the connection between light and baptism, which also influences the naming of the baptized as ‘enlightened’ (H eb . 6. 4; 10. 32), reminiscent o f the Jewish-Christian linking o f the Baptism o f Christ and the feast o f Tabernacles (cf. John 7. 1-10, 21); J. Danielou, ‘Les Quatre-Temps de septembre et la Fete des Tabernacles’, Maison D ieu 46 (1956) 125-30. The way in which the initiation rite into Gnostic circles was fashioned in accordance with this is shown by F. J. Dolger, ‘Die Sphragis als religiose Brandmarkung im Einweihungsakt der gnostichen Karpoliatianer’, A ntike und Christentum 1 (1929) 73-8. 4 From the Clementine Homilies X I 35; X IX 2: GCS 42, 171. 253. 6 Origen, Horn. X X I X in Luc.·, Lommatzsch 5 194f.; see M. Steiner, L a Tentation Jesus dans I’ interpretation patristique de saint Justin h O rigine (Paris 1962).

de

completely mythologizes the event: ‘Even so did m y mother, the H oly Spirit, take me by one o f m y hairs and carry me away on to the great mountain Tabor.’1 According to the Excerpta ex Theodoto (85), the w ild beasts o f Mark 1. 13 are made Satan’s entourage. In Irenaeus, Clement o f Alexandria, Origen and Ambrose, Satan is kept in ignorance o f the true nature o f Christ, in fact, through ambiguous answers given by Jesus himself. Because Satan had no right to discover the true being o f Christ, such conduct could imply no imperfection in Christ, as the Acts of Thomas expressly emphasize: ‘And the despot asked who and whence he was, but he did not declare the truth, for he (Satan) is a stranger to the truth (c. 143).’ According to the biblical accounts o f the Transfiguration (Matt. 17. 1-8 par.) the scene is a messianic attestation o f Jesus by God, the Law (Moses) and the prophets (Elias) in the presence o f the future witnesses o f the W ord (hear ye him; Matt. 17. 5). Early Christian, Gnostic or Gnostic-inspired writings make speculations from it concerning the being o f Jesus. The Acts of John are purely Docetic in expression (ch. 90). The Acts of Thomas, worked over by the great Church but not fully free o f Gnosticism, which in the original text go back to the beginning o f the third century, say that the form o f Jesus was more than the disciples could apprehend. They looked merely at the form o f lowliness, in faith they knew his majesty, but on the mountain could not perceive his ‘heavenly type’ with their eyes (ch. 143; A A A II 2, p. 250). Ps-Thomas assumes that on the mountain the essential Godhead o f Christ was displayed. In the Acts of Peter, too, the so-called ‘Actus Petri cum Simone,’ Christ has two forms (figura), one in which the disciples can see him, each according to his capabilities, another in which they are unable to look upon him. ‘Our Lord wished to let me see his majesty on the holy mountain, but when w ith the sons o f Zebedee I saw the brightness o f his light, I fell down as dead and closed m y eyes and heard his voice in a way which I cannot describe.’2 The texts describing the Transfiguration show that in early Christianity the question o f the ‘form’ o f Christ was put in an 1 N ew Test. A poc., 164. Mount Tabor was also taken as the Mountain o f the Tempta­ tion. Cf. W. Bauer, Leben Jesu 146. 2 Cf. W. Bauer, Leben Jesu 153; 2 Pet. 1. 16b-18.

D*

unhistorical way. N o one thought perhaps to resort to the sources and accounts o f the appearance o f Jesus; they made their decisions on this from ideal standpoints: Christ wretched and unsightly— Christ shining and beautiful. Origen is the witness o f a tradition which knew o f a Christ in many forms, and even found this credible: N o w this much was handed dow n to us about him : there were not just tw o ways in w hich he appeared (duaeformae) (the one in w hich all saw him and the other after which he was transfigured on the mountain before his disciples, so that ‘his countenance shone like the sun’) ; rather he appeared to men in so far as they deserved to see him (sed etiam cuique apparebat secundum quodfuerat dignus), (as the Jews in the wilderness found that the manna suited every taste) . . . For myself, I find no difficulty in believing the tradition (traditio), whether I interpret it o f Jesus in the body, showing him self to men in different ways, or whether I understand it o f the nature o f the Logos, w hich is not revealed to everyone in the same w a y .1

The Gospels make the scene on Mount Tabor an isolated event, which has no effect on the earthliness o f the appearance o f Jesus. The mode o f existence in lowliness is a law which stands over the life o f Jesus right up until his death (Luke 24. 26, 46; 1 Pet. 1. 11), even though at the same time there are hints at the Resurrection and his glorification. Where Gnostic and Docetic tendencies are in play, the firm framework o f the historical life o f Jesus is loosened. Even in his earthly life, the figure o f Jesus no longer stands firmly upon the earth. Thus in the early Christian period we find visions o f Christ in numerous forms.2 According to Origen it is naturally quite understandable that from a spiritual point o f view Christ is a ‘plurality/ It is clear to him from the Transfiguration and from the fact that only three disciples could witness it ‘that with regard to the actual seeing he did not show himself in the same way to all who saw him but showed them only what they could comprehend.’3 There was a difference in the eyes with which Jesus could be perceived ‘and this was a difference not just o f the spirit, but also, as 1 believe, o f the body.’4 1 Origen, In M att, comment, ser. 100; GCS X I 2, 218-9. 2 Cf. Past. Herm., Sim . IX 2ff.; Martyrium Perpetuae et Felicitatis IV; the A cts o f Thomas describe the (exalted) Christ as πολύμορφ ος'. 48 and 153; AAA II 2, 164. 262. Photius censures the abstruse visions o f Christ in the Acts o f the Apostles by Lucius Charinus: Bibliotheca cod. 114; PG 103, 389B. 3 Origen, C . Celsum II 64; GCS 1185f. 4 ibid.; GCS 1 18616'·

The difference in the w ay in which Christ was seen lay not merely subjectively on the side o f men, in their mind and in their perceptual abilities o f body and soul, but also objectively, in an actual variation in the bodily appearance o f Jesus. For Origen, the p roof o f this lies in the necessity o f the kiss o f Judas. The enemies o f Jesus had to have a sign ‘because o f the w ay in which Jesus transformed himself’ (propter transformationes eius). Through his lengthy association with Jesus, Judas had acquired such a knowledge that he knew the forms in which Jesus used to appear to his disciples (ut intelligent transformationes eius, secundum quam suis apparere solebat) .1 This picture o f Christ is far different from that o f the Synoptists. The historical Jesus appears to each ‘in the form,’ ‘which was appropriate to his ability and his state o f salvation.’2 The material body is by nature changeable, and the Logos can play what he will on his instrument. N o w the *traditiones' to which Origen refers are to be sought among the Gnostic groups. This is clear from the Acts of John. A t the calling o f the sons o f Zebedee by Jesus the following conversation between James and John develops: James: ‘ W hat w ou ld this child have that is upon the sea shore and called us?’ John replies: ‘W h at child?’ A nd James says again: ‘That w hich beckoneth to us.’ John answers: ‘Because o f our long watch w e have kept at sea, thou seest not aright, m y brother James; but seest thou not the man that standeth there, com ely and fair and o f a cheerful countenance?’ B ut James is unable to see him. H ardly have they reached land w hen another figure appears to them. John sees a bald-headed man w ith a thick, flow ing beard, but James a ‘youth whose beard was n ew ly com e.’ T he beloved disciple moreover n o w sees ‘a small man and uncom ely, and then again as one reaching unto heaven.’ W h en he touches Jesus his body is sometimes immaterial and unreal, then again ‘smooth and tender, and sometimes hard like unto stones.’ Finally, the form o f Jesus is quite unearthly, hovering free over the earth: ‘A nd oftentimes w hen I walked w ith him, I desired to see the print o f his foot, whether it appeared on the earth (for I saw him as it were lifting him self up from the earth). A n d I never saw it’.3

Relics o f such ‘traditions’ also occur in the ‘Acts’ o f other Apostles. Perhaps the Hellenistic-Egyptian Horus-spcculations have some influence upon this idea o f the varying form o f Jesus. 1 O rig e n , In M att, comment, ser. 100; G C S X I 2, 219. 2 O rig e n , C . Celsum V I 7 7 ; GCS I I 146.

3 A cts o f Jo h n 88-93; AAA II Testam ent (Oxford 1953) 251-3.

1, pp. 194—7. ET after M. R . James, The A pocryph al N ew Cf. the polemic against such ideas in E p ist. A p ost. 11 (22).

W e are on the borders o f the Christian tradition and in the sphere o f an acute ‘Hellenizing’ o f the figure o f Christ. According to i Corinthians i. 24 the ‘son o f God’ w ho suffered and finally ended on the cross was to the Jews a stumbling-block and to the Greeks foolishness. Celsus and Julian the Apostate were not the only mockers at the crucified God. Can we blame those who were attacked in this w ay i f they sought to retouch the image o f the cross, to obviate the scandalum crucis? Christ sweating blood for fear and having to be strengthened by an angel (Luke 22. 43f.) was already found particularly objectionable and a number o f biblical manuscripts in fact omit this ‘shameful’ event. Jesus might not be portrayed otherwise than in Matthew and Mark, where, however bitter the struggle, he gains the victory through his own strength. H ow could Jesus still be above the angels i f one o f them had to give him aid? I f the angel was to be left in as he was, then he would have to be given another significance. An old scholion thus alters the ‘strengthen’ into ‘declare that he was strong.’ Moreover, the angel’s help had explicitly to be explained as unnecessary in a solemn doxology, ‘for he did not need the might o f the angel who is adored and glorified by all supernatural powers with fear and trembling.’1 It was also felt permissible to sacrifice some o f the verses in the Lucan account or at least to alter their meaning. Origen reports that the words ‘m y soul is troubled . . . ’ were interpreted by many as o f the Apostles. For the Lord had named them his ‘heart.’2 He himself tries to find a w ay out by referring to the phrasing ‘he began’ to tremble (nihil amplius tristitiae et pavoris patiens, nisi principium tantum).3 Moreover, Christ, he says, suffered in his human nature and not in his divine power. If even the initia passionis were weakened in this way, then the biblical picture o f the Crucified One was threatened all the more.4 The writer o f the Gospel of Peter is one o f the typical exponents o f a counterfeit theology o f the cross which need not, however, be properly Gnostic. True, he has a serious concern. As far as we can conclude from the remains o f the work, it is the writer’s 1W. Bauer, D as Leben Jesu 171. 8 Origen, D e prine. II 8, 5; GCS V. 163. 3 Origen, Comment, in M att. ser. 90; GCS X I 2, 20629' 30. 4 The numerous smaller deviations from the interpretation o f the passion given by the canonical gospels are listed in W. Bauer, D as Leben Jesu 173-243. We indicate here only what is important for a christological understanding.

purpose to defend the Lordship (or the Godhead) o f the suffering Christ against pagans and Jews and to awaken the conviction that despite the death on the cross our redemption is a divine work. But this seems possible to him only i f he deletes and strikes out everything which in his view and in that o f his opponents is a sign o f weakness and excessive humanity. One revealing feature is that he veils his Christ in the majesty o f sorrowful silence. ‘And they brought two malefactors and crucified the Lord in the midst between them. But he held his peace, as i f he felt no pain’ (v. io). A ll the words o f Jesus are, in fact, omitted except for the final cry o f dereliction, and this is altered: ‘And the Lord called out and cried, “ M y power, O power, thou hast forsaken m e !” And having said this he was taken up’ (άνεΛήφθη, v. 19; New Test. Apoc. 184). According to the canonical gospels (Matt. 27. 46; Mark 15. 34) the cry o f dereliction sounded like the cry o f a helpless man against God, who now does not testify to his Messiah as on Mount Tabor, but abandons him to his enemies and to death. This appeal to God is now replaced by ‘m y power,’ the significance o f which o f course remains obscure (natural power o f life?, the power to work miracles?, the divinity o f Christ, which according to quite widespread ideas separated from the body at death?).1 Here the superiority o f Christ to suffering— while not volatilized in a Gnostic or Docetic way— is stressed at the expense o f the seriousness o f the Passion and Death and its significance for our salvation. The Gospel picture o f the crucified Son o f God (Mark 15.39) and the suffering Messiah and Redeemer has not become richer and deeper, but more feeble and superficial. There is a better balance elsewhere in the second century from Ignatius o f Antioch to Melito o f Sardis, leaving aside, o f course, all forms o f Gnosis and Docetism, which still lack proper expres­ sion. There is still no Gnosis in the Gospel of Peter, but it already presages it. Even the Epistola Apostolorum (Copt. 24. 12) is better at preserving a proper mean than the Apocryphon w e have been discussing. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs speak— almost in Ignatian language— o f the ‘suffering o f the Most Highest’ (II 4). Thus they dare to stress both poles o f the Passion and o f the Incarnation in the interpretation o f the second century: ‘For 1 A. Grillmeier, ‘Der Gottessohn im Totenreich,’ ZkTh 71 (1949) 1-53. 184-203.

God assumes a body and eats with men and he redeems them’ (II 6. 7). The Sibylline Oracles account the silence o f Christ in suffering one o f the features o f his lowliness and concealment, not o f his revelation: ‘And when smitten upon his back he w ill keep silent, that none may see who and whose Son he is, whence he came to speak to the dead’ (VIII 2926) d If the early-Christian writers omit to give a deeper interpreta­ tion o f the death o f Christ and the circumstances o f it, they largely fall into the same error in explaining the descent of Christ into hell. N ow this is very closely connected with the Resurrection and the Ascension, particularly in Jewish Christianity.2 W e will begin there. The Old Testament and Judaism contributed to the con­ crete Christian picture o f the descent o f Christ into hell by their idea o f the underworld and by traces o f a general doctrine o f a descent.3 This religio-historical idea o f the descent o f a ‘God’ could not, however, have any influence because Yahweh, al­ though Lord o f the underworld, remained absolutely transcendent in relation to it. On the other hand, the idea o f the resurrection o f the flesh was particularly significant for the concept o f the descent into hell. For now the eschatological, messianic hope was extended to the world o f the dead. The Jewish Christians needed only to put the saving death o f the Messiah into this framework, for which the Enoch literature is especially remark­ able, to produce the idea o f the descent into hell. i Peter 3. 18-20; 4. 6 provides a typical Jewish-Christian idea o f this occurrence.4 W e hear o f a passing o f Christ (ποραυθείς). This passing need not be death as such, but it can presuppose death and also include the Resurrection and the Ascension. The one who descends to death and to Sheol (or who is already raised and now goes up to heaven) goes to a place where the spiritual powers or also the souls o f men are lodged. This place can be either 1 We here pass over the stau rology, the interpretation o f the cross as the sy m b o l o f redemption and also of the doctrine of two natures. Here there w as a special field for G nostic speculations on the cross. C f. J . D an ielou, 1 2 6 5 -9 2 , an d further literature in A . G rillm eier, D er Logos am K reu z (M iinchen 1956) 67-9 6 . 2 O n the descensus see A . G rillm eier, art. ‘H dllen abstieg’ . . . : L T h K V (1960) 450 -5 5 w ith bib lio g rap h y ; H . J. Schulz, ‘ D ie “ H ollen fah rt” ais “ Anastasis” ’ in : Z k T h 81 (1959)

1- 66.

3 C f. Isa. 14. 9 - 1 5 ; E x . 32. 1 7 -3 2 ; Isa. 45. 2 w ith Ps. 107. 1 6; 2 Sam . 22. 5 f t ; D eut. 32. 39. 4 S o E . Schw eizer, T Z . (Basel) 8 (1952) 154.

below (Sheol) or above. Peter describes what happens there with the word εκήρνξαν. This is to be understood as referring to a proclamation or a demonstration made by Christ before these powers or souls, a proclamation o f the Lordship o f God which has now been extended over all powers and authorities by virtue o f the death on the cross. In the light o f the Enoch traditions we can describe this proclamation as a preaching in Hades. It is directed to the spirits (souls) o f the time o f the flood as types o f paganism and as patterns o f the Christian confession. Christ fulfilled it ‘in the spirit,’ i.e. as a messianic work. If w e take this journey to hell as a confrontation o f the Risen and Ascending one w ith the spiritual powers which inhabit the spheres, it is also easy to understand aJewish-Christian interpretation o f the journey to hell which sees Christ descend ‘in the body.’1 The teaching on the descent in the early Christian period remains in this soteriological framework delineated by i Peter, but refers the journey to hell simply to the underworld. The individual themes o f the descent are richly elaborated in three ways: Christ is at w ork in the underworld: (i) in preaching salvation (preaching theme),2 the oldest theme known to us; (2) in administering baptism to the righteous (of the Old Covenant) (baptism theme);3 and (3) in the complete subjugation o f hell and the ruler o f the underworld (battle theme).4 In the first two themes it becomes clear that salvation is held attainable only through faith and the sacrament o f baptism. The righteous o f the O ld Covenant are not to be excluded from the salvation o f Christ. Hence the saving message is preached in Sheol and baptism is administered. In this w ay the doctrine o f the descent o f Christ becomes an expression o f the universality o f the mission o f Christ which also reaches back right to the 1 It occurs only in a few texts, such as Ephrem, Sermo de Dom ino nostro and in the Arabian parallels o f the Mystagogia o f the Testamentum Domini, Didascalia arabica, ed. F. X . Funk. 2 As well as 1 Pet. 3. 19 also Past. Herm., Sim . IX 16, 5-7; Gospel o f Peter 41; Sibylline Oracles V III310-12; Epist. A post. 27 (38); Iren., A d o. Haer. IV 27, 2; Hippol., Betted. Mays. VII νεκρώ ν ε υ α γ γ ε λ ισ τ ή ς ] Clem. Al., Strom. Π 9, 44,1-2; VI 6, 445-52; Origen, Contr. C els. II 43; In M att. serm. 132. 3 Past. Herm., Sim . IX 16, 3. 5; Epist. A post. (Eth.) 27 (38); O d. Sol. 42. 20. 4 O d . S o l. 17, 9; 42, 11; Test. D an 5, 11; A cts o f Thomas 143; 32; 10. Melito o f Sardis, Horn. Pasch. 68. 102. C f . A . Grillmeier, ‘Der Gottessohn im Totenreich,’ ZkTh 71 (1949) 1-23.

beginning o f the human race. Here w e have a theology o f history, however primitively it may be expressed. One principal element o f the work o f Christ is his victory over the powers o f the underworld who are depicted in three figures, Hades, Death and Satan. Here there was an opportunity for richly developed myth and dramatization, which perhaps reaches its climax in the Gospel of Nicodemus.1 In Hippolytus’ anaphora, which dates from about 218, w e have an example o f the in­ corporation o f this soteriological doctrine o f the descent into the liturgy. Nothing was more natural than an association o f the Eucharist (as the commemoration o f the death o f the Lord and the redemption achieved by him) with the recollection o f the descent to the underworld: W e render thanks unto Thee, O God, through T h y Beloved C h ild Jesus C h r is t . . . W h o is T h y W o rd inseparable . . . w h o w hen H e was betrayed to voluntary suffering that H e m ight abolish death and rend the bonds o f the devil and tread dow n hell and enlighten the righteous, and establish the ordinance and demonstrate the resurrection, Taking bread and giving thanks to Thee, said .. . .2

W ith the progress o f reflection on the being o f Jesus Christ, the doctrine o f the descent too was given a more narrowly christological orientation. It was asked what relation there was between the Godhead, the soul and the body o f Christ at his death. The peculiarity o f this phase o f the doctrine o f the descent lay in the acceptance o f the so-called ‘Descent o f the Logos.’ But this development belongs to the late third and early fourth century. So in the view o f the Church in the early period, the sombre picture o f Hades belongs closely with the bright images o f the ‘exaltation christology,’ which comprises the Resurrection, the Ascension and the Session at the right hand o f the Father. From the point o f view o f 1 Peter 3. 19-20, the action o f Christ, which is elsewhere described as a descensus ad inferos, is probably already 1 Evang. Nicodemi I I 4 (XX) 3, ed. Tischendorf (1876) 327. 2 G. Dix, T he Apostolic Tradition o f S t. H ippolytus (London, 1937) 7f.

taken up into his ascent. In any case, as a victory over death, Hades and Satan, the descensus has an Easter-character. But the connection between descensus and doxa is not always so close. The later phase o f the descensus doctrine, which regards Christ as being in a state o f the separation o f (Godhead) soul and body, and reflects on this, lets the thought o f Easter sink into the background. It is the descensus in triduo mortis. The exaltation christology has as its proper content the Resur­ rection, Ascension and Session at the right hand of God. These Christevents were originally closely connected. In the writings o f Paul, Resurrection and Ascension are certainly a unity. The appear­ ances o f the Risen One at the same time testify to his exaltation.1 This unity also remains in a number o f early Christian writings. The Ascension expresses the theological content o f the Resurrec­ tion, at least as far as the event o f the Resurrection concerns Christ. The act o f the raising o f Christ has, o f course, a special significance as a mighty act o f the Father worked in Christ. The doxa Christi certainly only becomes fully visible in the Ascension. The ‘Session at the right hand o f the Father’ is at first the con­ summation o f the Easter glory. There is still a clear unity in the Gospel o f Peter. Thus the angel at the tomb says to the women: ‘Wherefore are ye come? W hom seek ye? N ot him that was crucified? He is risen and gone . . . he is not here. For he is risen and is gone thither whence he was sent.’2 Other early Christian writings, however, make a clearer distinction between Resurrec­ tion and Ascension, in a temporal respect too. The starting point is most likely the ‘forty days’ o f the Acts o f the Apostles.3 Just as in the post-canonical period the accounts o f the appearances o f the Risen One were expanded and the number o f the witnesses o f the resurrection was increased, so too the time o f the stay o f the Risen One on earth was lengthened. The Ascension of Isaiah (9. 16), for example, puts it at 545 days. It is the Gnostics, how­ ever, w ho have the greatest interest in such lengthening o f the time. They transfer to this period the impartation o f their secret doctrines, which they cannot put in the mouth o f the historical 1 Cf. R om . 1. 4; 8. 34; P h il. 2. 9-11; 1 Thess. 2 Evang. Pet. 56; N ew Test. A poc. 187.

1. 10; 1

Cor.

15. 4ff„ also

M att.

28. 18.

3 On the Biblical relationship between Resurrection and Ascension see LThK V (1960), art. ‘Himmelfahrt.’

Jesus o f the canonical Gospels. They go up to twelve years, so as to substantiate the fullness o f the revelations which they have been vouchsafed. The twelfth year brings the last and highest mys­ teries. As is well known, Clement o f Alexandria and Origen have also been influenced by such views o f the existence o f a secret tradition.1 But revelations o f this kind are to be found most abundantly in the Coptic-Gnostic writings, the Pistis Sophia, the Books of Jeu, the Gospel of Mary and the Sophia Jesu Christi. In these writings the biblical picture o f Christ is fundamentally perverted. The Risen One appears as a ‘great magician, to whom all spirits and all worlds are subservient.’2 Here myth has pre­ vailed. The Christ event is made subordinate to cosmological preconceptions and is overlaid with Hellenistic ideas. (d) Solvere Christum (i John 4. 3)— On the christological heresies of the second century Christianity, with its message o f Christ, the son o f God, well suited the contemporary religious longing for transcendent figures and in particular the Greek idea o f ‘sons o f God,’ and therefore while it had to guard against misunderstanding it could also reckon on a certain prior understanding. In the original Jewish milieu o f Christianity, however, everything spoke against such a teaching. The first contests over the new message therefore took place in the sphere o f Judaism. Even in Jewish Christianity, because o f its leanings towards Judaism, the idea o f Jesus as Son o f God was felt as a greater or lesser stumbling block. Hence the tendency to look on the transcendence o f Christ exclusively in the light o f the idea o f the Messiah, thus placing Christ in the ranks o f the prophets and the men specially endowed by God. The Jewish-Christian circles usually included together under the name ‘Ebionites’ eventually succumbed to this temptation. The origin o f the name has still not been fully explained. Several explanations were given in antiquity. They were called Ebionites, (a) because o f the poverty o f their intelligence; (h) because o f the poverty o f the law which they followed; (c) because o f the poverty o f the opinions they had o f Christ; (d) because they were ‘poor in 1 Cf. Clem. Al., H ypotyp. 19; Euseb., H.E. I I 1. 4; Origen, C. W. Bauer, Leben Jesu 274. For the whole, ibid. 258-79.

2 Cf.

C e ls.

V. 58.

understanding, hope, and deeds.’1 Like the views held about the name ‘Ebionites,’ opinions on the Ebionite writings differ widely. The attempt b y H. J. Schoeps to prove the so-called Kerygmata Petri in the Pseudo-Clementines to be an Ebionite writing must be regarded as unsuccessful in view o f the detailed analysis by G. Strecker.2 In fact, there are only the scant remnants o f the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites3 and, as secondary sources, the reports o f the Church Fathers.4 There can be no doubt that the Ebionites to some extent recognize a transcendence o f Jesus and do not simply regard him as a ‘mere man.’ For them, Christ is the ‘elect o f God’ and above all the ‘true prophet’ (not, o f course, priest), as Epiphanius (Haer. 30, 13, yf.) testifies. But they delete the early history o f Jesus, Matthew 1 and 2, from their Gospel. They deny the Virgin birth and also that Jesus is the Son o f God, thus rejecting his pre-existence: ‘They say that he (Christ) was not begotten o f God the Father, but created as one o f the arch­ angels . . . , that he rules over the angels and all the creatures o f the A lm ig h ty . . . ’ (Fragm. 6 in Vielhauer). The fact that at 1J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Qumran Scrolls, the Ebionites and their Literature,’ in: K. Stendhal, T he Scrolls and the N T (New York 1957) (208-31, reprinted, in slightly abridged form, from TheolStud. 16 (1955) 335-72) 209. Fitzmyer holds it probable that‘the name “ Ebionite” actually does mean “ follower ofEbion” ’ (op. cit. 210). H. J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tubingen 1949) 9 and Excursus II differs. 2 H. J. Schoeps, op. cit. 45-61. This view is taken over by J. A. Fitzmyer, J. Reuss, art. ‘Ebioniten,’ LThK 3 (1959) 633f. Against this G. Strecker, D as Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementincn (Berlin 1958) 214—18. Strecker stresses that the Gnosticism and Hellen­ ism o f the Kerygmata excludes a direct relationship with the primitive community. The early Christian ideal of poverty is no longer present. ‘Nor does the author term himself an “ Ebionite.” This term degenerated in hcresiological literature and the Church histor­ ians to the title o f a sect, so that it does not even appear to be applicable to the PsC., which in fact give no indication o f a sectarian situation . . .’ (op. cit. 215). J. L. Teicher’s interpretation o f the new Qumran texts as Ebionite writings has also found no support. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, op. cit.—K. Schubert, ‘Die jiidischen und judenchristlichen Sekten im Lichte des Handschriftenfundes von Έ η Fescha,’ ZkTh 74 (1952) 1-62, would assume a strong influence o f the Zadokitc sect on Jewish Christianity, which ‘eventually. . . (with other factors) led to the splitting off o f dissident Jewish Christianity, Ebionitism, from the Church’ (op. cit. 41). Thus K. Schubert, with H. J. Schoeps, assumes that the Ebionites are offshoots o f the Esscnes. Against this G. Strecker, op. cit. 216-18: ‘The influence o f the Essenes and the Zadokites on the picture of Jesus in the Kerygmata is improbable. Even the most elementary terminological presupposition, that Jesus is described as the “ teacher o f righteousness,” is missing. Instead, the Kerygmata call Jesus the “ true prophet” and the “ Christ.” The sect, on the other hand, does not give the teacher of righteousness this title, but independently o f the fact that it believes in the future resurrection o f its teacher . . ., awaits the Messiah . . . ’ (217). See now the important remarks o f K. Rudolph, D ie Mandaer I. D a s Mandaerproblem (FR LA N T NF. 56) (Gottingen 1960) 239— 45, esp. 244, note 3. 3 ed. P. Vielhauer in N ew Test. A poc., 153-8. 4 Passages in J. Reuss, op. cit. J. A. Fitzmyer, op. cit. 292f. (notes) gives a well-arranged analysis o f the contents o f these heresiological reports.

Christ’s baptism the H oly Ghost descends upon him and enters into him and that the voice o f the Father declares him to be the Son is not to be taken, as in the faith o f the Church, as an indica­ tion o f the divine Sonship o f Christ. N or is it probable that we should think o f an adoption as understood by classical Adoptionism or even o f a prophetical inspiration. W e will probably be more correct in seeing here the Gnostic idea o f the union o f a heavenly being with the man Jesus, resulting in the Christ, the Son o f God.1 His mission is to do away with Jewish sacrifice (Frag. 6) and thus to bring to an end the O ld Testament priest­ hood. According to Hippolytus and Epiphanius, the Jesus o f the Ebionites first earned the name Christ by fulfilling the law. For them, therefore, Jesus is no real w ay o f salvation. Despite their N ew Testament framework they remain deeply rooted in Judaism. Epiphanius’ further ascription o f Docetic tendencies and the denial o f Christ’s true manhood to them is surely the exaggeration o f a heresiologist.2 W e know little more about the first exponents o f a proper Adoptionist christology than about the Ebionites. Theodotus the Elder (the tanner) is the first o f these. According to Epiphanius, he justified his apostasy from the Christian faith in R om e with the claim that in Jesus he had not denied God, but merely a man.3 He seeks to demonstrate with passages from the O ld and N ew Testaments that Christ was a ‘mere man’ (φίλος άνθρωπος), who was, o f course, specially gifted with the grace o f God (GCS, Ep. II, 317-23). Theodotus the younger (the money-changer), w ith his disciples, the Melchisedekians, puts Melchisedek, the mediator o f the angels, above Christ, whom he claims to have been merely the mediator o f men.4 Artemon w ill renew such Adoptionist tendencies in the third century. Nothing can be discovered about their origins. The presence o f Judaistic influences in the background could perhaps be assumed from the Shepherd o f Hermas. The concept o f the Son o f God and o f the H oly Spirit which is developed in Sim. V 5 is probably to be explained from them. The pneuma which God makes to dwell in the flesh o f Jesus is regarded not as a divine person, but as a divine power, in some way analogous to the biblical Sophia, with the result that 1 So P. Vielhauer, N ew Test. Apoc. 155. 3 Epiphan., Haer. 54. 1; GCS Ep. II 318. 11.

* See Frag. 5, N ew Test. A p o c., 158. 4 ibid. 324-37; ZKG 66 (1954-55) 131.

a similarity has also been concluded between it and the Manual o f Discipline (J. P. Audet). The ‘Son o f God’ in Sim. V 5 emerges as the servant chosen by God, in whom the spirit o f God has dwelt and w ho because o f his faithfulness is permitted to share in the privileges o f the divine spirit. The themes o f christologies o f ‘indwelling’ and ‘merit’1 begin to make themselves felt. These words were later used as labels to denote heresy, although some o f their basic concepts could have maintained their significance in the context o f the whole o f the Church’s picture o f Christ and within the framework o f belief in Christ as the true Son o f God. W e have already shown how the Shepherd o f Hermas produces new nuances in Sim. VIII and IX. But it becomes clear in Sim. V that an absolutely closed Judaistic monotheism necessarily brings Adoptionism in its train. W e have reached the point where Church teaching had to develop trinitarian and christological dogma side by side if it was to maintain the divine Sonship o f Christ in the true sense. This connection first becomes fully clear in the third century, and at the same time the difficulties which accompany it are revealed. Whereas Adoptionism has more o f a rationalistic basis, with Docetism2 w e are transported into a completely different religious climate. It is the attempt to solve the problem o f the Incarnation and the suffering o f the Son o f God on a dualistic-spiritualistic basis. The humanity and suffering o f Jesus become mere sem­ blance. The name δοκηταί is not to be taken as the name o f a definite sect. Serapion o f Antioch (190-211) applies it to the supporters o f those who circulate the Gospel of Peter (Eusebius H.E. V I 12. 6). Clement o f Alexandria accuses his δοκηταί o f certain special teachings, without naming them (Strom. VII 17. 108). Their head is the Encratite, Julius Cassian (Strom. Ill 13. 91-4), whose doctrine Jerome expounds as real Docetism (Comment, in Gal. 6 . 8; PL 26, 46). The Philosophumena (of Hippolytus) see in Docetism a ‘many-sided and fickle heresy,’ which loves Gnostic speculations about the aeons (VIII 8-11; X 16). In Theodoret, the name δοκόrat includes Marcion, 1 German ‘ Bewahrungschristologie'. There is no exact English equivalent; it is the doctrine that Christ earned his exaltation to Sonship through his obedience and virtue (see below on Theodore o f Mopsuestia and Nestorius). 2 P. Weigandt, D er Doketismus im Urchristentum tind in der theologisclicn Entwicklung des zw eiten Jahrhtmderts (Diss. Heidelberg 1961).

Valentinus, Manes and others (Ep. 82; PG 83, 1264). The false teachers o f the Johannines (1 John 4. 2; 5. 6; 2 John 7) and those o f Colossians and the Pastoral Epistles are not Docetists in the strict sense. In other words, it cannot be demonstrated that they already denied the reality o f Christ’s flesh. Thus there was still no christological Docetism in the narrower sense o f the word. It was rather a matter o f a false Docetist doctrine in the wider sense, which is, however, none the less a real dissolving o f Christ (solvere, according to the Vulgate and some textual witnesses who have the word Xvei for the μη ομολογεί o f 1 John 4. 3). The theological character o f the second and early third century was, however, in the end most deeply influenced by the en­ counters with Early Christian Gnosis.1 This grew up like a twin brother alongside Early Christianity, almost like Esau with Jacob.2 In the account o f the second century until now, we may have had the feeling that the Christian message contained merely a number o f individual truths placed in simple juxtaposition, though, o f course, these were ordered more and more within the creed. N ow , however, Christian theologians begin to feel the 1 Only the most important recent works are mentioned here. There are, o f course, the well-known earlier works by W. Anz, W. Bousset, E. de Faye, H. Leisegang and the lexicon articles in PWK, R G G 3, LThK2; L. G. Rylands, The Beginnings o f Gnostic C hris­ tianity (London 1940); A. Festugiere, La revelation d’ Hermes trismegiste, 4 vols. (Paris 195054) (for the pagan Hermetic Gnosis); G. Quispel, D ie Gnosis als IVeltreligion (Zurich 1951); H. Jonas, Gnosis und spatantiker G eist: I D ie mythologische Gnosis: II 1: Von der Mythologie zu r mystischen Philosophic (FRLA N T NF.33and 45) (Gottingen 1954, Vol. I in 2nd edition); id., T he Gnostic Religion (Boston 1958); H. Schlier, ‘Das Denken der friihchristlichen Gnosis,’ in Neutestamentliche Studien f u r R u d o lf Bultmann, Beiheft z. Z N T W 21 (1954, 19572) 67—82; id., ‘Der Mensch im Gnostizismus,’ in Anthropologie religieuse, N um en , Supplement II (1955) 60-76; A. Orbe, Los primeros herejes ante la persecucion (Estudios Valentinianos V, R om a 1956); R . McL. Wilson, T he Gnostic Problem (London 1958); R . M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity (New York 1959) ; C. Colpe, D ie rcligiousgeschichtliche Schule.

Darstellung und K ritik Hires Bildes vom gnostischen Erlosermythus

(FRLA N T NF. 60) (Gottingen 1961) (with bibliography); H.-M. Schenke, D er G ott ‘ M ensch ’ in der Gnosis (Gottingen 1962). On the finds at N ag Hammadi:J.Doresse, Les livres secrets des gnostiques d’ Egypte, I—II (Paris 1958 and 1959); revised English edition T he Secret Books o f the Egyptian Gnostics (London 1960); H.-M. Schenke, D ie Herkunft des sogenannten Euangelium Veritatis (Berlin 1958, Gottingen 1959); Robert M. Grant—David N. Freed­ man, The Secret Sayings o f Jesus (New York 1960); B. Gartner, The Theology o f the Gospel o f Thomas (London 1961) ; W. C. van Unnik, Evangelieit aus deni Nilsand (Frankfurt 1960); R . McL. Wilson, Studies in the Gospel o f Thomas (London 1960); R . Roques, Structures the'ologiques de la Gnose d Richard de Saint-Victor (Paris 1962) 1— 39. On the literature: H. Quecke, ‘L’evangile de Thomas: fitat des recherches’ in La Venue du Messie (Recherches Bibliques VI) (Bruges-Paris 1962) 217—41. 2 Cf. H. Schlier, ‘Das Denken der friihchristlichen Gnosis’ (see above) 81. He points to W. Bauer’s Rechtglciubigkeit und Ketzerei im dltesten Christentum (Tubingen 19642), an important study in this respect, and to the special role played by Rome in combating heresy.

necessity o f developing a general ‘Christian’ religious view. Christianity now becomes a Weltanschauung, i.e. a teaching which attempts to answer the great human questions, God, man and the world; the cosmos and history; death and the beyond; body, matter and spirit, on the basis o f the Christian revelation. True, Gnosis too was regarded more under a material viewpoint in earlier scholarship. For most scholars it was an accumulation ‘o f pseudo-mythological fantasies, an omnium-gatherum o f rudi­ mentary theories from all the principal religions, associated with doubtful cultic and moral practices.’ Such a Gnosis could ‘not have embarrassed the faith and life o f Early Christianity. That could have been done only by an experience o f approximately the same form and the same importance as Christianity and a thought which explained this experience.’1 More recent scholar­ ship has recognized that behind the ‘material’ o f Gnostic doctrines and traditions, which were often no longer understood in their original sense, and behind the elaborate myth o f redeeming Gnosis, there stood a new experience o f God, man and the world which had not emerged in antiquity hitherto. This experience stirred the world o f the time more and more, pagans and Chris­ tians alike. ‘This thought was so intensive that it even produced a new, radical attitude and gave rise to new forms o f life in which such thought and such an attitude could be realized. Only in this way does it become comprehensible how Gnosis became a great danger to the Church.’12 Both these aspects o f the Gnosis, the ‘material’ and the ‘existential,’ are not, however, to be separated. Otherwise, by placing the essence o f Gnosis in this ‘existential’ element alone, we would arrive at a pangnosticism. The Gnostic experience o f the world and o f man is based on Gnostic dualism as a specific religious doctrine and on Gnosis as a w ay o f salvation. W ithin the one Gnostic experience different systems were pos­ sible, a pagan, a Jewish, a Jewish-Christian, and a Christian Gnosis. The theologians o f the Church were concerned on the one hand to preserve the doctrine as handed down, but on the other hand 1 Cf. H. Schlier, ibid. 68. 2 ibid. 67f. In this connection Schlier notes the pioneering studies of H. Jonas (see p. 94, note 1 above). The still unfinished study by C. Colpe must now also be mentioned. A good description o f ‘Gnosis’ is to be found in W. C. Van Unnik, Evangelien atis dem N ilsand (Frankfurt 1960) 32-8. See the excellent remarks o f K. Rudolph, D ie Mandtier I . D a s Mandderproblem (FR L A N T N F. 56) (Gottingen 1960) 141-76.

to represent this doctrine as the true answer to the problems raised by Gnosis. In so doing, however, they did not introduce any alien element into Christianity, but elucidated its innermost nature, that o f being a religion o f revelation and redemption. It is not our present concern to give a detailed description o f the matter o f Gnostic christology.1 W e w ill merely show briefly how the christology and soteriology o f the Church was also confronted by these vital questions as a result o f the Gnostic problematic. It w ill not be misleading to represent Gnosticism primarily as a soteriological anthropology. Gnosticism is primarily concerned with man, a position that could also be shared by Christianity, but only with an important displacement o f the focal point. In Gnosticism, man occupies the central position. Man’s nature derives from the world above. This is the presupposition o f all Gnostic systems. Recent scholarship has been able to make the enigmatical figure o f the God ‘Man’ in Gnosticism clearer than it was previously.2 According to the oldest and most valuable sources, the God ‘Man’ was originally the supreme God. He is the antitype o f the ‘Man’ Adam and is therefore called the ‘first man’ in the Apokryphon Johannis. The background to this view is Genesis i. 26f., which is expounded in accordance with the ‘antitype-type’ thought pattern. I f man has been created in the image o f God, it must follow that God is the first man. God and man, or rather the ‘inner man,’ are o f the same nature. As far as one can see, two variants o f this doc­ trine o f the God ‘Man’ are to be distinguished.3 According to the first variant, God is the ‘ Urmensch.’ In his image there arises the earthly ‘ Urmensch’ the ancestor o f the earthly man. O n the earthly ‘ Urmensch’ is laid the image o f the divine ‘ Urmensch,’ which is the divine and essential element in the earthly man. According to the second variant (Poimandres, Zosimus, the 1 Cf. W. Volker, Q uellen zu r Geschichte der chrisllichen Gnosis (Tubingen 1932); R . McL. Wilson, T he Gnostic Problem (p. 94, note 1), 211-28 (Salvation, the Redeemer). For the christology o f the newly-discovered Gnostic sources see H.-M. Schenke (op. cit. p. 94, note 1) on the so-ealled Evangelium Veritatis), B. Gartner (op. cit. p. 94, note 1, 118-58 on the Gospel o f Thomas), H. Quecke (art. cit. p. 94, note 1, pp. 226f.). Cf. Hippolytus, Elenchus, V—VII: see below under Irenaeus. 2 On what follows we are indebted to the study by H.-M. Schenke, D er G o tt ‘ MenscW in der Gnosis; cited p. 94, note 1 above; cf. J. Jervell, Imago D ei: G en. 1. 26f. im Spdtjudentum, in der Gnosis tmd in den paulinischen Briefen (FRLA N T NF. 58) (Gottingen 1960). * H.-M. Schenke, op. cit. pp. 65-8.

Naassene sermon, ‘ The Essence o f the Archons’), there are three ‘ Urmenschen,’ God, the heavenly ‘ UrmenscK and the ancestor o f earthly man. There is in the earthly man a power o f light which joins him w ith the world above. It consists in the second heavenly man, enclosed in the body, and formed after the image o f the supreme God (the first Urmensch). H .-M . Schenke thinks that this doctrine o f the God ‘Man’ in its two variants is a product o f Jewish or Samaritan Gnosis, whether in the pre-Christian or the Christian era. He rightly sees here a key to the solution o f the whole problem o f Gnosticism.1 The origin o f the Gnostic myth o f the God ‘M an’ is, however, an allegorizing o f the imago passage, Genesis ι. 2ό£, which was current in the writings o f Philo and generally in the more or less orthodox Judaism o f Philo’s time.2 According to Philo, the Logos (also = Nous) is the likeness o f God. The human nous is the likeness o f this superior Nous. For Philo there is no difference between the Heavenly Man and the Logos (Conf. Ling. 146; II 257, 1-5, where the Logos is entitled 6 κατ εικόνα (θεόν) άνθρωπος). According to him, Genesis 1. 27 speaks o f the heavenly antitype o f the earthly man and Genesis 2 .7 o f the creation o f the earthly man. The Logos is meant in Genesis i. 27. He is a perfect, heavenly being, a heavenly man, who has been created as antitype, the idea o f the earthly man. In the same w ay as this Logos, the heavenly Nous, is the antitype o f the whole world, so too is it the antitype o f the characteristic element in man, the human nous. It is clear from this that anthropology can stand in the centre o f the Gnostic system. It is, o f course, incorporated in a concept o f God and the world, to which theogony and cosmogony are to some extent conjoined.3 The creation o f the world is an indication o f the incompetence or clumsiness or displeasure o f God. Life in the body in the world is a permanent violation o f God. But God is not overthrown. The divine element is hidden in man as a spark o f the Father above,4 as a spark o f the divine self-consciousness, and must be redeemed. Man must free his ow n self, thrown into need and lust and almost overwhelmed, 1 ibid. 71. 2 ibid. 120-43. 3 Cf. the interpretation o f Simonian Gnosis in H. Schlier, D as Denken derfruhchristlichen G nosis (p. 94, note 1 above). * H. Schlier, op. cil. 72, points to Hippolytus, Blench. VII 28, 5fF.; Epiphan. Pan. hacr. 23, 22.

and so realize the original conception o f God. In the encounter o f Simon and Helena in the spiritual and the sexual sense, there is brought about a new encounter o f the primal divine principles, Dynamis and Ennoia, which cannot be prevented by the powers hostile to God. God comes to himself, through man, among the Simonians by means o f a ‘conscious’ libidinose vivere, in Saturninus by means o f asceticism and complete continence.1 Both libertin­ ism and cncratism rest on the same understanding o f the relation­ ship between God and the world. Both are ways o f redemption. The conceptions o f this redemption are, as is already clear with Simon and Saturninus, very different. The chief difference— i f we survey the Gnostic systems briefly-—lies in whether a Redeemer figure (mythological) is considered necessary or not.2 A first group needs no such Redeemer figure: the Ophites in Origen’s Celsus, the Nicolaitans, the Archontics and the Antitactae. The Hermetica also belong here. Am ong this group Gnosis, i.e. redeeming knowledge, is sufficient. For the revelation o f this knowledge there is need only o f a prophet, who can be called or sent in different ways. The opposite type knows a Gnostic Redeemer, who descends, though only through the firmaments, into the realm o f the powers, without reaching the earth (second type).3 Between the two stands a third type: a Redeemer walks on the earth, but only in a phantom body. In Manichaeism (according to C. Colpe), all three types occur side by side, the first and second types in several expressions. The second type is most richly developed among the Mandaeans and the Valentinians, but with important differences. (The chief point is that in the Valentinian systems there were three Christs: ‘the Christ produced by Nous and Aletheia with the Holy Spirit, the com­ mon fruit o f the Pleroma, the consort o f the exiled Sophia who is itself named the Holy Spirit. . . ; and the third, born o f Mary to better our creation.’4) The Christian-Gnostic systems in the narrower sense on the other hand develop the third type. 1 H. Schlier, op. cit. 79, note 26 gives the passages for the encratism o f the Gnostics. For the libertinism o f the Gnostics, ibid. 75. 2 On what follows see R . McL. Wilson, T he Gnostic Problem (note 156) 211-28; C. Colpe, D ie religionsgeschichtliche Schule (p. 94, note 1), 194—208. 3 Colpe, op. cit. 198 refers to H. Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief (Tubingen 1930) 18-26 etc. 4 Hippolytus, Elench. VI 36. 4; further examples from the sources in H.-M. Schenke, D ie Herkunft des sogenannten Evangelium Veritatis 24, note 22.

There is still debate in contemporary scholarship as to how the Redeemer figure came into Gnosis. One thesis runs that Gnosis only took over this figure under Christian influence (G. Quispel, E. Schweitzer, R . McL. Wilson). The counterthesis runs: the Redeemer figure does not derive from Christianity (H. Schlier, P. Vielhauer, C . Colpe). The first thesis finds support in the tremendous significance o f Christ for Gnosis. It should not, however, be overlooked that the Redeemer can have other names (The H ym n o f the Pearl) or that there are other Redeemerhypostases instead o f or alongside Christ (Sophia redemption).1 As is well known, scholars o f the history o f religions have sought to sum up the Gnostic doctrine o f redemption under the catchword ‘the redeemed Redeemer.’ They have even spoken o f the dogma o f the ‘redeemed Redeemer.’ This catchword is subjected to strict criticism by C. Colpe. W hile it does rough justice to a certain state o f affairs, it is basically a modern inter­ pretation, which does not occur in the sources. The real problem o f redemption in Gnosticism is better dealt with in the categories brought together by H. Jonas.12 One could at most speak o f the Salvator salvandus, as Augustine (C. Faustum II) insinuates. In fact, the concern o f Gnosis is that a heavenly part, the spark o f light, the Nous, embodied in man must again be made free from matter. N o w this spark o f light is identical in substance with the Nous or Logos, the Redeemer o f the world above, from which the soul has fallen. Each is separated from the other and must be reunited. This means the dissolution o f the world and o f man to a condition which corresponds with pre-existence, but makes a new cosmogony impossible. Gnosticism is thus concerned with a physical redemption, which is, moreover, understood in a dualistic way, i.e. a sense hostile to the body and to matter. In Christianity, redemption is primarily a freeing from sin and its consequences. It includes the body along w ith the rest o f the physical world. This redemption is built on the figure o f the historical Jesus, who is true man, and yet comes from God. Even though his coming into the world is 1 Cf. C. D ie religionsgeschichtliche Schule (p. 94, note 1 above), 207. He means to clarify these questions further in the continuation o f his work. 2 C. Colpe, op. cil. 174. 186-9; Hans Jonas, Gnosis I, 94-140; id., Gnostic Religion 48-97 (for these, see p. 94, note 1 above).

understood under the image o f a descent, this pictorial representa­ tion o f the Incarnation is not to be confused with the descent o f the Gnostic Redeemer. W ith the progress o f theology, Christian­ ity conceived its Redeemer more and more by the exclusion o f all images and mythologies, but nevertheless continued to hold ever more strongly to the reality o f the Incarnation o f God in Christ. This is achieved particularly in the christological councils. Gnosis stems from the real experience o f human existence— which is also immediately accessible to the Christian. T o interpret this experience it takes refuge in mythical aetiologies and in magic, which are enriched partly with Christian, Jewish and other elements. In this it does not succeed in transcending the limits o f a naturalistic doctrine o f redemption. Thus Christianity differs from the Gnostic Redeemer-myth in two ways: 1. O n the basis o f the biblical doctrine o f creation it has a wellbalanced relationship between the transcendence o f God and the immanence o f God. The one, ever-transcendent God remains in a constant relationship to the spiritual and material world that he has created. Only sin, not matter, means separation and falling away from this God. The Fall is an historical and not a mytho­ logical event. And to overcome sin, God intervenes in the world in historical action with the aim o f bringing the whole man (body and soul) and the whole world to God. 2. This action o f God culminates in the incarnation o f the Son o f God, who by his moral obedience before God lays the founda­ tion for the spiritual and physical restoration o f man to God, which he already accomplishes in a figure in his ow n resurrection. Gnosis, then, has in common with Christianity its experience o f man and the world and a longing for freedom from death, fate and sorrow, in short, for redemption. The peculiar element in Christianity, in contrast with Gnosis, is, however, the clear historical founding o f this experience on the sin o f the spirit. Also peculiar to it is a consciousness o f the act o f redemption carried out by God in Christ, which, while resting on a revelation, in the last resort rests on a spiritual and moral act o f Christ. This act is rooted in the person o f Christ and in his nature as the Godman. The interpretation o f the person o f Christ therefore

increasingly becomes the central problem o f the Christian doc­ trine o f salvation. The completion o f this clarification o f the Christian under­ standing o f salvation in the face o f Gnosticism, Judaism (the Law) and paganism (the mysteries, magic) was, however, the task o f the second and early third century, once Paul and John had already introduced the process. (e)

Martyrdom and Apology

Our picture o f belief in Christ in Early Christianity would not be complete i f w e did not make reference to two special ways o f bearing witness to Christ: Martyrdom and Apology. They arise out o f the encounter o f Christianity with paganism, its philosophy and anti-Christian polemic, and above all its conception o f the state. In their juxtaposition, the testimony o f blood and the testimony o f the writings addressed to the pagans show the tension there is in the development o f belief in Christ in this early period. W ith the Apologists, whose main representatives have still to be discussed, the question o f the Hellenization o f the picture o f Christ becomes acute in a new way. As we have seen, this problem was already raised with the N ew Testament and the mere encounter o f Christianity with Hellenistic culture. But with the Apologists, the attempt to press pagan philosophy into the service o f Christianity begins to a special degree, an attempt which brought both positive and negative results. The whole o f our investigation must concern itself with this question. The dispute with paganism which was sealed in the witness o f the Christian martyrs is o f quite a different nature. Here there is no place for reflection or speculation, but only for simple witness, such as has encountered us time and again in the popular piety o f the second century. It is, however, a witness which is con­ summated in action. W e need not therefore attempt a description o f the christology o f the Acts o f the martyrs. W e have already come across some christological motifs o f the time o f the martyrs in the Sibylline books: the spirit o f discipleship o f Christ, the breath o f a passion-mysticism. The extant Acts o f the martyrs do, however, testify to something very important, which the liturgical sources o f the early period, for example, could not tell us. Whereas in the liturgy prayers are offered above all to Christ,

seen as mediator, and through Christ (per Christum) to the Father, the prayers o f the Acts o f the martyrs are to an astonishing extent addressed to Christ himself, whether they be praise, thanksgiving or intercession,1 as indeed Pliny has already shown us (see p. 40, note 2). So prayer to Christ was made even before the Arian disputes. Precisely this practice reveals the ‘tremendous christocentricity’ o f the Acts o f the martyrs (and o f their age). They show themselves to be ‘almost drunk with a christocentric piety’ (Baus). T o worship Christ, the true man, as God, is the jo y and comfort o f the early Christian period. 2. T he T estimony from

of P astors and T eachers of C lement of R ome to I renaeus

the

C hurch

Hitherto we have been listening for most o f the time to fairly wide sections o f Early Christianity or even to anonymous and apocryphal writings. Above these, there emerge individual writings, and above all individual figures, in w hom the develop­ ment o f early belief in Christ is crystallized, Clement o f Rom e, Ignatius o f Antioch, Justin, Melito o f Sardis and Irenaeus. (a) Clement of Rome According to the testimony o f Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. Ill 3. 3), Clement o f Rom e handed on the Apostolic teaching intact in his letter to the Christian community at Corinth. Nevertheless, personal characteristics are not lacking. Clement is restrained and averse to any speculation. There is, however, a clear Judaistic and Stoic tone to his letter.2 He is very familiar with the O ld Testa­ ment and therefore with the O ld Testament picture o f God the Creator. W ith pregnant sentences he describes the nature o f the ordering o f salvation established by the Father in Christ and the Spirit, and entrusted to the Apostles (42. 1-3). His picture o f Christ has probably been developed in particular along the lines 1 Cf. B. Fischer, D ie Psalm enfrdm m igkcit tier M artyrerkirche (Freiburg 1949); K. Baus, ‘Das Gebet der Martyrer,’ TThZ 62 (1953) 19-32; id., V e n d er Urgem einde z u rfriih c h ristlichen Grosskirche (Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1962) 340-7; Baus here enlarges on the investiga­ tions o f J. A. Jungmann, D ie Stellu n g C h risti im liturgischen G ebet (Munster 1925; photographic reprint with author’s additions, 1962). On pp. 146-51, Jungmann asserts that the Apocryphal acts o f the Apostles already know o f prayer to Christ. * Cf. G. Bardy, R S R 12 (1922) 73-85; L. Sanders, L ’ helie'nisme de S a in t C lem en t de R o m e et le P au lin ism e (Louvain 1943). Cf. I C lem . 19, 20, 28, 33.

o f Paul (2 Cor. 8. 9; Phil. 2. 5-11) and the Epistle to the Hebrews (12. 2). ‘The sceptre o f the majesty o f God, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared not w ith pomp o f pride or arrogance, though well he might, but in humility’(16. 2). Kyrios, Lord, is the proper name o f Christ, just as ‘God’ and ‘Ruler’ are titles o f the Father. The emphasis on the figure o f Christ gives a N ew Testament colour­ ing to the letter, which it might otherwise be found to lack (especially chs. 36 and 49). The pre-existent Son o f God, the brightness o f the Father, was sent into the world as man, and is the High Priest o f mankind and their w ay to blessedness (ch. 36). As such, he is exalted above all creatures, the King o f the world, the Giver o f all divine gifts, light, knowledge and immortality. After his exaltation he is united with the Father in Glory and receives divine honour.1 (b) Ignatius o f Antioch Ignatius o f Antioch is one o f the few Early Christian authors w ho proclaimed faith in Christ in such a w ay that believers had to make this faith into a question about Christian existence. Once again w e can hear Paul and John speaking. He detected the climate brought about for Christian preaching by the Docetists and the emergence o f Gnosticism. His message o f Christ speaks o f an objective reality and an historical, cosmic event, and yet at the same time it is a message o f man and his salvation. ‘The thought that dominates Ignatius’ mind is not the striving for righteousness (as in Paul), but the longing for life; and in so far as this is so, he is more closely related to John than to Paul.’2 Like Paul, Ignatius lives in the hope o f a future salvation, o f the anastasis. He can call Christ our Hope, just as he can call him our zoe. Ignatius is aware o f an act o f the eschatological drama to come, but the eschatological event o f the parousia has already taken place in the historical appearance o f Jesus (Philad. 9. 2; cf. Magn. 9. 2). For Jesus appeared at the end (of time) (Magn. 6 . 1). Christ means a new existence for the faithful, for they are ‘mem­ bers’ o f Christ (Eph. 4. 2; Trail. 11. 2), ‘branches o f the Cross’ (Trail. 11. 2) and, as those w ho are united in the ekkksia, the body 1 See the doxologies in 1 C lem . 32. 4; 38. 4; 43. 6; 58. 2; 61. 3; 65. 2. 2 R . Bultmann, ‘Ignatius und Paulus,’ in Studia Paulina in Iw n .J. de Zwaan (Haarlem 1953) (37-51) 42, E T in Existence and Faith, ed. Schubert M. Ogden (London 1960) (267-77) 271. See too W . v. Loewenich, Johannesverstandnis 25-38.

(Smyrn. i. 2) whose head is Christ (Trail. 11. 2). The whole life o f faith is ‘in Christ’— a formula which still has original force in Ignatius. Through Jesus Christ, death is already overcome and life has been made present. Through the God who has appeared as man, the old kingdom has been destroyed and the newness o f eternal life has been put in its place (Eph. 19. 3). W hat is peculiar about Ignatius’ thought is ‘that the whole life o f the Christian is drawn into a sacramental unity with Christ and thereby receives a sacramental character— namely, as participation in Christ’s passion, death and resurrection.’1 This is the theme as a result o f which Ignatius attaches such significance to the divine and human reality in the one Christ in the face o f any possible falsification. The doctrine o f the one Christ, God and man, is saving doctrine. As in John, the unity o f the two kinds o f being in Christ, Logos and Sarx, is full o f tension. There is strong emphasis on both these poles, particularly in the face o f the separationist tendencies o f the docetists and all those heretics who were already during the lifetime o f the apostle John striving to ‘dissolve’ Christ (1 John 4. 3). T o counter them, the Bishop o f Antioch inserts into the apostolic expressions o f the Incarnation a ‘complete’2 or a ‘genuine,’ to exclude all hint o f ‘semblance’ (to 8 ok€?v). Three times in John w e find the designation ‘God’ for Christ, in Ignatius it is already quite frequent.3 Out o f the tendency to hold in tension Christ’s Godhead and manhood in the one statement, there arises the antithetic, two-membered formula, so well loved in the later history o f the dogma o f Christ, which emphasizes the distinction between the kinds o f being in the one L ord:

els Ιατρός εστιν και τπευματικός σαρκικός και άγγενητος γβννητός θεός eu άνθρώπω ζωή αΧηθινη eu θανάτω καί εκ θεοΰ και εκ Μαρίας και Tore απαθής TrpwTou παθητός ’Ιησούς Χριστό ό Κύριος ημών.4 1 R . Bultmann, op. cit. 47-8, E T 275. 2 Ign., Sm yrn . 4, 2. 3 Texts in J. Lebreton, T rin ite 2, 297f.; W. v. Loewenich, Johann csverstan dn is 28-9; H. Kraft, C la v is P atrum Apostolicorum (Miinchen 1963) s.v. * E p h . 7. 2; ed. Lightfoot 2 , 1, pp. 47-8. See E p ist. A p o st. 21 (32).

In the first antithesis o f Ephesians 7. 2 there is without doubt an allusion to Romans 1. 3, 4. Thereafter, this contrast that Christ is Pneuma and Sarx, flesh and spirit, i.e. God and man, became very popular until under the influence o f the Logos doctrine o f the Apologists it retreated well into the background in favour o f the Johannine phraseology ‘Logos— flesh.’ It did not, however, vanish completely. W ith Ignatius and the majority o f its other representatives it is so firmly embedded in a recognition o f the tw o kinds o f being that it runs no serious risk o f being suspected o f an association with ‘spirit-christology.’ As the two kinds o f expression refer in Holy Scripture to one and the same reality, so also do they in the Christian tradition.1 This theological understanding o f the unity in Christ finds its clearest expression in Ignatius in his use o f the so-called ‘exchange o f predicates,’ where the divine is predicated o f the man Christ and the human o f the Logos, while the distinction between the two kinds o f being is clearly maintained. This w ay o f speaking is possible only because the unity o f the subject is recognized.2 Though the static character o f a ‘two nature’ christology may become visible as early as Ignatius, a full, living dynamic is evident throughout Ins writings. This has its source from his all-pervading view o f the economy o f salvation and the basic soteriological-anthropological tone o f his christology. (c) Justin, Philosopher and Martyr

A t the height o f the second century we see the proclamation o f Christ fully engaged in debate with Judaism and paganism. This 1 On the Pneuma-sarx formula see (b) above (p. 65, note 1). How the two christological formulas Pneuma-Sarx, Logos-Sarx are identical in point o f content o f ideas appears especially in Justin, Hippolytus and Tertullian; cf. A. D ’Ales S. J. La Theologic de T ertullien (Paris 1905) 96-8. The more Christianity, in the person o f its theologians, came into contact with philosophy, and especially with the Stoa, the more the language which described the divine element in Christ as Pneuma had to retreat. For in Stoic thought, pneuma did not exclude a material nature. Clement o f Alexandria avoids calling God a pneuma; only ‘once in a while’ does he apply the word to Christ (M. Pohlenz, Stoa 416; examples in supplementary volume p. 200). Origen, on the other hand, detends the Christian use o f pneuma against the Stoa. Celsus knows the pneuma-sotna-sarx formula as a Christian confession: Origen, C. C e ls 6, 69, ed. Koetschau 139: (ό θ εό ς ), π ν ε ύ μ α ίδ ιο ν ε μ β α λ ώ ν e l s σ ώ μ α η μ ΐ ν ό μ ο ιο ν . On M elito o f S ard is see below. 2Ign., E p h . 1. 1: ed. J. B. Lightfoot 2, 29—30: αίμα θ ε ό ν —R o m . 6. 3: ed. Lightfoot 2, 220: π ά θ ο ς τ ο ν θ ε ό ν μ ο υ —E p h . 18. 2: ed. Lightfoot 2, 74: 6 . . . γ ά ρ θ ε ό ς . . . ε κ υ ο φ ορηθη ύ π ό Μ α ρ ία ς. Ignatius reveals a delicate understanding o f the divine subject in Christ when he speaks o f the ‘flesh-bearing Lord’ (κ ύρ ιο ς . . . σαρκοφόρος) but not of the ‘God-bearing man.’ The latter will meet us later. Cf. Sm yrn . 5, 2: ed. Lightfoot 2, 302. E

debate finds its expression most clearly in the person and work o f Justin, the ‘Philosopher and Martyr’ (Tertullian, Val. 5). In his (first) Apology it is his intention to prove the divinity o f Christ to the heathen from the prophecies o f the Old Testament (30-53). In the Dialogue with Trypho, he shows that the worshipping o f Christ is no contradiction to monotheism (48-108).1 For his christological proof, Justin searches out to an hitherto un­ paralleled extent new types in Genesis which proclaim before­ hand Christ and his suffering. W hat the regula fidei means for Irenaeus and Tertullian the christological intention is for Justin— mutatis mutandis— in his exposition o f Scripture. He is one o f the first exegetes to use belief in Christ consistently as a basic hermeneutical principle in expounding the Old Testament (G. T. Armstrong). A d olf von Hamack sums up Justin’s christology in the classical formula ‘Christ is the Logos and Nom os.’ The Apologists, in using these central concepts o f Greek philosophy, wished to show the Greeks that Christianity was the true philosophy. Justin, however, incorporated these concepts into a theology o f history and completely transformed them. ‘Wherever Christ is called Logos and Nomos as mediator o f divine revelation, this is done within the context o f a historical understanding o f revelation.’2 This is evident in Justin’s teaching on creation and eschatology, but most o f all in his teaching on the Incarnation. Here he goes back both to the synoptics and to John, in whom he finds proof for the identity o f the W ord made flesh with the pre-existent Logos, who is also the mediator o f creation and revelation. As the eternal Dynamis o f God, the Logos can himself beget his earthly existence from the Virgin (Apol. I 33, iff). Justin sets great store on stressing the historical data o f this earthly existence o f the W ord made flesh (Apol. 1 13. 3; 35. 9 and often). But this 1 Cf. A. Feder, Ju s tin s des M arty rers Leh re von J e s u s C h ristu s (Freiburg 1906); E. R . Goodenough, T h e T h eology o f Ju stin M a rty r (Jena 1923, with literature); G. Bardy, ‘ Saint Justin et la philosophic stoi'eienne,’ R S R 13 (1923) 491-510; 14 (1924) 33-45; Bengt Seeberg, ‘Die Geschichtstheologie Justins des Martyrers,’ ZKG 58 (1939) 1—81; C. Andresen, ‘Justin und der mittlere Platonismus,’ ZN TW 44 (1952-53) 157-95; id., L o g o s und N on w s (Berlin 1955); G. Aeby, L e s m issions divines de S ain t Ju stin d O rigene (Fribourg 1958); R . Holte, L o g o s sperm atikos, C h ristian ity and A ncient P hilosoph y according to S t. J u s tin ’s A p ologies, S tu d ia Theologica 12 (Lund 1958), 109-68; W. Pannenberg, ‘Die Aufnahme des philosophischen GottesbegritFs als dogmatisches Problem der friihchristlichen Theologie,’ ZKG 70 (1959) 1—45; G. T. Armstrong, D ie G en esis (see p. 45, note 2 above) 18-51. 2 S. C. Andresen, op. cit. 312; for what follows see ibid. 3 ί2 —44.

Incarnation is the last link in a chain o f events, during which the Logos had earlier already appeared on earth in other circum­ stances to reveal the w ill o f the Father (Dial. 75. 4). The Logos maintains this function o f being mediator o f revelation until the end o f the world. It comes to an end in the ‘Second Parousia’— a phrase which Justin coined (Apol. I 52. 3; Dial. 14. 8 and often). Through the uninterrupted work o f revelation o f the Logos the history o f mankind becomes a carefully-planned construction with beginning, purpose and end. N o w in this w ay Christ also becomes the ‘Nom os’ o f the human race (after Ps. 1. 2 and Isa. 2. 3 f; Apol. I 40. 5ff.; 39. 1; Dial. chs. 11-25). B y him order is brought into a world in which everything has been in confusion. The advent o f this LogosNom os in the flesh also breaks the influences which the demons had exerted in history through the ‘nomot o f the peoples. Herein lies the significance o f the expansion o f Christianity. ‘For now that w e have believed in the W ord, we too have withdrawn from them (i.e. the demons), and now follow the only unbegotten God through his Son’ (Apol. I 14. 1). Because a new Nomos o f the world has thus been created in Christianity through the Logos as the ‘power o f God,’ his Incarnation perpetuates itself. The new ordering o f the world has its centre in Christ. In this way, Justin’s Logos doctrine has taken over from the Greeks the two main concepts o f Logos and Nomos, but has incorporated them into a historical-theological approach.1 Justin finds his framework for this in Apoc. 1. 8; 4. 8, where there is mention o f him ‘who is and was and is to come’ (cf. Dial. h i . 2). It is Justin’s intention to show by this theology that Christians do not think o f the Logos after the manner o f the pagan myths (Apol. I. 53. iff.). In so doing he also dismisses Jewish modalistic speculations. These make the Logos merely a form in which the Father is manifested and rob the Logos o f the character o f mediator o f divine revelation (Apol. I 63. 15; Dial. 128. if.). (In Melito’s Peri Pascha, the relationship between Logos and Nomos differs from that in Justin.) Finally, Justin’s conception o f history gives him the opportunity o f reject­ ing the Stoic teaching o f world-periods and the Platonic trans­ migration o f souls (Apol. II 7. 3). 1 Sec Dani61ou, II 148.

B y his christocentric theology o f history, therefore, Justin was able to stress clearly the Christian character o f the Logos doctrine. Nevertheless, he was subject to stronger influence from Stoicism and from middle Platonism, particularly in his doctrine o f the Logos spermatikos(Apol. II 8. 3; 13. 3). The expressions σπέρμα τοΰ Λόγου and σπερματικός Λόγος derive from Stoicism. For the Stoics, the Logos, as immanent fire, is the principle o f all reason (ratio). Reason in the individual man is merely an aspect o f it. B y virtue o f the activity o f the Logos, all men are capable o f forming certain moral and religious concepts. They are called φνσικαί εννοιαι or κοιναι ewoiai or even σπέρματα. Therefore the Logos as an active principle can also be called σπερματικός Λόγος. In the light o f the Stoic origin o f these terms, some scholars felt that an identity between human reason and the divine Logos should be assumed in Justin’s Logos doctrine. This was done in Harnack in a rationalistic sense, in J. M. Pfattisch in a supernaturalistic sense.1 C . Andresen has shown new ways o f interpreting Justin and has shown that despite his Stoic vocabulary, Justin’s thought here is Platonic, or, rather, Middle-Platonic. R . Holte has made some corrections here.2 He has shown that the expression σπερματικός Λόγος does not occur in Middle-Platonism, but in Philo (as a description o f the activity o f the Logos, which is transcendent to the human spirit). In Justin, a distinction must be drawn between the σπερματικός Λόγος and the σπέρματα τοΰ Λόγου. These σπέρματα are a participation in the Logos by the human spirit. They derive from the activity o f the Logos, which therefore sows knowledge in the human reason in this way. This, however, is only the lower degree o f knowledge, which must be brought to fulfilment by the incarnate Logos himself. Where there are only the ‘seeds o f the Logos,’ the Logos is present only ‘in part’ (άπό μέρους). N o w as the Logos is the source o f all partial knowledge o f the truth in all men, he must also in the end be the subject and norm o f this knowledge. So when Justin assumes o f the ancient philosophers, like Heraclitus or Socrates, 1 A. von Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I (Tubingen 1931s) 507-13, E T (London 1900, photographic reprint New York 1961) 179-90; J. M. Pfattisch O.S.B., D e r Eittftuss Platons a n f die Theologie Ju stin s des M drtyrers (Paderborn 1910) 110. 115f. See Danielou, I I 42-9. 2 C. Andresen, op. cit. 340-343; R . Holte, L o g o s sperm atikos (see above, p. 106, note 1) 144. 145.

that they lived in accordance with the Logos, he understands by this Logos not reason (ratio), but the divine Logos. But these philosophers knew this Logos only obscurely and partially (άπό μέρους). In this respect their philosophy is incomplete and false. Thus one and the same divine Logos is known by philosophers and Christians, but by the former only in a deficient way, while the latter have full and complete knowledge. The way in which the Logos spermatikos works in human reason is to be understood in Justin in the light o f the Platonic presuppositions o f his theory o f knowledge. He does, however, recognize for the ancient philosophers a special way o f participating in the revelations o f the Logos in the world, namely by w ay o f the O ld Testament. The philosophers borrowed from the prophets and from Moses (Apol. I 59. i ; 60. i, 5-8). Moses is the first o f the prophets, more ancient than all the writers o f the Greeks (Apol. I 59. 1). But the knowledge o f the philosophers always remains a partial know­ ledge (Apol. I 44. 9-10; II 10. 2). This is all the more the case if the philosophers participated in revelation by w ay o f the demons (Apol. I 54. 2-4).1

From this point we can go on to investigate Justin’s conception o f the person o f Jesus Christ. The Apologist finds in all men, even in pagans, part o f the power o f the divine seed; the prophets o f the Old Testament shared in it to an exceptional degree. The Christian is endowed with the whole, personal Logos; it dwells with him in the freedom o f grace. Finally, in Christ we have the supreme example o f the conjunction o f Logos and man. But just at the point where Justin wishes to make clear the difference between the presence o f the Logos in Christ and all the previous stages, different possibilities o f interpretation seem to throw us up once more against the unresolved dilemma. This is the case in the muchdebated tenth chapter o f the Second Apology. ‘O ur religion is clearly more sublime than any teaching o f man for this reason, that the Christ who has appeared for us men represents the Logos principle in its totality (το λογικον το ολον), that is both body and Logos and soul. For all that the philosophers and legislators at any time declared or discovered aright they 1 Cf. N . Pycke, ‘Connaissance rationelle et connaissance de grace chez s. Justin,’ EphThLov 37 (1961) 52-85.

arcorirltshei rv invesr.catior. .m i perception in accordance with that ronton *othhe lo co s water tei to their lot. But because they h i ue: Ir.pw the whole o*' the Locos. who is Christ, thev often contradicted each other.'1 Settle hive thtmh the w o t dare here remarkable. and have made srecuhttters here, tt vhueh would .u re a d v presuppose a developed to ch e r ic h e w a v te s u e ' e e t o t th e .slates 'th e w h o l e r.as a c p e a r e d t o r s a n r atrie is c oirtst. v .Itus ot: a c o s m o s to cu e me Locos tat this, he tehes roe tue srec rhetors ot the

atetr.st emeu. a rout ttie L .,ttewe wortd-sotii and uses them, as

.7 707777viar. er ter tits t.0700007C ΟΓ. 717C _. v Accordirc te the *ί"ate tests. tr. ywxrhi-sotl7L IS 7!lC rraret rle .;t work in t creat 7or. -777V 117 57757Vrune tie world. e theme,c 7he •λ-et el. e V , Nous. Loc os. or even Ct 1ms t: reme77.7.1 NTX\\- .70007C7707C to fustar, c re:ust as Locos has taken 70775 00 >077OnecteeJ. rr 711010.Τ'. hi iaes Incomaever te C ive:lx hi* n r eared ir he.>700V, as 'rode* 77I7C Γ0050 0l and soul.' nor. he■ h. % T ree euVister . V 0 0 0 :7 is lira..7;' .7777": the sere 0 Vj.v. 0077 05 the mchotore.·, e 170 me.7hl.lSl sere e.. extmesses pr' more man the reahtv .„ a. ot’ tee i contaarts no sr ec ul act οn or the re 0775.ear e t Locos, so ei .and bodv an Car 1st. But HI TOSOhOi cert.ur.lv dCΓ.Τ57777*Λ' V.TS07es so Co hovend 775 .77 c · oc ■abet the eet nr· : ”:v teeL0.[7177C 077 71re Loco;i. The O.OC7T757Τ' Ot 7J7C OCOS * pi ot htstorv are hard to urure in a valid x '.07 e r r o r ot: asstev 771c* 0..rst place an smithes ts. .ISIS re. e CLamstt.777 .C7777777 75 77o: co r e aoiibted. Not oti.v h.v s he re. 7 X 0.0.S 777 t.iie c : u and N ew Tes 7.7171Τ'nt persrccte. e ot r : er: • .7770 inert. 0777 77 L77.7x70 Che C reek world Os

-

x —

7.

-

.

x—

.

x

.

7_ '

“

-

- v — - ■· ·>

'

· '' Γ

T

X

v

.

'. 0 0 '

1 l-S c H A W II V

_____ . L i

I:

X i 'W n? V y v o ir n» J.Vwr ro » akuW ra X’ lyuOs Xfi*. Jouassard, ‘Un probleme d’Anthropologie ct de Christologie chez saint Cyrille d’Alexandric,’ R S R 43 (1955) 361-79; id., ‘Saint Cyrille d’Alcxandrie et le schema de l’lncarnation Verbe-Chaire,’ ibid. 44 (1956) 234—42; B. Lavaud—Η. M. Diepen, ‘Saint Cyrille d’Alexandric, court traite contre ceux qui ne veulent pas reconnaitre Marie Mere de Dieu,’ RevThom 56 (1956) 688—712. etine

M

329

If w e examine the characteristics o f the christology o f the earlier works o f Cyril, we find nothing but Athanasius. The whole controversy with Apollinarianism waged by Antiochenes, Cappadocians and even by the Alexandrines themselves seems to have passed without leaving any traces on his theology. Once again we find the Athanasian Logos-sarx christology in its pure form.1 Like his predecessors, Cyril has only the Arians in view in writing the christological chapters of his Thesaurus (chs. 22-4 and 28). They are merely a paraphrase of the decisive section of the Contra Arianos III (35-57), but in a weaker and milder form. Cyril certainly makes alterations to the argument o f his spiritual ancestor, but in doing so he has no intention o f making any imier changes in it. He is merely bent on making it acceptable. Here, as also in Dialogue VI, the Athanasian setting of the problem and the solution go together.2 From time to time, however, the copy frees itself from the original and produces independent formulas, though of course no new trend of christology emerges. In the way in which the problem is put we still find ourselves firmly in the period before the Council o f Ephesus. The christo­ logical question as such, how God and man are one in Christ, is not yet acute. One element in particular has yet to make an appearance— the soul of Christ. Even if C yril recognizes it— and this must surely be assumed after the previous controversies3— he never considers it a ‘theological factor’ right up to the emergence 1

The sources o f Cyril’s earlier christology are: 1. the T h esau ru s : PG 75,9-656. 2. D ia lo g i (VI): PG 75, 657-1124. 3. H o m ilia V III4-6: PG 77, 565B-577A ( = Easter Festal letter o f 420). 4. C om m entary on J o h n : PG 73—4. On the chronology o f the sources: G. Jouassard, ‘L’activitc litteraire de saint Cyrille d’Al. jusqu’ a 428. Essai de chronologie et synthese’ : M e l. E . Podechard (Lyon 1945) 159-74. N . Charlier, ‘Le “ Thesaurus de Trinitate” de saint Cyrille d’Al. Questions de critique litteraire’ : R H E 45 (1950) 25-81 differs slightly. For the C om m entary on St. J o h n : J. Mahe, 'Le date du Commentaire de S. Cyrille d’Al. sur l’Evangile selon S. Jean’ : BLE 9 (Toulouse 1907) 41-5. N . Charlier (p. 56) regards the Th esau ru s as the first major theological work o f Cyril and dates it at the beginning o f his episcopate (about 412). The C om m entary on S t .J o lm is regarded as his first exegetical work (Charlier 60-2). G. Jouassard, on the other hand, would put the Thesaurus between 423 and 425 and make the C om m entary on S t .J o h n Cyril’s last exegetical work (after 425). N . Charlier’s arrangement seems to suit Cyril’s christological develop­ ment best. 2J. Liebaert, S. C y rille 82ff. Independently o f this N . Charlier, ‘Thesaurus de S. Cyrille’ 51, also establishes that about a third o f the T h esaurus is a reproduction o f Ath. C tr. arian. III. 3 Cyril mentions the soul o f Christ only twice in the pre-Ephesine period: in the E aster F estal Letter o f 420 (PG 77, 573B) and in the G lap h y ra in G en . 6: PG 69, 297C. I f with N. Charlier, ‘Thesaurus de S. Cyrille’ 56, we put the T h esaurus soon after 412, both mentions of the soul o f Christ occur after the discussions in the Th esaurus. de s. T rinitate

o f Nestorius. In the theology of the Greek Church, Christ is once again only Logos and sarx. The Thesaurus and the Dialogues give no indication that C yril recognizes a human knowledge in Christ and the development o f a human understanding.1 The Logos is the spiritual power of Jesus, and the progress of the Lord is no more than a gradual revelation o f the wisdom o f the Logos. C yril thinks as little as Athanasius o f repudiating the difficulties advanced by the Arians against the immutability of the Logos by referring to the soul o f Christ. Both Alexandrines recognize the reality o f the sufferings, and both attribute them to the ‘sarx.’ There are only πάθη τής σαρκός, sufferings of the flesh, and no real sufferings of the ψυχή . The ‘flesh’ is also the recipient of gifts, o f holiness and o f glory.2 Throughout his argument, which is directed against the Arians, Cyril never once thinks of attacking the basic christological principle on which they rely, that the Logos is the soul o f Christ. He only disputes the consequences which the heretics draw from it for the nature o f the Logos. Apollinarianism and the Church’s struggle against it seem to be virtually unknown to the author of the Thesaurus and the Dia­ logues.3 Hence the younger C yril is no ‘diphysite’ in the later sense of the word, nor is he intent on the ontological interpretation o f the two natures in Christ. W e have not yet reached the classical period of the ‘doctrine of the two natures.’ The interpretative principle o f the distinction of the ‘two times,’ which Athanasius had developed in his struggle against Arius, must still help Cyril to preserve the transcendence and immutability of the Logos.4 The statements of the Gospels are to be divided between the Logos before the Incarnation and the Logos after the Incarnation: a 1 J. Liebaert, S. C y r ill e 144. 2 T h esau ru s 24: PG 75, 396D does not contradict this. Cyril has recourse to the life o f the hum an soul as an analogy for his interpretation o f Christ. From this it m ay be inferred that the πάθη in Christ are m ovem ents o f the flesh which are sensed by the spiritual principle that is in the flesh. B u t Cyril does not say w hat is to be understood by this spiritual principle. C f. J. Liebaert, S. C y rille , 210-11.—D ia lo g . 4: PG 75, 868B uses the term p sy c h e in the biblical sense, to mean life. 3 J. Liebaert, S. C y rille 210-11. 4 ibid. 117 for a comparison o f Cyril and Athanasius: T h esau ru s 20. 22. 24 (PG 75, 337B-D. 369B C . 392CD) = C tr. arian . I 54-5, III 43. 55 (PG. 26, 124B-128C. 413BC. 437B). B oth have the same basic principle for the distinction o f the natures in Christ: το ν κ α ιρ ό ν , το ν χρόνον ό ζ ίτ ά ζ ΐΐν .

Cf. further

Th esau ru s

10: PG 75, 120D;

D ia lo g .

4:

PG 75, 877D. Ctr. arian. ΠΙ 29. 30 also has some influence on the Dialogues and gives them

their Athanasian colouring.

dynamic, historical approach which is to be replaced by a more static, ontological one. N o w because the latter is not to be found in Cyril, he is also not concerned to make a closer definition of the character of the nature that has been taken in Christ. True, even in the earlier writings the means of christological expression at his disposal is richer than that of Athanasius: Christ took ‘flesh’ or ‘what is of man’ (ανθρώπινα), finally even ‘man’1 and ‘human nature.’ But this last word should not lead us to assume the presence of the ontological approach mentioned above. For Cyril, as for Athanasius, this word signifies primarily the sum of all that is meant by humanity, human states in all their totality. To be sure, we fmd some Aristotelian definitions of man with reference to Didymus, but these do not signify any transference of an Aristotelian anthropology to christology.2 For this reason, none of the christological formulas of the earlier writings (The­ saurus and Dialogues) allow us to conclude quite simply that in C yril’s picture of Christ the soul has already become a ‘theological factor.’ J. Liebaert makes a detailed investigation of the christological formulas of C yril’s early period, to see how far they can be regarded as an expression of the Logos-sarx theology. Con­ sequently we will be content with the indications which have already been given and make only a brief examination o f C yril’s christological terminology before Ephesus, where it relates to the matter at issue, i.e. to the development of the formula o f Chalce­ don. But the points which have been made so far are sufficient for us to draw an important conclusion: Cyril can move com­ pletely within the limits of the Logos-sarx christology and still recognize a soul in Christ. He advances a verbal Logos-sarx framework in which the soul of Christ is certainly a physical factor, even if it is not yet a theological one. Here he is exactly like Athanasius, but differs from him in one very important respect: in Cyril, the idea of the vital, dynamic relationship

1J. Liebaert, S. Cyrillc 184-6, describes it as a concession to the ‘Word-man’ framework. But such formulas occur only in Thesaurus 15. 21 (PG 75, 281D.361D). Cf. Ath., Ctr. ariati. II 7. 67 (PG 26, 161B.289B). On the whole question see J. Liibaert 182. 2 Cf. ibid., 59. These definitions occur in the dispute with Eunomius, who was trained as an Aristotelian. Cf. Thesaurus 2.34 (PG 75, 29C. 32A.596) ; Dialog. 2.7. (PG 75, 728A. 729CD.1081C).

between Logos and sarx, as it was developed in the early writings o f St. Athanasius, could no longer attain its old significance. It is especially significant that the chief formula o f the Athanasian interpretation o f Christ recurs, the formula which has become the basic expression o f the whole o f the Logos-sarx christology of all types: ‘The W ord became man and did not come into a manΛ C yril also takes over the two frameworks which were to give a first, unconsidered explanation of the relationship between God and man in Christ, the frameworks of ‘indwelling’ and ‘appro­ priation.’ The W ord is ‘in’ the body— and the body is ‘appro­ priated’ by the W ord.2 In the Thesaurus and in most texts of the Dialogues Cyril limits himself to repeating the formulas of St. Athanasius. If he goes beyond them, this does not mean that there is any basic reorienta­ tion of his christology.3 Christ, in the theological interpretation given by the young Cyril, is no more than Logos and sarx. 2 . T h e A n t i o c h e n e P i c t u r e o f C h r is t

In the C yril of the period before Ephesus, then, we do not yet find that classical type o f Alexandrine christology which is usually put at the opposite pole from Nestorianism. The whole Alexan­ drine tradition is not integrated, and what is to come is not yet visible. The C yril of the early period takes a great deal, indeed 1 Ath., C tr. arian . Ill 30: PG 26, 388A; Cyril. Al., D ialo g . 1: PG 75, 681C. For Cyril’s dependence on Athanasius cf. J. Liebaert, S. C y rille 163—4. 2 1. ‘ Indw ellin g’ fram ew ork: Th esau ru s 23.24.28 (PG 75, 389A.392A.393C.428A); D ialog. 5 (PG 75, 944C). παρουσία εν σαρκί, μετά σαρκός, ενσαρκος γεννησις or οικονομία, εν σαρκί κενωσις —and the corresponding terms such as ‘temple’ and ‘house’ are quite

frequent in the earlier works of Cyril. For a collection see J. Mahe, ‘Comm, de Cyrille d’Alex. sur S. Jean,’ 43—4, and N . Charlier, ‘Thesaurus de S. Cyrille’ 59-60. Later, how­ ever, these formulas will either be rejected or explained as implying a substantial unity. J. Mahe makes use of this change for his studies in the date of the Commentary on S t.Jo h n . Cf. G. Jouassard, ‘L’activite litt.’, 159ff. 2. For the ‘appropriation’ framework: cf. the Athanasian concept ίδιο?; e.g. Thesaurus 21.28 (PG 75, 361C.429A). Further in J. Liebaert, S. C yrille 197ff. Here too belong such expressions as αναλαμβάνει, ίδιοποιεΐσθαι, οικειοΰν.

3 Such new formulas are, for example: ένωθηναι σαρκί, σαρκί σνμφερειν. J. Liebaert, 200-3. The ontologically deepened expressions in Thesaurus 32 (PG 75, 504A-C) may not be interpreted in the sense of the unio physica of the later Cyril (against E. Weigh Christol. v. Tode d.Ath. 147). It should be noted that Cyril speaks of Christ here as ‘Media­ tor,’ who in his twofold nature participates both in God and in man: φύσει καί ονσιωδω? θεώ τε καί άνθρώποις συναπτόμενος. We have here, then, not the unio physica o f the two natures one with another, but the unity o f Christ with both God and mankind. S. C yrille

almost everything, from Athanasius. But the further develop­ ment of the Alexandrine tradition is, so to speak, included. The young Cyril surely knew the blind teacher of Alexandria, D idymus. The two belong to the same thought-world. Nevertheless, we cannot say that Didymus exercised a real influence.1 The antiOrigenistic movement about 400 was probably to blame for that. Other elements are to shape C yril’s definitive Alexandrinism. O n the other hand, the classical type of christology which is usually described as ‘Antiochene’ has not yet arisen. Those who are generally termed representatives of this type (Eustathius o f Antioch, Diodore o f Tarsus— who in fact had an advocate of an explicit Logos-sarx christology as his teacher— Theodore of Mopsuestia and their other partisans) are so very different from each other that it is only to a limited extent that they can all be included under a common designation. H ow little an Antiochene can represent an ‘Antiochene’ christology can perhaps be seen most clearly in John Chrysostom (died 407). [a) John Chrysostom and his picture of Christ If we begin from the usual a priori judgement, we would expect Chrysostom quite naturally to be openly opposed to Apoflinarius and as a result to stress the soul and the complete human nature o f Christ. To our surprise, we discover a christology which is very like that of the younger Cyril o f Alexandria and his model, Athanasius. Chrysostom was a pupil of Diodore of Tarsus, a further confirmation that the teacher too should not simply be counted as a classical Antiochene in his christology. ‘Chrysostom seems to have been singularly unpreoccupied with the Apoflinarist heresy.’2 He quotes Apollinarius only once.3 Equally rare is any express mention of Christ’s soul. ‘In the homily on Philippians 2. 7 which follows upon this reference to the heretic (Apollinarius), Chrysostom clearly affirms the existence 1 C f. L. Doutreleau, ‘Vie et survie de Didym e l’Aveugle’ : L es Mardis de D a rE l-S a lam ; Sommaire 1956—7 (Paris 1959) (33-92) 43.

3 C f. C . H ay, ‘St.Joh n Chrysostom and the Integrity o f the H um an N ature o f Christ’ : FrancStud 19 (1959) (290-317) 301. W e will follow this study and merely insert some additional details o f Chrysostom’s historical position. C . H ay makes an examination o f earlier studies ot Chrysostom’s christology, particularly that o f J. H. Juzek, D ie Christologie des hi. Johannes Chrysostomus (Breslau 1912). 3 Chrysostom, In Phil. . . . 6. 1: PG 62, 218.

o f a soul in Christ, and attacks those who deny it’1— but he does this only after he has been made Bishop o f Constantinople. In his Antiochene period there does not seem to be any direct attack on the Apollinarians. Chrysostom’s christology is governed entirely by his defence against the Arian denial o f Christ’s soul. ‘The transcendence and the consequent immutability of the divine essence’ is his chief christological concern here. Even when he is stressing the reality of the body o f Jesus against the Docetists and the Manichaeans, the stronger emphasis always lies on the God­ head o f the Lord. ‘Our doctrine is this, namely, that God has prepared for Himself a holy temple ( ν α ό ν ά γ ιο ν ) ’ — here we have an ‘Antiochene’ element— -‘through which He has transported the life of Heaven into our life.’2 Chrysostom is interested not in the natural life o f Christ, the human spiritual life inspired and sup­ ported by the divine spirit, but in the life which the Logos unfolds qua Logos in his humanity. Once again, on the threshold of the fifth century, w e find a theologian in whose writings the soul of Christ, while being a physical reality, is not a theological factor in the interpretation of Christ. This is also clear from the way in which Chrysostom hardly notes, or even parenthesizes, the acts of Christ’s intellect and his will. He supposes the existence of so close a communication between the Logos and the spiritual soul of Christ that he w ill allow no limitation to Christ’s human knowledge because this seems to endanger his divinity. Because the Logos dwells in Christ, there is no need for knowledge to be mediated to Christ’s human spirit by human sense experience: ‘In the (divine) nature He possessed all.’ ‘Nowhere in his writings does Chrysostom give any indication that Christ possessed a dis­ tinct human knowledge.’3 Chrysostom’s interpretation of the activity of Christ’s w ill corresponds with this.4 The decision to accept the redemptive suffering stems from the divine will of the Logos. In the writings o f Chrysostom, no human act o f Christ’s w ill is involved here— as in the Alexandrine Athanasius! This interpretation of Christ’s spiritual activity seems to have come easily for him. Knowing and willing are indeed spiritual acts for 1 ibid. 7. 2 - 3 : P G 62, 231—2 ; C . H ay, ibid., 301—2. The soul o f Christ is mentioned once again, In Ioann. 27. 2 : P G 59, 159 (d ϋμ,φυχος ναός). 2 C hrysostom , In diem natal. 6 : P G 49, 359. 3 C . H ay, art. cit., 305. 4 ibid., 305-9.

which there seemed to be an adequate principle in the spiritual Logos. Chrysostom never realized how little this answered the Arians and how much he had excluded the spiritual element o f Christ’s humanity. An interpretation of the feelings and purely physical experiences of Jesus’ human nature is now even more difficult.1 These have great significance for the soteriology of the great preacher. For he means to acknowledge the reality of the oikonotnia, i.e. the Incarnation, however much he may have to stress Christ’s divinity. But he does not succeed very well in reconciling his two aims: I have never left the assumed humanity unharmonized w ith the divine operation (ούδαμοΰ την άναληφθεΐσαν ανθρωπότητα τής θείας ενεργείας

άμικτον απολελοιττα), (acting) n ow as man, n ow as God, both indicating the nature, and bringing faith to the econom y; teaching that the humbler things are to be referred to the humanity, and the nobler to the divinity, and b y this unequal mixture o f actions, interpreting the unequal union o f the natures (δ ιά τής άνί'.σου ταυτης των έργων κράσεως την άνισον των φύσεων

ενωσι,ν ερμηνεύων), and by (my) power over sufferings, declaring that m y ow n sufferings are voluntary; as God, I curbed nature, supporting a fast for forty days, but afterwards, as man, I was hungry and tired; as God, I calmed the raging sea, as man I was tempted b y the devil; as G od, I expelled devils, as man I am about to suffer for men.2

The ‘unequal mixture of actions’ corresponds to the ‘unequal union o f natures.’ W e can hardly go far wrong in seeing behind formulas like this the Stoic principle of ‘predominance’ and also a Stoic krasisdoctrine. W e are far from a picture o f Christ like that given by Theodore of Mopsuestia. Chrysostom, then, does not deny the human activity of Christ. ‘Christ acts as man, but these human actions are controlled by the Divine Person in such a w ay that they bring faith to the economy without overshadowing the divine nature.’3 Here the human activity is noticed only in a limited field, namely in the sub-rational sphere. Thus the purely spiritual, divine activity o f the Logos and the sub-rational activity o f the emotions and the senses are 1 ibid., 309-14. 2 Chrysostom, In quatrid. Lazan un 1: P G 50, 642-3; quoted in H ay’s translation, p. 310. 3 C. Hay,

art. cit.,

310.

opposed in this particular picture of Christ. This may be illustrated by a fairly lengthy text which deals with Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane: Consequently, in saying, ‘I f it be possible let this cup pass from m e,’ and, ‘N o t as I w ill, but as T h o u w ilt,’ He indicates nothing else than that He is truly clothed w ith flesh w hich fears death; for to fear death, and to hesitate and have a horror o f it, is a property o f this (i.e. the flesh). Sometimes, therefore, He leaves it destitute and deprived o f His ow n operation (γ υ μ ν ή ν ivepyeiaς) in order that, having shown its weakness, He might bring faith to its nature; sometimes He hides this same weakness in order that you m ay learn that H e is not a mere man. . . . Therefore He varies and mingles both words and actions, that no pretext m ay be given to the disease and madness o f Paul o f Samosata, nor o f M arcion nor o f M anes: therefore He predicts what is to be, as G od, and again H e trembles (before death) as man.’1

της οίκείας

In the natural field of the sub-rational feelings and reactions o f Christ’s human nature, the divine cnergeia, then, is, in Chrysos­ tom’s view, always in command, in accordance with the principle of predominance. There is no sign o f a decision by Christ’s human spirit. ‘It is significant that Chrysostom never speaks o f the human activity of Christ as that of a distinct human nature acting simply because it is human. Whenever Christ acted ώ ς άνθρω πος or άνθρωττίνως, He did so for either of two reasons: to prove the reality of the economy, or out of condescension {συγ­ κ α τά β α σ ή ) to His hearers.’1 2 The sub-rational forces and passiones o f this human nature seem, in Chrysostom’s view, to work only in so far as the higher principle of the nature and person of the Logos wills it and only to the extent that he wills it. ‘When speaking of Christ’s fast in the desert, Chrysostom remarks that Christ did not fast longer than forty days for fear that through the excess o f the miracle “ the truth o f the economy might not be believed.” ’3 Like Hilary, Chrysostom says of Christ: ‘when he permits the flesh, then it shows its feeling.’4 This picture of Christ is quite different from the ‘Antiochene’ one— taking this word in its usual sense. It is conceived more as the Alexandrine 1 Chrysostom , In eos qui ad synaxim non occurrerunt, 6 : P G 48, 766; C . H ay, ibid., 306, n. 43, w ho points out that M axim us Confessor used this passage to prove tw o wills in Christ, but was unjustified in so doing. 2 C . H ay, art. cit., 311. For this whole idea o f ‘condescension’ see 311—13. 3 Chrysostom , In Matt. 13. 2 : PG 57, 210; quotation after H ay, 313. 4 ibid. 67. 1: PG 58, 633.

M*

picture, and is governed by the same anti-Arian interests which moved Athanasius and Hilary. Like the former, Chrysostom is fond of talking about the ‘flesh’ o f Christ when he is dealing with the activity of Christ’s human nature. He is not excluding Christ’s soul here, but merely leaving it out o f the question. ‘Chrysostom argues from the physical and emotional activities of Christ to the reality o f the flesh. He never argues from the spiritual activity of Christ to the reality o f the flesh. In effect, Chrysostom nowhere affirms an intellectual or volitional activity o f Christ, nor does he ever explicitly indicate the presence of a human intellect and will in Christ.’1 The whole way in which Chrysostom’s picture o f Christ is drawn accords with this: everything is conceived of in the light of the Logos and of the unconditioned predominance of the divine nature.2 The typically Antiochene difficulties in the inter­ pretation of the unity in Christ do not exist for Chrysostom. It is not very significant that he says on one occasion: ‘(The Apostle Paul) asserts against Marcellus that there are (in Christ) two persons distinct in substance.’3 This is that concept o f persona which is meant to prove, not the duality o f subjects, but the reality of the two natures. W e have also found it on the Alexan­ drine side. This Antiochene, so persecuted by the Alexandrines, is far more Alexandrine than Antiochene in his christology— a new indication of the care with which we must use a word like ‘school.’ Only with Theodore of Mopsuestia does ‘Antiochene’ christology properly begin. (.h) Theodore oj Mopsuestia (died 428) and classical Antiochene christology Under the influence of the passionate polemic of the Apollinarians and the Monophysites, and also through Cyril of Alexan­ dria after the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy and the disputes over the ‘Three Chapters’ in the sixth century, Theodore’s reputation has suffered considerably— not that he himself did not give occasion for this. But only his negative significance has been seen, and his positive contribution to the history of the Christian Faith has been misunderstood. Recent scholarship has made 1 C . Hay, art. cit., 315. 2 See Chrysostom, Cat. Bapt. I 21: SC 50, 160-4. 3 See C. Hay, art. cit., 314, n. 73.

different attempts at a more favourable exegesis o f his christology, and it is to be judged right in many of its findings. In the present discussion there is room for a word on the methods to be used for investigating Theodore’s christology. Some modern investigations rightly stress that an examination should be made not only of Theodore’s interpretation of Christ in the narrower sense, but also of his whole attitude to the Christian Faith and its cult. A total picture of Theodore’s faith will make it easier to establish his ideas in any specific section of that faith, e.g. in christology. So good attempts have been made to describe Theodore’s theological system in the light of his notions of immortality and the role of the other heavenly realities.1 Christianity, so Theodore teaches his catechumens, is essentially directed towards heaven. This gives his theology its unity. His argument is above all based on typology. Theodore divides human history into two katastaseis or ages, the present and the future. The Old Testament contains the symbols for the life o f the Church, and the life o f the Church and of Christians is the pattern o f life in heaven. The second katastasis is introduced by the redeeming work of Christ. Therefore Christ’s work, more than anything else, reveals the w ay in which the whole oikonomia of God is orientated on immortality. In Christ, God shows us the first-fruits of the immortality which he has prepared for us. The various mysteries of the life of Christ offer us an anticipatory vision of the mysteries of the Church. B y baptism the Christian participates in the death and resurrection of the Lord. B y adoption 1 1. Onatibia, ‘L a vida cristiana tipo de las realidades celestes’ : Scriptorium Victoriense 1 (1954) 100-33 (quoted here from an offprint); Luise Abramowski, ‘Zur Theologie Theo­ dors von Mopsuestia’ : Z K G 72 (1961) 263—93. This article also refers to the first one. Both challenge W. de Vries, ‘Der “ Nestorianisnuis” Theodors v.M . in seiner Sakramentenlehre’ : O C P 7 (1941) 91—148; id., ‘ Dascschatologische Heil bei T h .v.M .’ : Hid. 24 (1958) 309-38.— R ow an A. Greer, Th . o f M . Exegete and Theologian (London 1961) (he stresses the importance o f biblical-christological terminology for Th. o f M .; see 48-65); U . Wickert, Studien z u den Pauimkomnientaren Tit’ s von M . (Berlin 1962); G. Koch, O ie Heilsoerwirklichung bei T h .v .M . (Dissertation: W urzburg 1963, dactylogr.); Koch also challenges de Vries and studies Theodore’s soteriology and ccclesiology in connection with his christo­ lo g y ; the results are similar to those in the first tw o studies; in summary fashion the methods used in the examination o f Theodore’s writings and christology are given in R . A. N orris, Jr., Manhood and Christ. A Study in the Christology o f Theodore o f Mopsuestia. (O xford 1963). B u t R . A. N orris has not yet made the acquaintance o f the abovementioned studies. His special contribution is his demonstration o f the anthropological presuppositions o f Theodore’s christology. I was unable to have access to: G. Η. M. Posthumus M eyjes, ‘D e Christologie van Theodorus van M .’ : V o x T 25 (1954-5) (cited in L. Abram ow ski, art. cit., 264). For further literature, see below.

as child of God he participates in the true Sonship of the Son of God (the Logos). This participation is again realized and shown forth to us in a quite unique w ay in Christ as man. The whole oikonomia of God is present in the eucharistic feast. It already gives a share in the world o f heavenly reahties. Redemption, then, does not merely consist in (the hope of) immortality, in­ corruption and immutability (in a future hfe), but already in a present, inner participation in the divine spirit: So too in the birth w hich is here made ours through baptism, w hich is the type o f the resurrection, w e shall receive grace through the same Spirit, but partially and as a first instalment. Then, how ever, w e shall receive it completely, w hen w e rise in truth, and incorruptibility is in reality communicated to us.1

This participation must be matched by moral hfe. The hfe of the future must already be lived in the community o f the Church, the pattern of the civitas caelestis to come. It is important for us to see this total picture o f Theodore’s view o f Christianity, which in one of the studies already mentioned is characterized thus: This conception o f our author, far from breaking w ith tradition, continues the line begun w ith St. Paul. It w ould be easy to cite the Pauline passages w hich provide Theodore with a starting point for those concepts (conceptos) w hich w e have investigated in this study. W e have found nothing which could not be interpreted in an orthodox and traditional sense. Theodore’s unique service consists in his ability pow erfully and boldly to group a synthesis o f all the truths o f dogm a and all the duties o f m orality round a principal idea and to offer a unified and imposing vision o f Christendom, the elements o f which are all harmoniously directed towards a final destiny which is bathed in light.2

But it should be clearly understood that in his doctrine of baptism and in his description of the condition of the Christian at baptism, Theodore is concerned to preserve the transcendence 1 Theodore M ., In Ev. Joh. Ill 29: Voste 56, here cited in the translation by R . A. Norris, Manhood and Christ, 162. I. Onatibia and L. Abramowski stress strongly against the view o f W . de Vries that Theodore knows o f this inner participation in the life o f the spirit already happening in the present life o f Christians and that it is not just a hope o f praetematural gifts in eternity. The future condition is certainly already taken to be real in baptism: ‘. . . h e who is born in baptism possesses in himself all the pow er o f the immortal and incorruptible natures and he possesses all (its faculties); being incapable o f using them, o f putting them into action . . . until the mom ent which G od has fixed, when we shall rise from the dead’ (Horn. cat. X IV 10: ed. Tonneau 423, quoted in R . A. Norris, 162). He also shows (ibid. 186-8) that Theodore knows a true and actual grace, without detriment to human freedom. 2 I. Onatibia, art. cit., 34; cf. L. Abramowski, art. cit., 273f., which makes an excellent investigation o f the concept o f participation in Theodore (274—6).

of God. The idea that comes into play here is not so much that of divinization as the idea of ‘conjunction,’ coniunctio, and moral obedience, always with reference to Christ. It is quite clear that Theodore himself measures our participation in the divine life, achieved in baptism, by Christ, which means, in his own language, by the conjunction of the man who is taken with the Logos and his divine nature. The Logos makes the human nature o f Christ (the susceptus homo) participate in the worship which is offered to him on the grounds o f the synapheia, the conjunction. Through this, the man who is taken also participates in the other divine persons, the Father and the Spirit. For the Logos is homoousios with them. The glory of the man who is taken consists in his being accepted as Son. Through Christ, we too will share in this acceptance, though not in the same unique way. Theodore characterizes the redeemed state o f man in terms o f assimilation to Christ, as in the follow ing prayer which the Lord himself is made to speak: . . . all o f them . . . let them be in the likeness o f m y ow n glory, and let them possess conjunction with me, by which they may be exalted to the honour of intim acy w ith the divine Nature.1

Even in eternity, the humanity of Christ is given a great significance as mediator of this conjunction. Whether we con­ sider the unity o f God and man in Christ or our conjunction with Cod formed on the pattern ot this unity o f God and man, Theo­ dore is always moved by the one concern: to deprive the Arians of any occasion of violating the divine transcendence. However much he considers the immanence of God in our history, or our participation in God, or finally the decisive realization of this immanence and this participation in Christ, he is always concerned not to confuse the Godhead with the creature. It is understandable that as a result the closeness o f the conjunc­ tion o f God and man, whether in Christ, or in us as imitators o f Christ, might seem to be loosened. But it would be unjust to represent this loosening o f the unity in Christ as Theodore’s prime concern and to relate it to a false motive. Theodore is searching for a new interpretation o f the participation o f man in God and the conjunction of God and man in Christ, so as to 1 R . A. N orris, Manhood and Christ, 169; Theodore M ., Horn. cat. X 18: ed. Tonneau (see p. 343, note 2 below) 273.

be able to achieve a synthesis between the immanence and the transcendence of God in us and in Christ in the face of the Arians and the Apollinarians. This immanence of the Logos in Christ is to be such that both the divinity of the Logos and the integrity o f the manhood in Christ are preserved. Thus Theodore’s christology is put in the framework o f the whole of his theology, and his real concern is made clear. There is now just a word to be said on the w ay by which he means to reach his goal. A twofold approach is also to be distinguished in him: his attitude towards the traditional kerygma of the Church and his own speculative attempts. Since Justin, the history of the dogma of Christ has been full of the tension between the auditus and the intellectus fidei. Origen was particularly conscious of it. To see the character o f this tension in Theodore, we should note that he is not really a speculative theologian. He is primarily an exegete, ‘the Interpreter,’ as he was called, and is so even in his dogmatic writings.1 He experiences the theology and presence of Christ as a liturgist. His speculative theology is therefore subsidiary, and not an aim in itself. His philosophy stands even further in the background. It makes itself felt primarily in his anthropology. W e must give a brief account o f it (see below), as Theodore, too, interprets the unity o f God and man in Christ along the lines of the body-soul unity. But this is not the sole philosophical element in his christology.2 As with the Cappado­ cians, we also find unnoticed in his writings the special role o f the analysis of the ens physicum concretum, i.e. the concepts o f prosopon and hypostasis. Prosopon plays a special part in his inter­ pretation of Christ. W e must examine his achievements here. H ow far did his speculation, his intellectus fidei, lag behind the traditional kerygma and the pre-speculative interpretation of it by the Church? Is his speculative-theological inadequacy so extensive that the result is de facto an unorthodox picture o f Christ? By what standard is this deficient orthodoxy to be 1 C f. R . A. Norris, Manhood and Christ, 125. 2 R . A. N orris investigates principally this anthropology o f Theodore’s, but not the metaphysic o f the ens concretum in Theodore. N orris is rather stricter in his assessment o f Theodore’s christology than I. Onatibia and L. Abramowski. The study by G. Koch, mentioned above, offers a good synthesis between a positive assessment o f Theodore’s christology and criticism o f it. The manuscript was kindly put at m y disposal by the author.

measured? W e feel that a preliminary look at the Council o f Ephesus, held three years after his death, and even at Chalcedon itself, is no error in methodology.1 For the whole development tends towards Ephesus and Chalcedon, and it has even been asserted, though not quite rightly, as we shall see, that Theodore already anticipated the Chalcedonian formula. Thus a further pointer as to method is not out of place. O n the one hand, his orthodoxy is insufficiently proved by reference to formulas which have an orthodox ring, but on the other hand, a heretical intent should not be assumed without further investigation. It is there­ fore necessary to make a careful investigation of the pattern of his thought over and above his formulas. W hen we do this, however, w e must take the orthodox tendencies of Theodore (and o f the moderate Antiochenes in general) as a starting point unless the contrary is proved, and notice the concrete situation of his christology and theology. W e must therefore ask, ‘H ow does the christological problem present itself to him, and what means o f solving it are at his disposal?’ From here we will be able to estimate his objective and subjective relationship to the develop­ ment of orthodox christology. W e will now attempt to discover the significance of Theodore’s christology in three ways, by outlining first his significance as a critic of the Logos-sarx frame­ work, secondly his own christological thought, and thirdly his christological formula.2 1 U . W ickert, Studien zu den Pauluskommentaren (p. 339 above) accuses me o f making such an error. O n the other hand, R . A. N orris, Manhood and Christ, 234—8 has no objec­ tion to taking the christology o f Chalcedon as a norm by which to measure Theodore’s orthodoxy. 2 For Theodore’s christology see (in addition to the studies already cited): H . Kihn, Theodore von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus (Freiburg 1880) (esp. 171-97, 393—409); E. Amann, ‘La doctrine christologique dc Theodore dc Mopsueste’ : R e v S R 14 (1934) 160— 90; id., art. ‘Theodore de Mopsueste’ : D T C 15, 235-79; M . Jugie, ‘Le “ Liber ad baptiz­ andos” de Theodore de M opsueste,’ in E O 34 (1935) 262-71 (against the article by E. Amann in R e v S R ); M. Richard, ‘La tradition dcs fragments du Traite ITepl τής ΐνανθρωττήσ€ως de Theodore dc Mopsueste’ : M us 46 (1943) 55-75; id., ‘Hypostase’ 21-9; R . Tonneau, Lcs homilies catichitiques de Theodore de Mopsueste: S T 145 (Citta del Vaticano 1949) X V - X X X I X ; R . Devreesse, Essai sttr Theodore de Mopsueste: S T 141 (Citta del Vaticano 1948) 109-18; Μ . V. Anastos, ‘The immutability o f Christ and Justinian’s condemnation o f Theodore o f M opsuestia’ : D O P 6 (1951) 123-60; K . M cNam ara, ‘Theodore o f M opsuestia and the Ncstorian Heresy’ : IT Q 19 (1952) 254—78; 20 (1953) 172-91; F. A. Sullivan, The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia (R om e 1956); on this F. McKenzie, TheolStud. 19 (1958) 345-73; F. A. Sullivan, id., 20 (1959) 264—79; P. Galtier, ‘Theodore de Mopsueste, sa vraie pensce sur l’ lncarnation’ : R S R 45 (1957) 161-86, 338-60.

(i) The critic of the Logos-sarx framework Theodore’s principal opponents in christology are, in addition to the Manichaeans and the Gnostics, the Arians and the Apollinarians (Horn. Cat. V 8, ed. Tonneau m - 1 3 ) . The combination o f the two last groups is significant, and there is an intelligible reason for it. Whereas other polemic at the end of the fourth century contented itself more or less with merely stressing the Church’s tradition of the soul o f Christ and the soteriological importance of the taking o f it by the Logos, Theodore succeeded in making a more searching criticism o f the Logos-sarx relation­ ship in the teaching of his opponents and, following Didymus, managed to make the soul of Christ a theological factor. W e also find him challenging the basic presupposition of the narrower Logos-sarx christology, namely the vital, dynamic influence of the Logos on the flesh o f Christ. W ithin the Logos-sarx frame­ work, this Stoic idea of the Logos as ήγζμών is far more decisive than the oversight of the soul o f Christ. It is, in fact, the real source from which the whole pattern o f a christology without a soul of Christ (whether as a theological or as a physical factor) has developed. A t this point, therefore, criticism had to begin. Theodore takes up the endeavours of Didymus of Alexandria, apparently forgotten in Alexandria itself.1 In the Fifth Catechetical Homily, one o f the most important documents for the interpreta­ tion of his teaching, he challenges Eunomius and the Arians. There is no mistaking the progress which has been made. T he disciples o f Arius and Eunomius say that he (Christ) took a body but not a soul; the divine nature, they say, takes the place o f the soul. A n d they lower the divine nature o f the Unique (Son) to the point (o f saying) that he declines from his natural grandeur and performs the actions o f the soul, by enclosing himself in the body and accomplishing everything to make it ‘subsist.’ Consequently, i f the divinity takes the place o f the soul, it (sc. the body) had neither hunger, nor thirst, nor was it tired, nor did it have need o f fo o d ; for all this happens to the body because o f its weakness and because the soul is not equipped to satisfy the needs which it has save according to the law o f the n a tu re w hich G od has given it.12 1 But there seems to be no immediate dependence o f Theodore on Didym us in christo­ logy. Cf. L. Doutreleau, ‘Vie et survie’ (see p. 334, note 1 above) 33-92. D . does not mention Theodore. Nevertheless, Didym us’ works were read in Antioch, ibid. 44. 2 ibid. V 8, translated in N orris, Manhood and Christ, 150. See the whole text, Tonneau 109-29, V 7-19.

This text is best understood if we begin from the Apollinarian hypostasis-concept, which includes the giving of physical life by the Logos. There is one physis, one hypostasis in Christ because the Logos alone performs all actions. Here, the Logos is com­ bined with the body in a vital unity. But in Theodore’s view, such a symbiosis contradicts Christ’s true nature. Had the eternal Godhead in fact taken the place of the soul, he says, then the body could have lacked nothing, for all inadequacies result from the natural weaknesses of the human life-principle. If, then, Christ was hungry, thirsty, and suffered in other ways, this can only have been possible because the functions of life are performed by a human soul and thus come from a finite source. If this soul is to help the body to ‘subsist’ at all, it needs the help of a ‘perfect’ body. If anything is lacking, it can no longer fulfil its part of the task and will itself be drawn into a community of suffering. Eventually it will even be compelled to separate from the body. But i f the Godhead had taken over the place of the soul, it would have been so powerful that it would of necessity also have taken over the role of the body, and those who denied the reality of Christ’s bodily nature would be right. Both body and soul, however, had to be assumed because it was necessary to make good the death of the body and the sins of the soul. The sins (as the cause o f death) had first to be taken away so that death itself might finally be conquered. N o w the sins themselves happened in the soul. ‘Therefore Christ had to assume not only a body but also a soul; or rather vice versa, first the soul had to be assumed and then the body because o f the soul’ (ibid. V u ) . It was only possible to save the body through the spiritual soul. ‘N o w this was only possible if (Christ) made the soul immutable and delivered it from the movements of sin, since we will only be freed from sin when w e have acquired immutability’ (ibid.). It thus came about that Christ assumed a soul and by the grace of God brought it to immutability and to a full dominion over the sufferings o f the body (ibid. V 14, Tonneau 119). For this reason he also had to appropriate a human understanding, as a human soul cannot but be rational. Redemption was won by the grace of God gaining dominion over a man with whom God has clothed himself.

O u r holy Fathers also said ‘w ho was incarnate’ so that you w ou ld understand that it was a perfect man that he took. . . . A n d he took not only a body, but the w hole man, composed o f a body and an im m ortal and rational soul. He assumed him for our salvation and through him he w on salvation for our life (ibid. V 19, Tonneau 127).

The difference between this picture o f Christ and the other, that o f the Logos-sarx christology, is quite apparent. The human nature of Christ regains its real physical-human inner life and its capacity for action. After Didymus, Theodore had to do this work again. In the stress on the immutability of the soul, o f course, we again have a Hellenistic element which could easily conceal the soteriological significance of Christ’s soul. But it none the less remains the fact that the created soul provides the life for the body of Christ and is also the principle o f the acts decisive for our redemption. Against Apollinarius, Theodore shows the activity o f the assumed man: M oreover (the divine Son) furnished his co-operation in the proposed works to the one w ho was assumed. (N ow ) where does this (co-operation) entail that the D eity had replaced the (human) nous (sensus) in him w ho was assumed? For it was not his w ont to take the place o f the nous in any, w hoever they were, to w hom he accorded his co-operation. A nd i f m oreover he accorded to the one w ho was assumed an extraordinary (praecipuam) co-operation, this does not mean (either) that the D eity took the place of the nous. But suppose, as you w ould have it, that the D eity took the role o f the nous in him w ho was assumed. H o w was he affected w ith fear in his suffering? W h y , in the face o f immediate need, did he stand in want o f vehement prayers— prayers which, as the blessed Paul says, he brought before God w ith a loud and clamorous voice and with many tears? H ow was he seized o f such immense fear that he gave forth fountains o f sweat b y reason o f his great terror?1

Apollinarius and Theodore reached diametrically opposed conclu­ sions but still agree on an important point. Both see redemption achieved in the complete moral integrity, hr the immutability of the spiritual principle in Christ, but the Laodicean holds to the immutability of the Logos himself, his opponent to the immov­ ability of the created soul of Christ which is achieved by the grace of the spirit.2 N ow man is the victor over sin3 and death, though 1 Swete, Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in Epistolas B . Pauli Commentarii (Cambridge 1880-2), II 315; here, mostly with R . A. Norris, Manhood and C hrist, 204. The other texts translated by N . ought also to be considered. See ibid. 202—7, 190-7. 2 See R . A. Norris, ibid. 186-9. 3 See Theodore Mops., Horn. cat. V 10: ed. Tonneau 115; Swete II 311; R . A. Norris, ibid. 206.

with God’s grace only. In comparison with the Logos-sarx frame­ work, the picture of Christ is clarified in one important, decisive point: the redeeming sacrifice is seen as an act of Christ’s ‘human decision.’1 Theodore’s theological insight regained what others had lost. Here, o f course, the question of the person of Christ arises. (ii) Christological thought W hen the complete manhood of Christ is stressed so decisively, it follows that the idea of the distinction of the natures in Christ must come right into the foreground. The question of the interpretation of the unity then becomes all the more burning.2 In fact, everywhere in the interpretation o f Christ built up by Theodore w e have the impression of a loosening o f the unity in Christ. Here the whole character of the ‘W ord-man’ framework seems to put it at a disadvantage. The lack of the idea of a vital, dynamic unity of life makes itself felt. Theodore can offer nothing comparable in its place— as long as he does not transcend the level of a merely accidental, moral conjunction in his inter­ pretation of Christ and move on to the idea of a substantial unity. Does he ever manage to do this? A t this stage w e need not object to the indwelling framework, as this occurs both in the biblical tradition and among the repre­ sentatives of the Logos-sarx idea. Origen and Athanasius could speak in just the same way as Theodore.3 But the Homo assumptus 1 T h e o d o r. M o p s., Horn. cat. X V 16: ed. T o n n eau 4 8 7 : ‘ and as sacrifice he offers nothin g other than him self— (a sacrifice) in w hich he delivers h im self up to death for all.’ W ith Hebrews, T h e o d o re stro n g ly stresses the heavenly sacrifice w ith ou t, h ow ever, m is­ understanding the earthly one and transferring it to the L o g o s qua L o g o s. C f. ibid. nos. 1 7 ,1 9 , 2 1 : ed. T o n n eau 491, 495, 497. See F. J . R e in e , The eucharistic doctrine and liturgy o f the Mystagogical Catecheses o f T h . o f M . (W ash in gton 1942); I. O n atibia, ‘ La vida cristiana . . .’ : Scriptorium Victoriense 1 (1954), 18—23. 2 T h e o d o re M o p s., In Ps. 8 1: ed. R . D evreesse, L e Commentaire de Theodore de Mops, sur les Psaumcs: S T 93 (C itta del V aticano 1939) 4 3 ; Horn. cat. Ill 6 ; ed. T on n eau 6 1: ‘ En d eu x m ots, ils nous apprirent les d eu x natures; par la distinction des nom s, ils nous enseignerent la distinction des natures. C e u x qui d e Γ unique personne (prosopon) du Fils dirent ces d e u x choses, n ou s apprirent la co njonction exacte des d eu x natures.’ Further texts in R . D evreesse, Theodore Mops., 115. 3 T h e o d o re M o p s., In Ps. 44. 9 a : ed. D evreesse 29013"15: Σ μ ύ ρ ν α . . . α πό τω ν Ιμ α τίω ν σου. Ί μ ά τ ιο ν αυτού κ α λ ώ ς eKaXeoe τό σ ώ μ α , on ep Ι ξ ω θ ΐν ijv π ΐρ ικ ΐΐμ ΐν ο ν , Ινδόν οϋ