THE LORDSHIP OF JESUS
Two of the contentions of the modern school of comparative religion
have so far been examined. It has been shown that neither the group
of Pauline conceptions which centers around the new birth (or, as
Paul calls it, the new creation) nor the Pauline teaching about the
sacraments was derived from the mystery religions. The third element
of Paulinism which is thought to have come from pagan religion is
found in the Pauline conception of Christ and of the work of Christ
in redemption. This contention is connected especially with the
name of Bousset[222], who is, however, supported in essentials by
a considerable number of contemporary scholars. The hypothesis of
Bousset is intimately connected with those hypotheses which have
already been examined. A complete treatment of it at this point
would therefore involve repetition. But it may here be set forth at
least in a somewhat systematic, though still in a merely summary,
way.
[222] _Kyrios Christos_, 1913; _Jesus der Herr_, 1916.
According to Bousset, the primitive Christian community in Jerusalem
regarded Jesus chiefly as the Son of Man--the mysterious person,
mentioned in the Jewish apocalypses, who was finally to come with
the clouds of heaven and be the instrument in ushering in the
Kingdom of God. Bousset is doubtful whether or no the title Son of
Man was ever assumed by Jesus Himself, and regards the settlement
of this question as lying beyond the scope of his book. But the
tendency of the book is decidedly toward a radical denial of the
Messianic consciousness of Jesus. And at this point the cautious
investigator, even if his presuppositions are the same as Bousset's
own, may well be inclined to take alarm. The method which is here
pursued seems to be leading logically to the elimination from
the pages of history of the whole Gospel picture of Jesus, or
rather to the use of that picture in the reconstruction not of the
historical Jesus, but only of the belief of the Christian community.
Of course Bousset does not push matters to such lengths; he is
by no means inclined to follow W. B. Smith and Drews in denying
the historicity of Jesus. But the reader of the first part of the
"Kyrios Christos" has an uneasy feeling that if any of the Gospel
picture still escapes the keen edge of Bousset's criticism, it is
only by accident. Many of those incidents in the Gospel narrative,
many of those elements in the Gospel teaching, which have been
considered most characteristic of the historical Jesus have here
been removed. There seems to be no particular reason why the rest
should remain; for the elements that remain are quite similar to the
elements that have been made to go. No mark of authenticity seems to
be proof against the skepticism of this latest historian. Bousset
thus illustrates the difficulty of separating the natural from the
supernatural in the Gospel picture of Jesus. When the process of
separation begins, it is difficult to bring it to a halt; the wheat
is in danger of being rooted up with the tares. Bousset has dealt a
severe blow to the prestige of the liberal reconstruction of Jesus.
By the recent developments in his thinking he has shown by his own
example that the liberal reconstruction is in a state of unstable
equilibrium. It is always in danger of giving way to radical denial
either of the historicity of Jesus or of the historicity of the
Messianic consciousness. Such radicalism is faced by insuperable
difficulties. Perhaps, then, there is something wrong with the
critical method from which the radicalism always tends to result.
But it is necessary now to examine a little more closely the belief
of the primitive Jerusalem Church. That belief, Bousset maintains,
did not involve any conception of Jesus as "Lord." The title "Lord,"
he says, was not applied to Jesus on Palestinian ground, and Jesus
was not regarded by the early Jerusalem Church as the object of
faith. The piety of the primitive Church was thus exclusively
eschatological; Jesus was expected to return in glory from heaven,
but meanwhile He was regarded as separated from His disciples. He
was the heavenly "Son of Man," to come with the clouds of heaven,
not the "Lord" now present in the Church.
These momentous assertions, which lie at the very basis of Bousset's
hypothesis, are summed up in the elimination from Jerusalem
Christianity of the title "Lord" as applied to Jesus. This
elimination of the title "Lord" of course involves a rejection of
the testimony of Acts. The Book of Acts contains the only extant
narrative of the early progress of Jerusalem Christianity. And so
far as the designations of Christ are concerned, the early chapters
of the book have usually been thought to produce an impression
of special antiquity and authenticity. These chapters apply the
title "Lord" to Jesus; the words in Acts ii. 36, "God has made
him both Lord and Christ," have often been regarded as especially
significant. But to Bousset, in view of his opinion about the Book
of Acts as a whole, the elimination of this testimony causes no
difficulty.
But how does Bousset know that the primitive Jerusalem Church did
not apply the term "Lord" to Jesus? The principal argument is
derived from an examination of the Synoptic Gospels. The title
"Lord," as applied to Jesus, Bousset believes, appears only "on the
margin" (as it were) of the Gospel tradition; it does not appear as
one of the primitive elements in the tradition. But since it does
not appear firmly fixed in the Gospel tradition, it could not have
formed a part of Christian belief in the community where the Gospel
tradition was formed. The community where the Gospel tradition was
formed was the Jerusalem Church. Therefore the title Lord as applied
to Jesus did not form part of the belief of the Jerusalem Church.
Such, in bare outline, is the argument of Bousset.
An examination of that argument in detail would far transcend the
limits of the present discussion.[223] But certain obvious remarks
can be made.
[223] See Vos, "The Kyrios Christos Controversy," in _The Princeton
Theological Review_, xv, 1917, pp. 21-89. See also the review of
Bousset's "Kyrios Christos" by the same author, _ibid._, xii, 1914,
pp. 636-645.
In the first place, it is not perfectly clear that the title
Lord appears only in secondary elements of the Gospel tradition.
Certainly it must be granted to Bousset that the instances where the
word "Lord" appears in the vocative case do not necessarily involve
any recognition of the lofty title "Lord" as belonging to Jesus;
for the word could be used in direct address in the presence of any
person to whom respect was to be paid. Nevertheless, in some of the
passages the word does seem to be more than a mere reverential form
of address. Bousset himself admits that such is the case at least
in Matt. vii. 21, "Not every one who says unto me Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven," and his opinion that this passage
is secondary as compared with Lk. vi. 46 is insufficiently grounded.
The cases in the Gospels where the title is used absolutely are not
very numerous, and they occur chiefly in the Gospel of Luke. But
the estimate of them as secondary depends of course upon certain
critical conclusions about the relationships of the Synoptic
Gospels. And it is doubtful whether Bousset has quite succeeded
in refuting the argument which can be derived from Mk. xii. 35-37
(and parallels), the passage about David's son and David's Lord.
Bousset himself uses this passage as an important testimony to the
belief of the early Jerusalem Church, though he does not regard it
as representing a genuine saying of Jesus. Yet here Jesus is made
to call attention to the fact that David called the Messiah "Lord."
If this passage represents the belief about Jesus of the primitive
Jerusalem Church, what stronger testimony could there be to the use
in that church of the title "Lord" as applied to Jesus? Bousset
avoids the difficulty by calling attention to the fact that the
Old Testament passage (Ps. cx. 1) is here quoted not according to
the original but according to the Septuagint translation. In the
original Hebrew, says Bousset, there was a distinction between the
word "Lord" as applied to God and the word "Lord" as applied to the
other person who is referred to; the Hebrew has, "Jahwe said to my
Lord (adoni)." Thus that second person, according to the Hebrew,
can be regarded as a human individual, and all that is meant by the
term "Lord" as used of him by David is that he stood higher than
David. Bousset seems to think that this explanation destroys the
value of the passage as a witness to the use in the Jerusalem Church
of the religious term "Lord" as applied to Jesus. But such is by no
means the case. For if the Messiah (Jesus) was higher than David, so
that David could call Him Lord, then Jesus must have occupied some
very lofty position. If David could call Him Lord, would the title
be refused to Him by humble members of the Jerusalem Church? On
Bousset's interpretation the passage may not directly attest the use
of the title by the Jerusalem Church, but it does seem to presuppose
it. It may also be questioned whether Bousset has succeeded in
getting rid of Mk. xi. 3, as a witness to the title Lord as applied
to Jesus in the Jerusalem Church.
But does the infrequency of the use of the title "Lord" in the
Gospels necessarily indicate that that title was not prevalent
in the primitive Jerusalem Church? It must be remembered that
the title "Christ," which was of course applied to Jesus by the
Jerusalem Church, is also very infrequent in the Gospels. Why should
the infrequency in the Gospel use of one title be regarded as an
argument against the use of that title in the Jerusalem Church, when
in the case of the other title no such argument can possibly be set
up? Bousset is ready with his answer. But the answer is entirely
inadequate. The title "Christ," Bousset says, was an eschatological
title; it referred to a dignity which in the belief of the Jerusalem
Church Jesus was not to attain until His coming in glory. Therefore
it could not readily be applied to Jesus in the accounts of His
earthly ministry. Hence in the case of that title there was a
special obstacle which hindered the intrusion of the title into the
Gospel tradition. But in the case of the title "Lord," there was
no such obstacle; therefore the non-intrusion of that title into
the Gospel tradition requires a special explanation; and the only
possible explanation is that the title was not used in the Jerusalem
Church.
It would be difficult to crowd into brief compass so many highly
debatable assertions as are crowded together in this argument.
Was the title "Christ" a purely eschatological title? It is not
a purely eschatological title in Paul. It is not really a purely
eschatological title anywhere in the New Testament. At any rate,
Bousset is here adopting a conception of the Messiahship of Jesus
which is at best problematical and is rejected by men of the most
widely divergent points of view. And did the title "Lord" designate
Jesus especially as the present Lord of the Church, rather than as
the one who was finally to usher in the Kingdom? Was Jesus in the
belief of the early Church the "coming" Christ any more than He was
the "coming" Lord; and was He the present Lord any more than He was
the present Christ? These questions cannot be answered with absolute
certainty. At any rate, even if Bousset can point to a larger
proportion of eschatological interest in the one title than that
which appears in the other, yet such a distinction is relative only.
And it still remains true that if the infrequency of the title
"Christ" in the Gospels does not indicate the non-existence of that
title in the Jerusalem Church, the infrequency of the title "Lord"
in the Gospels is not any more significant.
With regard to the title "Son of Man," Bousset makes a remark
somewhat similar to that which he makes about the title "Christ."
The title "Son of Man," he says, was eschatological; therefore it
could not be introduced into the narrative part of the Gospels.
But it will always remain one of the paradoxes of Bousset's theory
that according to Bousset the title "Son of Man," which (except in
Acts vii. 56) appears in the tradition only in the words of Jesus,
and never as the title used when men spoke about Jesus, should be
supposed to have been the characteristic title used in speaking
about Jesus in the Jerusalem Church. If the belief of the Jerusalem
Church about Jesus was so exclusively a Son-of-Man dogma, as Bousset
supposes it was, and if that church was so little concerned with
historical fact, it seems somewhat strange that the title, "Son of
Man," has not been allowed, despite its eschatological character, to
intrude into the Gospel narrative. Another hypothesis will always
suggest itself--the hypothesis that Jesus really used the title,
"Son of Man," in a somewhat mysterious way, in speaking about
Himself, and that the memory of the fact that it was His own special
designation of Himself has been preserved in the curious limitation
of the use of the title in the New Testament. In that case, in view
of the accuracy thus established with regard to one title, the
testimony of the Gospels with regard to the other title, "Lord,"
cannot lightly be rejected.
But the evidence for the use of the title "Lord" in the primitive
Jerusalem Church is not contained merely in the Gospels. Other
evidence appears in the Pauline Epistles.
The most obvious fact is that Paul himself uses the term as the
characteristic title of Jesus. And it is equally evident that he did
not invent this usage. Evidently it was a continuation of a usage
which prevailed before he began his work. So much is fully admitted
by Bousset. But whence did Paul derive the usage? Or rather,
supposing that he began his own use of the title at the moment of
the conversion, in accordance with the representation in Acts ("Who
art thou, Lord?"), whence did he derive his assumption that the
title was already in use? The most obvious view is that he assumed
the title to be already known because it was in use in the early
Jerusalem Church. The matter-of-course way in which Paul applies
the title "Lord" to Jesus has always, until recently, been taken as
indicating that the title had been prevalent from the very beginning
of the Church's life.
But at this point appears one of the most important features of
Bousset's theory. Paul derived the title "Lord," Bousset believes,
from those who had been Christians before him; but he derived it,
not from the Jerusalem Church, but from the Christian communities in
such cities as Antioch, Tarsus, and perhaps Damascus. It is in these
communities, therefore, that the genesis of the title "Lord," as
applied to Jesus, is to be placed.
Attention has already been called to the difficulties which
beset this interposition of an extra link between Paul and the
Jerusalem Church. It has been shown that what Paul "received" he
received not from the churches at Antioch and Tarsus but from
the original disciples at Jerusalem. But in addition to the
general considerations which connect the whole of Paulinism with
the Jerusalem tradition about Jesus, there are certain special
indications of a Jerusalem origin of the title "Lord."
One such indication may be found, perhaps, in Gal. i. 19. When, in
connection with a visit to Jerusalem which occurred three years
after the conversion, Paul speaks of "James the brother of the
Lord," the natural inference is that "the brother of the Lord" was
a designation which was applied to James in Jerusalem; and if so,
then the title "Lord" was current in the Jerusalem Church.[224] Of
course, the inference is not absolutely certain; Paul might have
designated James as "the brother of the Lord" because that was the
designation of James in the Galatian Churches and the designation
which Paul himself commonly used, even if it was not current in
Jerusalem. But the natural impression which the passage will
always make upon an unsophisticated reader is that Paul is using a
terminology which was already fixed among James' associates at the
time and place to which the narrative refers. It should be observed
that in speaking of Peter, Paul actually uses the Aramaic form and
not the Greek form of the name. The indications are that with
regard to the leaders of the Jerusalem Church Paul is accustomed
generally to follow the Jerusalem usage. And the evidence of such a
passage as Gal. i. 18, 19, where Jerusalem conditions are mentioned,
is doubly strong. The use in this passage of the title "brother of
the Lord" would indeed not be absolutely decisive if it stood alone.
But taken in connection with the other evidence, it does point
strongly to the prevalence in the early Jerusalem Church of the
title "Lord" as applied to Jesus.
[224] Knowling, _The Witness of the Epistles_, 1892, p. 15.
More stress is usually laid upon the occurrence of "Maranatha" in 1
Cor. xvi. 22. "Maranatha" is Aramaic, and it means "Our Lord, come!"
Why was the Aramaic word "Our Lord" included, as a designation
of Jesus, in a Greek letter? The natural supposition is that it
had been hallowed by its use in the Aramaic-speaking church at
Jerusalem. Accordingly it pushes the use of the title "Lord" back
to the primitive Christian community; the title cannot, therefore,
be regarded as a product of the Hellenistic churches in Antioch and
Tarsus.
This argument has been met in various ways. According to Böhlig,
the passage does attest the application of the Aramaic title "Lord"
to Jesus, but that application, Böhlig believes, was made not in
Palestine but in Syria, not in Jerusalem but in Antioch. Syria,
indeed, with Cilicia, was, Böhlig insists, the special home of the
designation "Lord" as applied to the gods; the word "Baal," the
common Semitic title of the Syrian gods, means "Lord." And Böhlig
also points to the appearance of the title Mar along with Baal as a
title of divinity.[225]
[225] See Böhlig, "Zum Begriff Kyrios bei Paulus," in _Zeitschrift
für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xiv, 1913, pp. 23-37.
But why was the Semitic title retained in a Greek letter? In answer
to this question the bilingual condition of Syria may be appealed
to. But what particular sanctity could be attached to the Semitic
usage of Syria; why should Paul follow that usage in writing to a
church that was situated, not in the East, but in Greece proper? If,
on the other hand, the title "Mar" had been hallowed by the use of
the original disciples of Jesus, then the retention of the original
word without translation is perfectly natural.
Bousset now proposes another hypothesis.[226] The phrase
"Maranatha," he says, probably had nothing to do with Jesus; it
constitutes merely a formula of cursing like the "anathema" which
immediately precedes in 1 Cor. xvi. 22; the Maran (or Marana) refers
not to Jesus, but to God; the formula means, "Our Lord (God) shall
come and judge." But Bousset adduces no real evidence in support of
his explanation. No such formula of cursing seems to have been found
in Semitic sources. And why should Paul introduce such a Semitic
curse in writing to Corinth? The latest hypothesis of Bousset is
certainly a desperate expedient.
[226] Bousset, _Jesus der Herr_, 1916, pp. 22f. Compare _Kyrios
Christos_, 1913, p. 103.
"Marana" in 1 Cor. xvi. 22, therefore, certainly refers to Jesus,
and the strong presumption is that it was derived from Palestine.
The passage constitutes a real testimony to the use of the title
"Lord" as a designation of Jesus in the Palestinian Church.
Possibly, moreover, this passage may also serve to fix the original
Aramaic form of the title. Bousset and certain other scholars have
been inclined to detect a linguistic difficulty in the way of
attributing the title "Lord" to the Aramaic-speaking Church. The
absolute "Mara," it is said, does not seem to have been current
in Aramaic; only "Mari" ("my Lord") and "Maran" ("our Lord") seem
to have been commonly used. But it is just in the absolute form,
"the Lord," that the title appears most frequently in the Greek
New Testament. Therefore, it is concluded, this New Testament
Greek usage cannot go back to the usage of the Aramaic-speaking
Church. It will perhaps be unnecessary to enter upon the linguistic
side of this argument. Various possibilities might be suggested
for examination to the students of Aramaic--among others, the
possibility that "Mari," "Maran," had come to be used absolutely,
like "Rabbi," "Rabban," the original meaning of the possessive
suffix having been obscured.[227] But in general it can probably
be said that if persons of Aramaic speech had desired to designate
Jesus, absolutely, as "Lord" or "the Lord," the language was
presumably not so poor but that the essential idea could have been
expressed. And it is the essential idea, not the word, which is
really important. The important thing is that the attitude toward
Jesus which is expressed by the Greek word "Kyrios," was, unless all
indications fail, also the attitude of the Jerusalem Church.
[227] Compare Bousset, _Kyrios Christos_, 1913, p. 99, Anm. 3.
But may not the Greek title itself have originated in Jerusalem?
This possibility has been neglected in recent discussions of the
subject. But it is worthy of the most careful consideration. It
should be remembered that Palestine in the first century after
Christ was a bilingual country.[228] No doubt Aramaic was in
common use among the great body of the people, and no doubt it
was the language of Jesus' teaching. But Greek was also in use,
and it is by no means beyond the bounds of possibility that even
Jesus spoke Greek when occasion demanded. At any rate, the early
Jerusalem Church included a large body of Greek-speaking persons;
the "Hellenists" are mentioned in Acts vi. 1 in a way to which
high historical importance is usually attributed. It is altogether
probable, therefore, that the terminology current in the Jerusalem
Church from the very beginning, or almost from the very beginning,
was Greek as well as Aramaic. From this Greek-speaking part of the
Church the original apostles could hardly have held themselves
aloof. Total ignorance of Greek on the part of Galileans is
improbable in view of what is known in general about linguistic
conditions in Palestine; and in the capital, with its foreign
connections, and its hosts of Hellenists, the opportunity for
the use of Greek would be enormously increased. It is altogether
improbable, therefore, that the Greek terminology of the Hellenists
resident in Jerusalem was formed without the approval of the
original disciples of Jesus. When the apostle Paul, therefore,
assumes everywhere that the term "Lord" as applied to Jesus was no
peculiarity of his own, but was familiar to all his readers, the
phenomenon can be best explained if not only the sense of the title,
but also its Greek form, was due to the mother Church. In other
words, the transition from Aramaic to Greek, as the language of the
disciples of Jesus, did not occur at Antioch or Tarsus, as Bousset
seems to think. In all probability it occurred at Jerusalem, and
occurred under the supervision of the immediate friends of Jesus. It
could not possibly, therefore, have involved a transformation of the
original faith.
[228] Zahn, _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, 3te Aufl., i, 1906,
pp. 21-32, 39-47 (English Translation, _Introduction to the New
Testament_, 2nd Ed., 1917, i, pp. 34-46, 57-67).
But the linguistic considerations just adduced are only
supplementary. Even if the use of Greek in Jerusalem was less
important than has here been suggested, the state of the case is
not essentially altered. Every attempt at separating the religion of
Paul sharply from the religion of the Jerusalem Church has resulted
in failure. Whatever may have been the linguistic facts, the divine
Lord of the Epistles was also the Lord of those who had been
intimate friends of Jesus of Nazareth.
Bousset of course rejects this conclusion. But he does so on
insufficient grounds. His theory, it may well be maintained, has
already broken down at the most decisive point. It is not really
possible to interpose the Christianity of Antioch and Tarsus between
the Jerusalem Church and Paul; it is not really possible to suppose
that that Christianity of Antioch was essentially different from the
Jerusalem Christianity which had given it birth; in particular it is
not possible to deny the use of the title "Lord," and the religious
attitude toward Jesus which the title represents, to the original
friends of Jesus. Examination of the further elements of Bousset's
theory, therefore, can be undertaken only under protest. But such
examination is important. For it will confirm the unfavorable
impression which has already been received.
If, as Bousset says, the title "Lord," as a designation of Jesus,
originated not at Jerusalem but at Antioch, in what way did it
originate? It originated, Bousset believes, in the meetings of
the Church, and it originated in dependence upon the surrounding
pagan cults. At Jerusalem, according to Bousset, the piety of
the disciples was purely eschatological; Jesus was awaited with
eagerness, He was to come in glory, but meanwhile He was absent.
There was no thought of communion with Him. At Antioch, however,
a different attitude began to be assumed. As the little community
of disciples was united for comfort and prayer and the reception
of the ecstatic gifts of the Spirit, it came to be felt that Jesus
was actually present; the wonderful experiences of the meetings
came to be attributed to Him. But if He was actually present in the
meetings of the Church, a new title was required to express what
He meant to those who belonged to Him. And one title lay ready to
hand. It was the title "Lord." That title was used by the pagans
to designate their own false gods. Surely no lower title could be
used by the Christians to designate their Jesus. The title "Lord,"
moreover, was especially a cult-title; it was used to designate
those gods who presided especially over the worship, over the
"cult," of the pagan religions. But it was just in the "cult," in
the meetings of the Church, that the new attitude toward Jesus had
arisen. The experience of Jesus' presence, therefore, and the title
which would give expression to it, were naturally joined together.
In the rapture of a meeting of the group of worshipers, in the midst
of wonderful ecstatic experiences, some member of the Church at
Antioch or Tarsus, or perhaps many members simultaneously, uttered
the momentous words, "Lord Jesus."
Thus occurred, according to the theory of Bousset, the most
momentous event in the history of Christianity, one of the most
momentous events in the whole religious history of the race.
Christianity ceased to be merely faith in God like the faith which
Jesus had; it became faith in Jesus. Jesus was now no longer merely
an example for faith; He had become the object of faith. The prophet
of Nazareth had become an object of worship; the Messiah had given
way to the "Lord." Jesus had taken a place which before had been
assigned only to God.
This estimate of the event of course depends upon Bousset's
critical conclusions about the New Testament literature. And those
conclusions are open to serious objections. The objections have
already been considered so far as the title "Lord" is concerned;
that title cannot really be denied to the original disciples of
Jesus. Equally serious are the objections against what Bousset says
about "faith in Jesus." A consideration of these objections lies
beyond the scope of the present discussion. The ground has been
covered in masterly fashion by James Denney, who has shown that
even in the earliest strata of the Gospel literature, as they are
distinguished by modern criticism of sources, Jesus appears not
merely as an example for faith but as the object of faith--indeed,
that Jesus actually so presented Himself.[229] Christianity was
never a mere imitation of the faith which Jesus reposed in God. But
it is now necessary to return to the examination of the Antioch
Church.
[229] Denney, _Jesus and the Gospel_, 1908.
The title "Lord," as applied to Jesus, Bousset believes, originated
in the meetings of the Antioch disciples--in what may be called,
for want of a better term, the "public worship" of the Church.
This assertion constitutes an important step in Bousset's
reconstruction. But the evidence adduced in support of it is
insufficient. The passages cited from the Pauline Epistles show,
indeed, that great importance was attributed to the meetings of the
Church; they show perhaps that the custom of holding such meetings
prevailed from the very beginning. But they do not show that the
whole of the Church's devotion to Christ and the whole of Paul's
religion were derived, by way of development, from the cult. It is
not necessary to suppose either that the individual relation to
Christ was derived from the cult, or that the cult was derived from
the individual relation. There is also a third possibility--that
individual piety and the cult were both practised from the
very beginning side by side. At any rate, Bousset has vastly
underestimated the importance of the conversion as determining the
character of Paul's religious life. The Damascus experience lay
at the very foundation of all of Paul's thinking and all of his
actions. Yet that experience had nothing to do with the cult.
But even if, in accordance with Bousset's reconstruction, the title
"Lord" was applied to Jesus under the influence of the ecstatic
conditions that prevailed in the meetings of the Church, the origin
of the title is not yet explained. How did the Christians at Antioch
come to think that their ecstatic experiences were due to the fact
that Jesus was presiding over their meetings? And if they did come
to think so, why did they choose just the title "Lord" in order to
express the dignity that they desired to attribute to Him?
At this point, Bousset has recourse to a comparison with the
surrounding paganism. The term "Lord," he says, was common in the
Hellenistic age as a title of the cult-gods of the various forms of
worship. And the material which Bousset has collected in proof of
this assertion is entirely convincing. Not only in the worship of
the Emperors and other rulers, but also in the Hellenized religions
of the East, the title "Lord" was well known as a designation of
divinity. Indeed, Paul himself refers plainly to the currency
of the title. "For though there be," he says, "that are called
gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and
lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are
all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
whom are all things, and we through him" (1 Cor. viii. 5, 6). In
this passage, the "lords many" are of course heathen gods, and it
is clearly implied that the term "lord" was the title which was
given them by their own worshipers. Bousset is entirely correct,
therefore, when he says that the title "Lord," at Antioch, at
Tarsus, and everywhere in the Greco-Roman world, was clearly a title
of divinity. Indeed, it may be added, the word "lord" was no whit
inferior in dignity to the term "god."[230] When the early Christian
missionaries, therefore, called Jesus "Lord," it was perfectly
plain to their pagan hearers everywhere that they meant to ascribe
divinity to Him and desired to worship Him.
[230] Warfield, "'God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,'" in
_The Princeton Theological Review_, xv, 1917, p. 18.
Thus the currency of the title in pagan religion was of great
importance for the early Christian mission. But that does not
necessarily mean that the title was applied to Jesus in the first
place because of the pagan usage, or that the ascription of divine
dignity to Jesus was first ventured upon because the Christians
desired to place the one whom they revered in a position at least
equal to that of the pagan cult-gods. It is these assertions
which have not been proved. Indeed, they are improbable in the
extreme. They are rendered improbable, for example, by the sturdy
monotheism of the Christian communities. That monotheism was not at
all impaired by the honor which was paid to Jesus; the Christian
communities were just as intolerant of other gods as had been the
ancient Hebrew prophets. This intolerance and exclusiveness of
the early Church constitutes a stupendous difference between the
Christian "Jesus-cult" and the cults of the other "Lords." The pagan
cults were entirely tolerant; worship of one Lord did not mean the
relinquishment of another. But to the Christians there was one Lord
and one only. It is very difficult to see how in an atmosphere of
such monotheism the influence of the pagan cults could have been
allowed to intrude. Any thought of the analogy which an application
of the title "Lord" to Jesus would set up between the meetings of
the Church at Antioch and the worship of the heathen gods would
have hindered, rather than have actually caused, the use of the
title. Evidently the title, and especially the divine dignity of
Jesus which the title expressed, were quite independent of the pagan
usage.
Certainly the mere fact that the Christians used a title which was
also used in the pagan cults does not establish any dependence upon
paganism. For the title "Lord"[231] was almost as well established
as a designation of divinity as was the term "God."[232] Whatever
had been the origin of the religious use of the word, that use had
become a part of the Greek language. A missionary who desired to
proclaim the one true God was obliged, if he spoke in Greek, to use
the term "God," which of course had been used in pagan religion. So
if he desired to designate Jesus as God, by some word which at the
same time would distinguish Him from God the Father, he was obliged
to use the word "Lord," though that word also had been used in
paganism. Neither in the one case nor in the other did the use of a
Greek word involve the slightest influence of the conceptions which
had been attached to the word in a polytheistic religion.
[231] κύριος
[232] θεός
But there was a far stronger reason for the application of the
Greek term "Lord" to Jesus than that which was found in its general
currency among Greek-speaking peoples. The religious use of the
term was not limited to the pagan cults, but appears also, and if
anything even more firmly established, in the Greek Old Testament.
The word "Lord" is used by the Septuagint to translate the "Jahwe"
of the Hebrew text. It would be quite irrelevant to discuss the
reasons which governed the translators in their choice of this
particular word. No doubt some word for "Lord" was required by the
associations which had already clustered around the Hebrew word. And
various reasons may be suggested for the choice of "kyrios" rather
than some other Greek word meaning "lord."[233] Possibly the root
meaning of "kyrios" better expressed the idea which was intended;
perhaps, also, a religious meaning had already been attached to
"kyrios," which the other words did not possess. At any rate,
whatever may have been the reason, "kyrios" was the word which was
chosen. And the fact is of capital importance. For it was among the
readers of the Septuagint that Christianity first made its way.
The Septuagint was the Bible of the Jewish synagogues, and in the
synagogues the reading of it was heard not only by Jews but also
by hosts of Gentiles, the "God-fearers" of the Book of Acts. It was
with the "God-fearers" that the Gentile mission began. And even
where there were Gentile converts who had not passed at all through
the school of the synagogue--in the very earliest period perhaps
such converts were few--even then the Septuagint was at once used
in their instruction. Thus when the Christian missionaries used the
word "Lord" of Jesus, their hearers knew at once what they meant.
They knew at once that Jesus occupied a place which is occupied only
by God. For the word "Lord" is used countless times in the Greek
scriptures as the holiest name of the covenant God of Israel, and
these passages were applied freely to Jesus.
[233] As, for example, δεσπότης.
This Septuagint use of the term "Lord," with the application of the
Septuagint passages to Jesus, which appears as a matter of course in
the Epistles of Paul, was of vastly more importance for the early
Christian mission than the use of the term in the pagan cults. And
it sheds vastly more light upon the original significance of the
term as applied to Jesus. But the pagan usage is interesting, and
the exhibition of it by Bousset and others should be thankfully
received. An important fact has been established more and more
firmly by modern research--the fact that the Greek word "kyrios"
in the first century of our era was, wherever the Greek language
extended, distinctly a designation of divinity. The common usage of
the word indeed persisted; the word still expressed the relation
which a master sustained toward his slaves. But the word had come to
be a characteristically religious term, and it is in the religious
sense, especially as fixed by the Septuagint, that it appears in the
New Testament.
Thus it is not in accordance with New Testament usage when Jesus
is called, by certain persons in the modern Church, "the Master,"
rather than "the Lord." Sometimes, perhaps, this usage is adopted
in conscious protest against the New Testament conception of the
deity of Christ; Jesus is spoken of as "the Master," in very much
the way in which the leader of a school of artists is spoken of as
"the Master" by his followers. Or else the word means merely the one
whose commands are to be obeyed. But sometimes the modern fashion is
adopted by devout men and women with the notion that the English
word "Lord" has been worn down and that the use of the word "Master"
is a closer approach to the meaning of the Greek Testament. This
notion is false. In translating the New Testament designation of
Jesus, one should not desire to get back to the original meaning
of the word "kyrios." For the Greek word had already undergone a
development, and as applied to Jesus in the New Testament it was
clearly a religious term. It had exactly the religious associations
which are now possessed by our English word "Lord." And for very
much the same reason. The religious associations of the English word
"Lord" are due to Bible usage; and the religious associations of
the New Testament word "kyrios" were also due to Bible usage--the
usage of the Septuagint. The Christian, then, should remember that
"a little learning is a dangerous thing." The uniform substitution
of "the Master" for "the Lord" in speaking of Jesus has only a false
appearance of freshness and originality. In reality it sometimes
means a departure from the spirit of the New Testament usage.
Accordingly, Bousset has performed a service in setting in clear
relief the religious meaning of the word "Lord." But he has not
succeeded in explaining the application of that word to Jesus.
Further difficulties, moreover, beset Bousset's theory. The term
"Lord" as applied to Jesus, and the religious attitude toward Jesus
expressed by the term, arose, according to Bousset, in the meetings
of such communities as the one at Antioch, and under the influence
of pagan conceptions. But of course Bousset's explanation of the
origin of Paulinism has not yet been completely set forth. Paulinism
is something far more than an ecstatic worship of a cult-god; the
personal relation to Christ dominates every department of the
apostle's life.
Bousset recognizes this fact. The religion of Paul, he admits, is
something far more than the religion which was expressed in the
meetings of the Antioch Church. But he supposes that the other
elements of Paul's religion, far-reaching as they are, had at least
their starting-point in the cult. Here is to be found one of the
least plausible elements in the whole construction. Bousset has
underestimated the individualistic character of Paul's religion. At
least he has not succeeded in showing that the Pauline life "in
Christ" or "in the Lord" was produced by development from ecstatic
experiences in the meetings of the Antioch Church.
But if the individualistic religion of Paul was developed from the
"cult," how was it developed? How shall the introduction of the new
elements be explained? Bousset has attacked this problem with great
earnestness. And he tries to show that the religion of Paul as it
appears in the Epistles was developed from the cult religion of
Antioch by the identification of "the Lord" with "the Spirit," and
by the generalizing and ethicizing of the conception of the Spirit's
activity.
The Pauline doctrine of the Spirit, Bousset believes, was derived
from the pagan mystical religion of the Hellenistic age. Quite
aside from the matter of terminology--though the contentions of
Reitzenstein are thought by Bousset to be essentially correct--the
fundamental pessimistic dualism of Paul was based, according to
Bousset, upon that widespread type of thought and life which appears
in the mystery religions and in the Hermetic writings. According to
this pessimistic way of thinking, salvation could never be attained
by human nature, even with divine aid, but only by an entirely
new beginning, produced by the substitution of the divine nature
for the old man. By the apostle Paul, Bousset continues, this
supernaturalism, this conception of the dominance of divine power
in the new life, was extended far beyond the limits of the cult
or of visionary experiences; the Spirit was made to be the ruling
principle of the Christian's life; not only prophecy, tongues,
healing, and the like, were now regarded as the fruit of the Spirit,
but also love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, meekness, self-control. But this Pauline extension
of the Spirit's activity, Bousset insists, did not involve the
slightest weakening of the supernaturalism which was characteristic
of the original conception; the Spirit that produced love, joy,
peace, had just as little to do with the human spirit as the Spirit
that caused men to speak with tongues. And the supernaturalism which
here appears in glorified form was derived, Bousset concludes, from
the mystical pagan religion of the Hellenistic age.
This contention has already been discussed, and the weakness of it
has been pointed out. The Pauline doctrine of the Spirit was not
derived from contemporary paganism. But the exposition of Bousset's
theory has not yet been finished. The Spirit whose activities were
extended by Paul into the innermost recesses of the Christian's
life was identified, Bousset says, with "the Lord" (2 Cor. iii.
17). This identification exerted an important influence upon both
the elements that were brought together; it exerted an important
influence upon the conception both of "the Lord" and of "the
Spirit." If "the Lord" was identified, or brought into very close
relation, with the Spirit, and if the Spirit's activity extended
into the whole of life, then "the Lord" could no longer be for
Paul merely the cult-god who was present in the meetings of the
Church. On the contrary, He would have to be present everywhere
where the Spirit was present--that is, He would have to be that in
which the Christian lived and moved and had his being. Thus Paul
could form the astonishing phrase "in Christ" or "in the Lord,"
for which Bousset admits that no analogy is to be found in pagan
religion. On the other hand, the conception of the Spirit, Bousset
believes, was necessarily modified by its connection with "the
Lord." By the identification with an actual person who had lived
but a few years before, "the Spirit" was given a personal quality
which otherwise it did not possess. Or, to put the same thing in
other words, the Pauline phrase "in the Lord" is not exactly the
same in meaning as the phrase "in the Spirit"; for it possesses
a peculiar personal character. "This remarkable mingling of
abstraction and personality," says Bousset, "this connection of a
religious principle with a person who had walked here on the earth
and had here suffered death, is a phenomenon of peculiar power and
originality."
At this point, Bousset is in danger of being untrue to the
fundamental principles of his reconstruction; he is in danger of
bringing the religion of Paul into connection with the concrete
person of Jesus. But he detects the danger and avoids it. It must
not be supposed, he says, that Paul had any very clear impression
of the characteristics of the historical Jesus. For if he had had
such an impression, he never could have connected Jesus with an
abstraction like the Spirit. All that he was interested in, then,
was the fact that Jesus had lived and especially that He had died.
Yet these bare facts are thought to have been sufficient to impart
to Paul's notion of the Spirit-Lord that peculiar personal quality
which arouses the admiration of Bousset! The truth is, Bousset finds
himself at this point face to face with the difficulty which besets
every naturalistic explanation of the genesis of Paul's religion.
The trouble is that a close connection of Paul with the historical
Jesus is imperatively required by the historian in order to impart
to Paul's relation to Christ that warm, personal quality which
shines out from every page of the Epistles; whereas, on the other
hand, a wide separation of Paul from the historical Jesus is just
as imperatively required in order that Paul might not be hampered
by historical tradition in raising Jesus to divine dignity and in
bringing Him into connection with the Spirit of God.
Modern criticism has wavered between the two requirements; it
tries to preserve the rights of each. Bousset is more impressed by
the second requirement; Wernle, his opponent, is more impressed
by the former.[234] But both are equally wrong. There is really
only one way out of the difficulty. It is an old way and a radical
way. But the world of scholarship may come back to it in the end.
The fundamental difficulty in explaining the origin of Paulinism
will never disappear by being ignored; it will never yield to
compromises of any kind. It will disappear only when Jesus is
recognized as being really what Paul presupposes Him to be and what
all the Gospels represent Him as being--the eternal Son of God,
come to earth for the redemption of man, now seated once more on
the throne of His glory, and working in the hearts of His disciples
through His Spirit, as only God can work. Such a solution was never
so unpopular as it is to-day. Acceptance of it will involve a
Copernican revolution in many departments of human thought and life.
But refusal of such acceptance has left an historical problem which
so far has not been solved.
[234] Wernle, "Jesus and Paulus. Antithesen zu Boussets Kyrios
Christos," in _Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche_, xxv, 1915, pp.
1-92.
At one point, Bousset admits, the religion of Paul was based upon
an historical fact. It was based upon the death of Jesus. But the
Pauline interpretation of the death of Jesus was derived, Bousset
believes, in important particulars from contemporary pagan religion;
the Pauline notion of dying and rising with Christ was formed under
the influence of the widespread pagan conception of the dying and
rising god. This assertion has become quite common among recent
scholars; material in support of it has been collected in convenient
form by M. Brückner.[235] But as a matter of fact, the evidence in
support of the assertion is of the feeblest kind.
[235] _Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland_, 1908.
The review of Hellenistic religion which was attempted in Chapter
VI revealed, indeed, the fact that certain gods, especially Attis,
Adonis, and Osiris, were represented first as dying and then as
being resuscitated. The similarity of these figures to one another
may perhaps be explained by the hypothesis that all of them
were originally vegetation gods, whose death and resuscitation
represented the withering of vegetation in the autumn and its
renewal in the spring. At first sight, the parallel between these
gods and Jesus may seem striking. Jesus also was represented as
dying and as coming back to life again. But what is the significance
of the parallel? Can it mean that the entire New Testament story
of the death and resurrection of Jesus was derived from these
vegetation myths? Such has been the conclusion of certain modern
scholars. But of course this conclusion is absurd, and it is not
favored by Bousset. The essential historicity of the crucifixion
of Jesus under Pontius Pilate and of the rise of the belief in His
resurrection among His intimate friends stands too firm to be shaken
by any theory of dependence upon pagan myth. Thus the argument drawn
from the parallel between the New Testament story and the pagan myth
of the dying and rising god proves too much. If it proves anything,
it proves that the New Testament story of the resurrection was
derived from the pagan myth. But such a view has not been held by
any serious historians. Therefore it will have to be admitted that
the parallel between the belief that Adonis and Osiris and Attis
died and rose again, and the belief that Jesus died and rose again
was not produced by dependence of one story upon the other. It will
have to be recognized, therefore, that a parallel does not always
mean a relationship of dependence. And if it does not do so at one
point, perhaps it does not do so at others.
But Bousset will insist that although the New Testament story of the
death and resurrection of Jesus was not originally produced by the
pagan myth, yet the influence of the pagan conception made itself
felt in the interpretation which Paul placed upon the story. Paul
believed that the Christian shared the fate of Christ--died with
Christ and rose with Christ. But a similar conception appears in
the pagan religions. The classical expression of this idea appears
in the oft-quoted words reported by Firmicus Maternus, "Be of good
courage, ye initiates, since the god is saved; for to us there shall
be salvation out of troubles."
But it must be remembered that the testimony of Firmicus Maternus
is very late, and that the evidence for the prevalence of the
conception in the early period is somewhat scanty. The confident
assertions of recent writers with regard to these matters are
nothing short of astonishing. Lay readers are likely to receive the
impression that the investigator can reconstruct the conception of
a dying and rising god, and of the share which the worshipers have
in the death and resurrection, on the basis of some vast store of
information in the extant sources. As a matter of fact, nothing of
the sort is the case. The extant information about the conception in
question is scanty in the extreme, and for the most part dates from
long after the time of Paul.
It would be going too far, indeed, to assert that the conception of
the dying and rising god, with its religious significance, was not
in existence before the Pauline period. An ancient Egyptian text,
for example, has been quoted by Erman, which makes the welfare of
the worshiper depend upon that of Osiris: "Even as Osiris lives,
he also shall live."[236] Very likely some such conceptions were
connected also with the mourning and subsequent rejoicing for Attis
and Adonis. But if the conception was existent in the pre-Pauline
period, it by no means follows that it was common. Certainly its
prevalence has been enormously exaggerated in recent years. Against
such exaggerations, J. Weiss--who surely cannot be accused of
any lack of sympathy with the methods of comparative religion as
applied to the New Testament--has pertinently called attention to
1 Cor. i. 23. Christ crucified, Paul says, was "to the Gentiles
foolishness."[237] That does not look as though the Gentiles among
whom Paul labored were very familiar with the notion of a dying
god. If the contentions of Brückner were correct, if the conception
of the dying god were as common in Paul's day as Brückner supposes,
the Cross would not have been "to the Gentiles foolishness"; on
the contrary, it would have seemed to the Gentiles to be the most
natural thing in the world.
[236] Erman, "A Handbook of Egyptian Religion" (published in the
original German edition as a handbook, by the _Generalverwaltung_ of
the Berlin Imperial Museum), 1907, p. 95.
[237] J. Weiss, "Das Problem der Entstehung des Christentums," in
_Archiv für Religionswissenschaft_, xvi, 1913, p, 490.
But even if the early prevalence of the conception of a dying and
rising god, with its religious significance, were better established
than it is, the dependence of Paul upon that conception would by no
means be proved. For the Pauline conception is totally different.
One difference, of course, is perfectly obvious and is indeed
generally recognized--the Pauline Christ is represented as dying
voluntarily, and dying for the sake of men. He "loved me," says
Paul, "and gave himself for me." There is absolutely nothing like
that conception in the case of the pagan religions. Osiris, Adonis,
and Attis were overtaken by their fate; Jesus gave His life freely
away. The difference is stupendous; it involves the very heart
of the religion of Paul. How was the difference caused? Whence
was derived the Pauline conception of the grace of Christ? Was it
derived from Jesus Himself? Was it derived from the knowledge which
Paul had of the character of Jesus? The supposition might seem to be
natural. But unfortunately, from the point of view of Bousset, it
must be rejected. For if Paul had had any knowledge of Jesus' real
character, how could he ever have supposed that Jesus, a mere man,
was the heavenly Lord?
Another difference is even more fundamental. The death and
resurrection of the pagan gods was a matter of the cult; the death
and resurrection of the Pauline Christ was a fact of history. It has
been observed in the review of Hellenistic religion that the cults
in the pagan religions were much more firmly fixed than the myths;
in the opinion of modern scholars, the myths were derived from the
cults rather than vice versa. So in the case of the "dying and
rising gods," one is struck above all things with the totally fluid
character of the myths. The story of Attis, for example, is told
in many divergent forms, and there does not seem to have been the
slightest interest among the Attis worshipers for the establishment
of any authentic account of the death and resurrection of the god.
Particularly the "resurrection" of the god appears in the myths
of Attis, Adonis, and Osiris scarcely at all. The real death and
resurrection occurred only in the cult. Every year in March, the
Attis-worshipers at Rome first saw the god lying dead as he was
represented by the fir-tree, and then rejoiced in his resurrection.
The death and resurrection were hardly conceived of as events which
had happened once for all long ago. They were rather thought of as
happening at every celebration of the festival.
The Pauline treatment of the death and resurrection of Christ is
entirely different. By Bousset, indeed, the difference is partly
obscured; Bousset tries to show that the Pauline conception of the
dying and rising of the believer with Christ was derived from the
celebration of the sacraments. But there could be no more radical
error. What is plainest of all in the Epistles is the historical
character of the Pauline message. The religion of Paul was rooted
in an event, and the sacraments were one way of setting forth the
significance of the event. The event was the redemptive work of
Christ in His death and resurrection.
Here lies the profoundest of all differences between Paul and
contemporary religion. Paulinism was not a philosophy; it was not a
set of directions for escape from the misery of the world; it was
not an account of what had always been true. On the contrary, it
was an account of something that had happened. The thing that had
happened, moreover, was not hidden in the dim and distant past.
The account of it was not evolved as a justification for existing
religious forms. On the contrary, the death and resurrection of
Jesus, upon which Paul's gospel was based, had happened only a
few years before. And the facts could be established by adequate
testimony; the eyewitnesses could be questioned, and Paul appeals
to the eyewitnesses in detail. The single passage, 1 Cor. xv. 1-8,
is sufficient to place a stupendous gulf between the Pauline Christ
and the pagan saviour-gods. But the character of Paulinism does not
depend upon one passage. Everywhere in the Epistles Paul stakes
all his life upon the truth of what he says about the death and
resurrection of Jesus. The gospel which Paul preached was an account
of something that had happened. If the account was true, the origin
of Paulinism is explained; if it was not true, the Church is based
upon an inexplicable error.
This latter alternative has been examined in the preceding
discussion. If Jesus was not the divine Redeemer that Paul says
He was, how did the Pauline religion of redemption arise? Three
great hypotheses have been examined and have been found wanting.
Paulinism, it has been shown, was not based upon the Jesus of
modern naturalism; if Jesus was only what He is represented by
modern naturalistic historians as being, then what is really
distinctive of Paul was not derived from Jesus. The establishment
of that fact has been a notable achievement of Wrede and Bousset.
But if what is essential in Paulinism was not derived from Jesus,
whence was it derived? It was not derived, as Wrede believed,
from the pre-Christian apocalyptic notions of the Messiah; for
the apocalyptic Messiah was not an object of worship, and not a
living person to be loved. It was not derived from pagan religion,
in accordance with the brilliant hypothesis of Bousset; for pagan
influence is excluded by the self-testimony of Paul, and the pagan
parallels utterly break down. But even if the parallels were ten
times closer than they are, the heart of the problem would not even
have been touched. The heart of the problem is found in the Pauline
relation to Christ. That relation cannot be described by mere
enumeration of details; it cannot be reduced to lower terms; it is
an absolutely simple and indivisible thing. The relation of Paul to
Christ is a relation of love; and love exists only between persons.
It is not a group of ideas that is to be explained, if Paulinism is
to be accounted for, but the love of Paul for his Saviour. And that
love is rooted, not in what Christ had said, but in what Christ had
done. He "loved me and gave Himself for me." There lies the basis of
the religion of Paul; there lies the basis of all of Christianity.
That basis is confirmed by the account of Jesus which is given in
the Gospels, and given, indeed, in all the sources. It is opposed
only by modern reconstructions. And those reconstructions are all
breaking down. The religion of Paul was not founded upon a complex
of ideas derived from Judaism or from paganism. It was founded upon
the historical Jesus. But the historical Jesus upon whom it was
founded was not the Jesus of modern reconstruction, but the Jesus of
the whole New Testament and of Christian faith; not a teacher who
survived only in the memory of His disciples, but the Saviour who
after His redeeming work was done still lived and could still be
loved.
INDEX
I NAMES AND SUBJECTS
Acts, Book of, 32-40
should be allowed to help in interpreting the Pauline
Epistles, 125
Adonis, 314f.
religion of, 234f.
Adoptionist Christology, not found in Pauline Epistles, 118
Agabus, 33f., 78
Agræ, mysteries of, 217
Alexander the Great, 220
Alexandria, Church at, 16
Ananias (in Acts), 71
Ananias (in Josephus), 12
Andronicus and Junias, 140f.
Anrich, 212
Antioch, 29f., 77ff., 122ff;
Apostolic Decree addressed to, 94ff.;
Peter at, 97-106;
Church at, 16
Antioch, pre-Pauline Christianity of:
not channel by which pagan religion influenced Paul, 257ff.;
how investigated, 257-259;
not essentially different from that of Jerusalem, 259f.;
did it originate application of term "Lord" to Jesus, 299, 303-307
Apocalypses, Jewish, not used by Paul, 192f.
Apocrypha, Old Testament, 182f.
Apollo's, 109
Apostles, the original:
attitude toward Paul at the Apostolic Council, 86f.;
relation with Paul, 120-137;
observed Mosaic Law, 126-128;
were inwardly free from Law, 127f.;
agreed with Paul about the person of Christ, 135-137;
contact with Paul, 139
Apostolic Council, the, 39, 80-100
Apostolic Decree, the, 87-98, 110;
was accompanied by Judas and Silas, 140
Apostolic Fathers, the, 6
Apuleius, 222f., 233f., 241
Arabia, Paul's journey to, 71-74
Aretas, 74
"Asclepius," the, 242
Atargatis, 235
Athenodorus, 45
Athletic games, use of figures regarding the, by Paul, 260
Attis, 314-316;
religion of, 227-231;
mysteries of, 283
Baals, the Syrian, 235
Bacchanalian rites in Italy, 250
Bacon, B. W., 91, 139, 181, 197
Baldensperger, 178, 192, 204
Baptism, in pagan religion, 280f.
Baptism for the dead, 288
Barnabas, 16, 78ff., 83f., 99;
was carried away with Peter at Antioch, 102;
dispute with Paul, 105-107;
relations with Paul, 106f.;
was member of Jerusalem Church, 137f.;
contact with Paul, 137f.
Barnabas, Epistle of, 18
Baruch, Second Book of, 180, 191
Baur, F. C, 6, 31, 37, 85, 105, 107, 119ff., 124f., 128f.
Beecher, 182
Bengel, 103
Beyschlag, 60, 63, 65
Bible, introduction of the, into Indo-European civilization, 20
Blass, 90
Böhlig, 45, 141, 300
Bousset, W., 28-30, 47, 49, 52, 67, 72, 78, 156, 161, 172-199,
204-207, 244, 257-262, 267f., 270, 274, 278, 293-317
Brückner, 27, 185, 191, 194ff., 205f., 211, 234, 313, 315
Buddhism, early, 274
Burton, E. D., 267f., 271
Byblos, 231, 234f.
Charles, 180, 186, 188, 190
"Christ," the term, 297f.
Christianity, origin of:
importance of the question, 3f.;
two ways of investigating, 4f.;
testimony of Paul to, 4f.
Christianity, monotheism of, 306
"Christians," first application of the name, 78
Christology, the Pauline:
not derived from pre-Christian Jewish doctrine of the Messiah,
173-207;
not derived from pre-Christian Jewish doctrine of Wisdom, 199-204;
not derived from pagan religion, 293-317
Christ-party, the, at Corinth, 120
Circumcision, 17
Clemen, 262
Clement of Alexandria, 230, 281
Clement of Rome, 105
Colossæ, errorists in, 129f.
Colossians, Epistle to the, 31, 104
Corinthian Church, parties in the, 107-109
Corinthians, Epistles to the, 31
Cornelius, 16, 19, 83
Cross of Christ, the, 19, 63f.
Cult, Bousset's exaggeration of the importance of the, 303ff.
Cumont, 212, 227ff., 232, 236, 243f., 247, 281f.
Cybele, religion of, 8, 227-231
Cybele and Attis, mysteries of, 229-231
Cynics, the, 225
Dalman, 187
Damascus, 71ff., 76;
preaching of Paul at, 72f.;
escape of Paul from, 74
Damascus, pre-Pauline Christianity of:
how investigated, 257-259;
not channel by which pagan religion influenced Paul, 257ff.;
not essentially different from that of Jerusalem, 259f.;
did it originate application of the term "Lord" to Jesus, 299
Date, question of, with reference to pagan ideas and practices,
237-41
Death of Christ, the, was voluntary, 315
Death and resurrection of Jesus:
historicity of, 312f.;
not derived from the cult, 315f.
Death and resurrection of pagan gods, the myths concerning, thought
to have been derived from the cults, 315f.
Deification: in pagan religion, 245, 263;
not found in Paul, 263-265
Demeter, 217f.
Denney, James, 155, 304
Dieterich, 246f., 251
Dionysus, 215f.;
religion of, 282f.
Dispersion, Judaism of the:
was it "liberal," 175-177;
did not produce Gentile mission of Paul, 175ff.
Drews, 294
Dualism of Hellenistic age, different from Paulinism, 276
Dying and rising god, the, 211, 234f., 237, 312-316
Ebionites, the, 125f.
Ecclesiasticus, 200
Eleusis, mysteries of, 217-219, 281
Emmet, 81, 176, 180
Emperors, worship of the, 221
Enoch, First Book of, 181, 184, 186-189, 193, 198f., 203
Epicureans, the, 225
Ephesians, Epistle to the, 31, 104
Erman, 314
Eschatology, consistent, 156f.
Essenes, 177
Ethics, same teaching about, in Jesus and in Paul, 164f.
Eusebius, 139
Ezra, Fourth Book of, 176, 180, 187, 189f., 196
Faith in Jesus, did not originate at Antioch, 303ff.
"Famine visit," historicity of the, 84-86
Farnell, 212, 217
Fatherhood of God, same teaching about, in Jesus and in Paul,
161-164
Firmicus Maternus, 229, 237, 241, 251, 281, 314
"Flesh," Pauline use of the term: without parallel in pagan usage,
275f.;
based on Old Testament, 276
Future life, interest in the, stimulated by worship of Dionysus and
by Orphism, 216f.
Galatians, Epistle to the:
genuineness, 31;
addressees, 81;
date, 81ff.;
must be interpreted in the light of I Cor. xv. 1-11, 144f.
Gamaliel, 47, 52
Gautama, 274
Gentile Christianity:
in what sense founded by Paul, 7-21;
in what sense founded by Jesus, 13-15;
part in the founding of, taken by missionaries other than Paul,
15f.
Gentiles, reception of, according to the Old Testament, 17
Gischala, 44
Gnosis, 262-265:
idea of, in Paul, 263-265;
not a technical term in Paul, 263
Gnosticism, 247-251, 268f.:
pagan basis of, 247;
can it be used as a witness to pre-Christian paganism, 247-250;
Christian elements in, 249f.;
use in, of terms "Spirit" and "spiritual" due to dependence on
the New Testament, 268f.
"God," the term, 306f.
Golden Rule, negative form of the, 88f.
Gospel, the Pauline, was a matter of history, 264f.
Gospels, the:
contain an account of Jesus like that presupposed in the Pauline
Epistles, 153f.;
were they influenced by Paul, 154f., 159
Grace, doctrine of, both in Jesus and in Paul, 164
Grace of God according to Paul, 279
Greece, religion of:
influenced Rome, 212f.;
moral defects of, 214;
was anthropomorphic polytheism, 214f.;
was connected with the state, 214f.;
mystical elements in, 215ff.;
was undermined by philosophy, by the fall of the city-state, and
by the influence of the eastern religions, 219f.
Greek language:
in Palestine, 53, 302;
Paul's use of, 44, 46, 53
Gressmann, 181
Hadad, 235
Harnack, A. von, 6f., 26, 33-36, 98, 119, 263, 273
"Hebrew," meaning of the word, 46
Heinrici, 265
Heitmüller, 47, 49, 52, 76-78, 157, 243f., 257-261, 265, 282f.
Helbig, 46
"Hellenist," meaning of the word, 46
Hellenistic age, the:
cosmopolitanism in, 220;
individualism in, 221;
religious propaganda in, 221f.;
syncretism in, 222f.;
longing for redemption in, 223f.
Hellenists, the, 302
Hepding, 227-231, 283
Hermas, Shepherd of, 242
Hermes Trismegistus, 242-245, 248f., 261f., 265-267, 285:
was it influenced by Christianity, 242f., 247f.;
importance of, 243f.;
places soul higher than spirit, 248f.;
terminology different from Paul's, 265-270
Hermetic Corpus, 242-245, 277
Herod Agrippa I, death of, 79
Hilgenfeld, 90
Hippolytus, 218, 249f.
Holstein, 63-65, 76
Holtzmann, H. J., 22
Homer, 213f.
"Illumination," the term, 273
Initiated, to be, use of the verb by Paul, 271f.
Irenæus, 89
Isis, religion of, 8f.
Isis, mysteries of, 232ff.,
had sacramental washings according to Tertullian, 281
Isis and Osiris, religion of, 231-234
Izates of Adiabene, 12
James, 94, 98:
contact of with Paul, 75, 109-113, 137;
men who came from, 101;
attitude of, toward Paul, 111f.;
attitude of Paul toward, 120ff.;
called "the brother of the Lord," 299f.
Jerome, 44
Jerusalem Church, the, 293-303:
attitude of, toward the Law, 19;
relief of the poor of, 99f., 104, 112f.;
new principle of the life of, 127;
community of goods in, 138;
contact of, with Paul, 139;
treasured tradition about Jesus, 139;
direct influence of, upon Paul, 258f.;
use of the term "Lord" by, 294-303
Jesus Christ:
historicity of, 5;
in what sense founder of the Gentile mission, 13-15;
Pauline conception of, 22;
deification of, according to modern liberalism, 22-24;
Messiahship of, according to the liberal hypothesis, 25;
consciousness of sonship, according to the liberal hypothesis, 25;
importance of, in the liberal explanation of the origin of
Paulinism, 25;
Messiahship of, according to Bousset, 29;
Lordship of, according to Bousset, 29f.;
divinity of, disputed by no one in the Apostolic Age, 129-137;
knowledge of, according to Paul, 142-144;
words of, in Pauline Epistles, 147-149;
details of the life of, known to Paul, 149f.;
character of, appreciated by Paul, 150f.;
comparison of, with Paul, 153-169;
presented Himself as Messiah, 155-158;
personal affinity of, with Paul, 165;
regarded by Paul as a Redeemer, not as a mere teacher, 167-169
Jesus Christ, the liberal account of:
attested by none of the sources, 155;
involves psychological contradiction, 155-158;
cannot explain the origin of the belief in the divine Redeemer,
158f.
John, 98, went to Ephesus, 128
Jones, Maurice, 81
Josephus, 79, 177, 183
Judæa, Churches of, 50-52, 75f.
Judaism:
missionary activity of, 9-11;
prepared for Pauline mission, 10f.;
did not produce Christian universalism, 11-13;
had no doctrine of the vicarious death of the Messiah, 65, 196ff.;
divisions within, 175-177;
did not serve as medium for pagan influence upon Paul, 255f.
Judaism, rabbinical, 176
Judas, 140
Judaizers, the, 19, 86, 98, 121, 125f., 128, 131, 135, 278:
activity of, subsided during the third missionary journey, 104,
107;
did not dispute Paul's doctrine of the person of Christ, 129-137
Judgment, teaching about, both in Jesus and in Paul, 164
Justification, Pauline idea of:
can find no analogy in Hermes Trismegistus, 277;
importance of, in Paul's thinking, 277-279;
not produced merely as weapon against the Judaizers, 278f.;
intimately connected with the doctrine of the new creation, 279
Justin Martyr, 185, 196, 236, 273, 281
Juvenal, 227
Kabeiri, the, 219
Kennedy, H. A. A., 118, 233, 262, 281
Kingdom of God, same teaching about, in Jesus and in Paul, 160f.
Knowling, 104, 109, 147, 299
Koiné, the, 220
Krenkel, 44f., 59
Kroll, J., 242, 244, 249, 269
Kroll, W., 242, 245
Kykeon, the, 218, 281
Laborers in the vineyard, parable of the, 164
Lake, Kirsopp, 12f., 81f., 89, 98
Lake and Jackson, 186
Law, the ceremonial, attitude of Jesus toward, 14f.
Law, the Mosaic:
function of, according to Paul, 18;
attitude of the early Jerusalem Church toward, 19;
observance of, by Jewish Christians, 92f., 101f.;
Jewish Christians zealous for, 110;
added to, by the Jews, 178;
Paul's early zeal for, 256
Legalism, Jewish, 178-181
Lexical method of determining questions of dependence, 262
Liberalism, was not the method of Paul in founding Gentile
Christianity, 17
Liberal Judaism, was not the atmosphere of Paul's boyhood home, 47,
256
Lietzmann, 127
Lightfoot, J. B., 47, 119
Lipsius, 72
Livy, 250
Loisy, 47, 76, 229, 262
Lord, the, connected by Paul with the Spirit, 311ff.
"Lord," the term:
applied by Paul to the Jesus who was on earth, 117f.;
use of, in primitive Jerusalem Church, 294-303;
occurrence of, in the Gospels, 295-298;
the Aramaic basis of, 301;
received Greek form in Jerusalem, 301f.;
not for the first time applied to Jesus at Antioch, 303ff.;
use of, in pagan religion, 305f.;
use of, in the Septuagint, 307f.
Lord's Supper, the:
account of institution of, 148f., 151f.;
was thought by Justin Martyr to be imitated in religion of
Mithras, 236;
comparison of, with pagan rites, 281-283;
not dependent upon pagan notion of eating the god, 282f.
Lucian, 225, 234f., 241
Luke, 36f.
Lycaonia, Apostolic Decree extended into, 94
Maccabees, Fourth Book of, 196
Magic: affinity of, for the mysteries, 246;
difference of, from religion, 246
Magical papyri, the, 246f.
"Mar," the term, 300f.
Maranatha, 300f.
Marcion, 18
Marcus Aurelius, 226
Mark, John, 105, 106, 107;
relations of, with Paul and with Peter, 138f.
Marriage, the sacred, 230
"Master," the term, applied to Jesus, 308
Mead, 244
Meals, sacred, in the mystery religions, 281-283
Menander, 271
Ménard, 244
Messiah, the:
doctrines of, in Old Testament, 181f.;
doctrine of, in Judaism, 182ff.;
Old Testament basis for later doctrine of, 191;
pre-Christian doctrine of, exalted by identification with
Jesus, 204
Messiah, the apocalyptic:
was different from the Pauline Christ, 194-199;
had no part in creation, 194;
had no intimate relation to the believer, 194-197;
was not divine, 197-199;
what could have led to his identification with Jesus, 205f.
"Mind," the term, in Hermes Trismegistus, 267f., not produced by
philosophical modification of the term "Spirit"
Mind, not the same thing as Spirit in I Cor. ii. 15, 16, 269
Miracles:
objection drawn from accounts of, against Lucan authorship of
Acts, 33-37;
cannot be separated from the Gospel account of Jesus, 154f.
Mithras, mysteries of, 236, 256:
had sacramental washings according to Tertullian, 281;
bread and cup in, 281f.
Mithras, religion of, 8f., 235-237
Mithras-liturgy, the so-called, 247, 251, 267
Mnason, 112
Mommsen, 46f.
Montefiore, 176f.
Morgan, W., 118, 164
Moulton and Milligan, 281
Murray, Gilbert, 223
"Mystery," the term, in Paul, 272f.
Mystery religions, the, 227ff.:
did not produce Gentile Christianity, 8f.;
were tolerant of other faiths, 9;
information about, in a Naassene writing, 249f.;
technical vocabulary of, 262ff.;
idea of gnosis in, 262-265;
not the source of Paul's doctrine of the Spirit, 270;
probably had not dominated many converts of Paul, 273;
produced no strong consciousness of sin, 276;
did not produce the Pauline teaching about the sacraments, 279-290
Mysticism, pagan, 239ff.
Naassenes, sect of the, 249f.
Neutral text, the, 87ff.
Oepke, 264f., 273
Old Catholic Church, 6, 119f.:
founded on unity between Peter and Paul, 104f.
Olschewski, 194
Oracula Chaldaica, the, 245f.
Orphism, 216f.
Osiris, 229, 231ff., 314f.
Pagan religion:
through what channels could it have influenced Paul, 255-261;
did it influence Paul directly, 260f.
Papias, 139
Parthey, 244.
Particularism, in the Old Testament, 17
Pastoral Epistles, the, 31f.
Paul:
testimony of, as to origin of Christianity, 4f.;
influence of, 6-21;
geographical extent of the labors of, 16f.;
importance of the theology of, in foundation of Gentile mission,
17-20;
in what ways a witness about the origin of Christianity, 21;
the genius of, not incompatible with the truth of his witnessing,
21;
monotheism of, 23;
sources of information about, 31-40;
birth of, at Tarsus, 43f.;
Roman citizenship of, 45f.;
Pharisaism of, 46f.;
was not a liberal Jew, 47, 175ff.;
was in Jerusalem before conversion, 47-53;
rabbinical training of, 52f.;
did he see Jesus before the conversion, 54-57;
knew about Jesus before the conversion, 57f., 66f.;
conversion of, 58-68, 145-147, 205, 305;
malady of, 58f.;
did he have the consciousness of sin before his conversion, 64-66;
the conversion of, involved meeting with a person, 67f.;
baptism of, 71;
at Damascus, 71ff.;
went to Arabia, 71-74;
escaped from Damascus, 74;
rebuked Peter, 97, 102;
division of labor with Peter, 99f.;
first visit of, to Jerusalem, 74-77;
in Syria and Cilicia, 77;
at Antioch, 78;
famine visit of, to Jerusalem, 78ff.;
agreed with Peter in principle, 102, 123f.;
relations of, with Peter, 102-105, 137;
dispute of, with Barnabas, 105-107;
relations of, with Barnabas, 106f., 137f.;
relations of, with James, 109-113;
participation of, in a Jewish vow, 110f.;
has been regarded by the Church as a disciple of Jesus, 117;
regarded himself as a disciple of Jesus, 117f.;
was regarded as a disciple of Jesus by Jesus' friends, 118-137;
attitude of, toward Peter, 120ff.;
attitude of, toward James, 120ff.;
rebuked Peter, 122-124;
had abundant sources of information about Jesus, 137-142;
relations of, with Mark, 138f.;
contact of, with the original apostles and with the Jerusalem
Church, 139;
contact of, with Silas, 140;
the gospel of, in what sense did he receive it directly from
Christ, 145-147;
meaning of the conversion of, for him, 145-147;
shows knowledge of words of Jesus, 147-149;
shows knowledge of details of Jesus' life, 149f.;
shows appreciation of Jesus' character, 150f.;
knew more about Jesus than he has told in the Epistles, 151-153;
comparison of, with Jesus, 153-169;
personal affinity of, with Jesus, 165;
was not a disciple of "the liberal Jesus," 166-169;
his pre-conversion belief about the Messiah, 192-194;
was not dependent upon the Jewish apocalypses, 192f.;
personal relation of, to Christ, was not derived from mere
reflection on the death of the Messiah, 194-197;
similarity of, to Jesus, not explained by common dependence on
Judaism, 206;
the gospel of, was a matter of history, 264f.;
how far did he use a terminology derived from the mysteries,
271-273
Pauline Epistles, the genuineness of, 31f.
Paulinism:
required exclusive devotion, 9;
was a religion of redemption, 22, 167-169;
doctrine of the person of Christ in, was not disputed even by
Judaizers, 129-137;
was supernaturalistic, 288f.;
was not external, 289f.;
was individualistic, 309ff.;
was not developed from the cult, 309ff.;
was personal, 311f., 317;
was historical, 316
Paulinism, the origin of:
four ways of explaining, 24ff.;
supernaturalistic explanation of, 24;
liberal explanation of, 24-26;
radical explanations of, 26ff.;
found in pre-Christian Judaism by Wrede and Brückner, 27f.;
found in paganism by Bousset, 30;
not really explained by development from the liberal Jesus,
117-169;
not really explained by Judaism, 173-207;
not really explained by paganism, 211-317
Persephone, 218
Personality, idea of, 202f.
Peter:
received Cornelius, 16;
with Paul in Jerusalem, 75-77;
at Antioch, 97-106;
rebuked by Paul, 97, 102, 122-124;
division of labor with Paul, 99f.;
relations of, with Paul, 102-105;
attitude of Paul toward, 120ff.;
agreed with Paul in principle, 123f.;
not in harmony with Ebionism, 125f.;
went to Rome, 127f.;
contact with Paul, 137;
relations of, with Mark, 139
Pharisaism, not influenced by pagan religion, 255f.
Pharisees, the, 177
Philemon, Epistle to, 31
Philippians, Epistle to the, 31, 104
Philo, 183, 250f.:
use of term "Spirit" by, due to Old Testament, 268
Philosophy:
undermined the religion of Greece, 219;
practical interest of, in the Hellenistic age, 224ff.
Plato, 224f., 275
Plooij, 81
Plutarch, 231, 236
Poimandres, the, 242-245
Posidonius, 225, 250
Princeton Biblical Studies, 7, 17, 37, 117
_Princeton Theological Review_, 37, 78, 155
Psalms of Solomon, 190, 193
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 182
Ptolemy 1, 231
Pythagoreanism, 217
Ramsay, 45, 56, 81
Rationalizing, revived by Torrey and others, 34
Redemption:
Paulinism a religion of, 22, 167-169;
was desired in the Hellenistic age, 223f.;
value of, 224;
in pagan religion and in Paul, 255-279;
idea of, in Hellenistic age, 274ff.;
idea of, not an abnormal thing, 275;
Pauline conception of, was not derived from pagan cults, 274ff.;
Pauline idea of, involves salvation from sin, 276f.
Regeneration:
in pagan religion, 230, 233, 240f., 244f.;
associated, in Paul, with justification, 279
Reitzenstein, R., 242-244, 246, 248ff., 274, 277, 262-280
Religion and theology:
union of, according to Wrede, 27;
separation of, according to the liberal hypothesis, 25f.;
not to be separated in Paul, 166ff.
Revelation, Book of, 120
Ritschl, A., 6, 38f., 119f., 125
Ritschlian theology, the, 23
Rohde, 212, 223
Romans, Epistle to the:
genuineness of, 31;
date of, 81f.;
can it be used in the reconstruction of the pre-Pauline
Christianity of Damascus and Antioch, 259
Rome, Church at, 16
Rome, the native religion of, 212f.
Sabazius, 215
Sacraments, the Pauline:
were not derived from the mystery religions, 279-290;
did not convey blessing _ex opere operato_, 283-288;
were outward signs of an inner experience, 286f.
Sadducees, the, 177
Samothrace, the mysteries of, 219
Schürer, 23, 65, 79, 156, 180, 183, 186, 190, 196
Seneca, 226
Septuagint, importance of the, 307f.
Serapis, religion of, 232ff.
Servant coming in from the field, parable of the, 164
Sethe, 281
Showerman, 227, 231
Sieffert, 72
Silas, 16:
contact of, with Paul, 140;
was member of the Jerusalem Church, 140
Sin, consciousness of: in Judaism, 178-181;
in Paul, 276f.
Smith, W. B., 294
Solomon, Psalms of, 184
Son of Man, the:
in I Enoch, 181, 186ff.;
origin and meaning of the title, 187ff.;
idea of, dominated the early Jerusalem Church, according to
Bousset, 293f., 298
Soul:
placed higher than spirit in Hermes Trismegistus and lower than
Spirit in Paul, 248f., 267f.;
conception of the, in Paul, 266ff.
Spirit:
placed lower than soul in Hermes Trismegistus and (when the word
designates the Spirit of God) higher than soul in Paul,
248f., 267f.;
no evidence of popular pagan use of the term analogous to Pauline
usage, 267-270;
Greek materialistic use of the term, 267;
use of the term in Philo shows influence of the Old Testament, 268;
use of the term in Gnosticism due to dependence on New Testament,
268f.;
use of the term in Menander, 270
Spirit, Pauline conception of the, 265-271:
different from that in mystery religions, 265, 270;
does not make the divine Spirit take the place of the human soul,
266;
has roots in the Old Testament, 270f.;
brings enrichment of Old Testament teaching, 270;
not derived from paganism, 310;
Bousset's view of, 310ff.
"Spiritual man:"
contrast with "psychic man," 265-270;
the term not in accord with the terminology of Hermes
Trismegistus, 266ff.
Stephen, 16, 19, 66
Stobæus, 242
Stoics, the:
humanitarian achievements of, 225f.;
humanitarian ideal of, differed from Christian ideal, 225f.
Strauss, 34
Supernaturalism in Paul's religion, 288f.
Syncretism, 222f., 237ff., 262
Syria:
religion of, 77;
use of the term "Lord" in, 300
Syria and Cilicia, 77:
the Apostolic Decree addressed to, 94ff.
Tammuz, 234
Tarsus, 43f., 77:
did not bring pagan influences effectively to bear upon Paul,
256f.;
Christianity of, did it originate application of the term "Lord"
to Jesus, 299
Taurobolium, 230f., 240f., 251
"Teleios," the term, in Paul, 272f.
Terminology, not necessarily important as establishing dependence in
ideas, 272
Terminology of the mysteries, the technical, does not appear in the
New Testament, 273
Tertullian, 281
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 190
Thessalonians, Epistles to the, 31, 82
Thrace, religion of, 215f.
Titus, 83
Torrey, C. C., 34
Townshend, 196
Tradition, Paul not indifferent toward, 142-153
Trypho, Dialogue with, 185, 196
Tübingen School, the, 31, 37, 99, 108f., 110
Vegetation gods, 235
Vespasian, 183
Volz, 190
Vos, Geerhardus, 266, 295
Warfield, B. B., 198, 306
Weber, 81
Weiss, B., 72
Weiss, J., 40, 56, 85, 107, 125, 152, 154, 156, 314
Wellhausen, 52, 138
Wendland, 212
Wendt, 94f.
Wernle, 312
Westcott and Hort, 89
Western text, the, 88ff.
Wicked husbandmen, parable of, 15
Windisch, H., 199-204, 243
Wisdom, in Pauline Epistles, not identified with Christ, 203f.
Wisdom, in pre-Christian Judaism:
will not account for the Pauline Christology, 199-204;
is active in creation, 200;
enters into the wise men, 200;
is not expected to appear at a definite time, 200f.;
is not identified with the Messiah, 201-204;
is not fully personal, 202f.
Wisdom of Solomon, 200
Witkowski, 280
Wrede, W., 26-28, 67, 156, 166, 172-199, 204-207, 278, 317
Zahn, Th., 44, 53, 72, 90, 119, 302
Zeller, E., 37
Zielinski, 242
II BIBLICAL PASSAGES
OLD TESTAMENT
Psalms--
li. 11, 270f.
cx. 1, 296
cx. 3 (lxx), 201
Proverbs--
viii, 199f.
Isaiah--
ix, 191
xi, 191
liii, 63, 65, 181
lxv. 17, 191
Ezekiel--
viii. 14, 234
Daniel--
vii. 13, 188, 191
vii. 18, 191
Micah--
v. 2 (lxx), 201
NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew--
v. 45, 162
vii. 21, 296
xxi. 41, 15
xxviii. 19, 20, 14
Mark--
iii. 7, 8, 51
vii. 15, 15
x. 45, 154, 159
xi. 3, 297
xii. 35-37, 296
Luke--
iii. 15, 184
vi. 35, 162
vi. 46, 296
John--
i. 19-27, 184
vi, 282
Acts--
ii. 36, 295
iv. 36, 37, 137f.
vi. 1, 46, 302
vii. 56, 298
vii. 58-viii. 1, 47
ix. 1, 47
ix. 10-19, 71
ix. 19, 72
ix. 22, 72
ix. 23, 72
ix. 26-30, 73, 74-76
ix. 27, 75
ix. 28, 51
x. 41, 35
xi. 19-30, 79
xi. 26, 78
xi. 30, 78ff.
xii, 78
xii. 1-17, 138
xii. 25, 78ff.
xiii-xiv, 97
xv, 39, 140
xv. 1-29, 80-100, 139
xv. 19, 20, 87
xv. 21, 92
xv. 23, 94
xv. 27, 140
xv. 28, 29, 87-98
xvi. 4, 94
xxi. 17, 109, 112
xxi. 20-26, 11Of.
xxi. 20-22, 113
xxi. 20, 110
xxi. 25, 87, 91
xxi. 26, 110
xxii. 3, 47
xxii. 12-16, 71
xxii. 17-21, 49, 74
xxiii. 6, 46f.
xxiii. 16-22, 49
xxiv. 17, 112
xxvi. 14, 60-62
Romans--
i. 7, 82
vi, 284, 286f.
vi. 4, 286
vi. 7, 277
vii, 63ff.
vi. 7-25, 65f.
viii. 16, 266
viii. 30, 277
ix. 5, 198
xiv, 93
xiv. 17, 161
xv. 2, 3, 150
xv. 8, 149
xv. 31, 112f.
xvi, 141
xvi. 7, 140f.
1 Corinthians--
i-iv, 108
i. 12, 107f., 109, 120
i. 17, 285
i. 23, 314f.
i. 24, 203
i. 30, 203
ii. 6, 7, 272f.
ii. 8, 117f.
ii. 14, 15, 265-267
ii. 15, 16, 269
iii. 21, 22, 109
iii. 22, 104
vi. 9, 160
vii. 10, 147
vii. 12, 147
vii. 25, 147
viii, 93
viii. 5, 6, 305f.
viii. 6, 194
ix. 5, 104
ix. 6, 106
ix. 14, 147
ix. 19-22, 92f., 110
ix. 20, 111
ix. 22, 260
x. 16, 282
x. 20, 283
x. 21, 282f.
x. 32-xi. 1, 151
xi. 1, 150
xi. 23ff., 148f., 151f.
xi. 23, 149
xi. 30, 288
xii. 8, 263
xiii, 66
xiv. 37, 147
xv. 1-11, 104, 124f., 144f.
xv. 1-8, 316
xv. 1-7, 258f.
xv. 3-8, 35
xv. 3-7, 76
xv. 3, 144f., 149
xv. 4, 149
xv. 5, 77, 104
xv. 11, 77, 104, 109
xv. 29, 288
xv. 50, 161
xvi. 22, 300f.
2 Corinthians--
iii. 1, 108
iii. 17, 311
v. 16, 54-56, 130f., 142-144
viii. 9, 150
x-xiii, 107, 109, 131f.
x. 1, 150
xi. 4-6, 131-135
xi. 5, 108f., 133
xi. 13, 109
xi. 19, 20, 134
xi. 22, 46
xi. 25, 45
xii. 1-8, 59f.
xii. 2-4, 264
xii. 11, 108f.
Galatians--
i-ii, 144-147
i. 1, 199
i. 14, 47
i. 16, 17, 74
i. 16, 71
i. 17, 50
i. 18, 19, 74-76, 84, 300
i. 18, 79
i. 19, 75, 299f.
i. 22, 50-52, 75
i. 23, 52
ii. 1-10, 78-100, 104, 121f., 139
ii. 1, 84, 137
ii. 2, 120ff.
ii. 6, 87, 95, 120ff.
ii. 9, 100, 104, 120ff.
ii. 10, 99f.
ii. 11-21, 87, 93, 100-106, 122-124
ii. 11-13, 97
ii. 14-21, 123f.
ii. 19, 103
ii. 20, 150
ii. 21, 279
iii. 1, 149f.
iii. 2, 287
iii. 5, 271f.
iii. 27, 287
iv. 14, 59f.
v. 19-21, 160
vi. 3, 121
Philippians--
ii. 5ff., 150
ii. 10, 11, 118
iii. 2ff., 104
iii. 5, 46, 47
iv. 12, 271f.
Colossians--
i. 16, 194
ii. 12, 284
iv. 10, 11, 107
iv. 10, 105f., 138
1 Thessalonians--
i. 6, 151
iv. 15, 147f.
1 Timothy--
i. 13, 61
2 Timothy--
iv. 11, 106
Philemon--
24, 105, 107, 138
1 Peter--
v. 13, 105, 139
* * * * *
Transcriber's note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Small capital text has been replaced with all capitals.
Variations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been
retained except in obvious cases of typographical error.
The cover for the eBook version of this book was created by the
transcriber and is placed in the public domain.
Page 24: "customary and then use it in distinction"-- The
transcriber has replaced "than" with "then".
Page 307: In footnote 233 the transcriber has replaced the scrambled
Greek letters "otêsdesp" with "despotês".
End of Project Gutenberg's The Origin of Paul's Religion, by J. Gresham Machen