From The Gospel To The Gospels History Theology and Impact of The Biblical Term Euangelion 2013 PDF

Petr Pokorný
From the Gospel to the Gospels

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
und die Kunde der älteren Kirche
Herausgegeben von
James D. G. Dunn · Carl R. Holladay
Hermann Lichtenberger · Jens Schröter
Gregory E. Sterling · Michael Wolter
Band 195
De Gruyter
Petr Pokorný
From the Gospel to the Gospels

History, Theology and Impact
of the Biblical Term euangelion
De Gruyter
ISBN 978-3-11-030054-3
e-ISBN 978-3-11-030060-4
ISSN 0171-6441
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the DeutscheNationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
쑔 2013 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
⬁ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Preface
This book has its origins in my many years of research into the Gospel of
Mark and my lectures at Charles University in Prague, and in its present
form it was included by the Centre of Biblical Studies of the Academy
of Sciences and Charles University in Prague in the extensive Research
Project “Narrative Gospels. Reasons for their Genesis, Function, Impact
on the Shaping of Christian Culture” of the Grant Agency of the Acad-
emy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (Identification code IAA
901830902).
I am indebted to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in Bonn
(Germany) for their support for my research stay in the “Forschungszen-
trum für internationale und interdisziplinäre Theologie” in Heidelberg
in autumn 2010, and to my colleagues in Heidelberg, especially to Prof.
Gerd Theissen, for inspiring discussions on the theme.
My special thank go to the correctors of my English – Daniela Bís-
ková and Peter Stephens from Prague, and James E. Walters from
Princeton, for transforming the manuscript into a readable scholarly
text.
Last but not least I owe special thanks to the de Gruyter publishers
for accepting this monograph and preparing it for print, and to Katarzy-
na Tempczyk and Matyáš Havrda from “Versita” who acted as interme-
diaries between the publishers and myself.
The Author
Contents
1. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 The polysemy of the term “euangelion” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 The link between the oral and the literary gospel . . . . . . 3
2. The Pre-Pauline Easter Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1 The Three Formulae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1 Salvation from the “wrath of God” . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2 Death and resurrection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.3 Jesus Christ the Lord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.4 A survey of the formulae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 The Gospel and Myth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.1 Apocalyptic myth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.2 Interpreting myth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3 The Gospel and Christian Liturgy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.1 The death and resurrection of Jesus and baptism . . 19
2.3.2 Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ as a new
phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4 The Resurrection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4.1 Terminology and theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4.2 Resurrection and the Last Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.4.3 Apocalyptic vision as a world concept . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4.4 Theological function of the apocalyptic imagery:
Interpreting the resurrection I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4.5 Shortcomings of the apocalyptic paradigm . . . . . . . 28
2.4.6 The Christian transformation of apocalyptic imagery 30
2.4.7 A miracle? Interpreting the resurrection II . . . . . . . 32
2.4.8 Resurrection and testimony: Interpreting the
resurrection III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.4.9 Revelation: Interpreting the resurrection IV . . . . . 39
2.5 Euangelion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.5.1 Lexical problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.5.2 The noun “euangelion” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.5.3 Sequence in history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.5.4 The “doubled” eschatology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
VIII Contents
3. The Gospel of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3.1 Jesus proclaimed the gospel – an early tradition . . . . . . . . 51
3.2 The prophecy in Isa 61:1 ff. and the self-understanding of
Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4. The Pauline Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.1 EUANGELION in Pauline Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.1.1 Paul as seen by liberal researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.1.2 Paul as servant of the gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.1.3 The incarnation and death of Jesus as the basis of
human hope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.2 Paul and the Jesus Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.2.1 Was Paul reluctant to quote the words of Jesus? . . 60
4.2.2 The reasons for Paul’s reluctance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.2.3 The religious situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.2.4 The problem of Christian prophecy . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.2.5 The absence of narratives about Jesus in Paul . . . . 70
4.2.6 An inner analogy between Paul and the narratives
about Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.3 Social Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.4 “Good news” in Deutero-Pauline Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.4.1 The prospect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5. The Survival of the Jesus Traditions before Mark . . . . . . . . . . 81

5.0 The general character of the Jesus traditions . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.1 Reconstruction in retrospect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.1.1 Jesus traditions that survived in the liturgy . . . . . . . 83
5.1.2 Transformations of the Jesus tradition before Mark 88
5.2 Fragmentary Testimonies of Jesus Traditions outside of
Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.2.1 The Synoptic tradition in the Apostolic Fathers and
in the Gospel of Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.2.2 Only a few traces of the narratives of Jesus in the
Apostolic Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.2.3 The Passion Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.2.4 Mark and source Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.2.5 Special Sources of Luke and Matthew . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.2.6 The written texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Contents IX
6. The Gospel in the Gospel according to Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

6.1 A New Literary (Sub)Genre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.1.1 Biography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6.1.2 Material and structuring: Editor or author? . . . . . . 112
6.1.3 The literary structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.1.4 The problem of the ending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.2 The Gospel (euangelion) as the Overarching Concept
which Structures the Gospel of Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.2.1 Pauline influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.2.2 The beginning and the ending of the Gospel . . . . 121
6.3 Christological Titles and the Messianic Secret . . . . . . . . . 129
6.3.1 The Son of God and other titles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.3.2 The Messianic Secret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
6.3.3 Life of the messianic people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6.4 Jesus as Determining Element of the Christian
Proclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.4.1 Believe in the gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.4.2 Turning back to the time of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.5 Interpreting the Normative Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
6.5.1 The “Good News” of the Passion Story . . . . . . . . 148
6.5.2 “Earthing” the sacraments in Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
6.5.3 By-products of the Markan concept of the Gospel 159
7. The other canonical Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

7.1 The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles . . . . . . 164
7.2 The Gospel of Matthew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
7.3 The Gospel of John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8. Early Christian Literature and Canonization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

8.1 The Gospel as a book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
8.2 The use of the term “euangelion” in the Apostolic Fathers 178
8.3 Early evidence for texts about Jesus in canonised additions
in the Gospels of John and Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.4 Written Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
8.5 The titles of the Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
8.6 Non-canonical Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
9.1 The gospel in Jesus and Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
9.2 Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
X Contents
9.3 Other canonical Gospels and the beginnings of the

Christian canon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Sources in Critical Editions (chronological sequence) . . . . . . . . . . 199

Secondary Literature (alphabetical sequence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Index of References to the Bible and other Ancient Writings . . . 226
1. The Problem
1.1 The polysemy of the term “euangelion”
The Greek term euangelion (English: Gospel; German: Evangelium;
French: Évangile) has been the key word of the Christian proclamation
and teaching from the very beginning till today. It can be translated as
“good news”. However, this would be simplifying the term, because dur-
ing its semantic development the term euangelion has become a technical
term that includes a spectrum of specific meanings that are closely linked
with the Christian tradition. Without interpretation it is not possible to un-
derstand the full meaning of the term. In secular society the term “gospel”
is understood vaguely as an archaic expression of something positive. Even
Christians, who are familiar with the biblical tradition to some extent, find
it difficult to explain the meaning of this basic element of their living tra-
dition to the secular world. Unless Christians come to a better understand-
ing of their common spiritual heritage, it will be difficult for them to pre-
serve and develop their common identity.
As a matter of fact, the Christian heritage is living under the surface
of secularised society and still plays an important role in supporting its
inner stability. In the course of the almost two thousand years of its ex-
istence, Christian teaching was often misused to legitimise violence, but
unlike many other great ideologies it has displayed an ability to be re-
born and to identify its misuse as misinterpretation. This has led to re-
forms and renewals. The Christian faith has been transmitted for many
centuries and it is admirably persistent. However, it is neither constant
nor permanent. It has to be consciously re-discovered and interpreted
for further generations. An investigation into the term euangelion in all
its various transformations, intentions, and impact on history may help
us to better understand the Christian heritage and to orient ourselves
in European (including Byzantine) and American civilisation.
The method of our research will be predominantly exegetical, the
method applied to all ancient texts. Hermeneutics, as the theory of un-
derstanding, does not include any “biblical” or specifically “Christian”
ways of interpretation. There is only one hermeneutics, for otherwise
hermeneutics would not be a theory of understanding. The very specif-
icity of biblical texts can only be recognised when the methodologies of
2 1. The Problem
general hermeneutics are applied. That is why methodologically we

avoid categories such as orthodoxy versus heresy and we interpret the
biblical texts in connection with other contemporary writings.1 Since
exegesis is only one part of hermeneutics, we shall also include several
hermeneutical considerations, such as this introductory one. They re-
flect our exegetical findings with respect to our spiritual heritage with
its continuing impact on our values, habits, self-understanding and con-
sciousness.
Exegesis involves reconstructing the inner structure (texture) of
texts. Since Christianity is also a religion, religious history helps us to
understand many individual features of biblical texts (such as religious
experience, confessions of faith, and sacraments). However, as its essen-
tial structure is based on theology, we have to interpret the early Chris-
tian texts by grasping their theological intention. We intend to contrib-
ute to this ambitious task by analysing and interpreting one important
theological term and its changing meanings in oral tradition as well as
in literature.
A special problem that we have to deal with in our investigation is
the fact that the term euangelion, this marker of Christian identity, is used
in two or three obviously different meanings in biblical and Early Chris-
tian texts. Describing them and defining the differences is a longstanding
problem in biblical scholarship. The differences in meaning represent a
riddle and a problem in the canonised Christian texts, but once we un-
derstand the source of the differences, we will be better able to under-
stand the basic manifestation of the original power of euangelion.
We plan to analyse the way in which the Early Church produced the
Gospel as a complex literary genre intended for liturgical reading in
Christian communities. And, indeed, later the Gospels became a part
of the canon of Scriptures, of the so called the New Testament – a
counterpart to the Jewish Bible.
The three different meanings of the term euangelion are:
a. The message proclaimed by Jesus (see Mark 1:14 – 15 and the parallel
texts),
b. The post-Easter proclamation of the Christian faith,
c. The literary Gospel as the pivotal literary genre of the New Testa-
ment,
(d. Metaphorical use and mixed forms.)
1 Cf. Theissen, The Religion of the Earliest Churches, 323.

1.2 The link between the oral and the literary gospel 3
1.2 The link between the oral and the literary gospel
The opening verse of the Gospel according to Mark may serve as a start-
ing point for our investigation:
“The beginning of the gospel (euangelion) of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”
“The beginning of the gospel” might be an introduction, an opening
phrase of the Gospel in the sense of a book about Jesus. But the term
euangelion was not used to mean a book or a literary genre until fifty
years later2 at the earliest. (The Gospel of Mark originated in about
70 C.E.) It is more likely that euangelion relates to Jesus’ proclamation
of the kingdom of God, as mentioned in Mark 1:14 – 15 (the kingdom
of God that has come near) or in Matthew 4:23; 9:35. In that case Eu-
angelion Iēsou Christou in Mark 1:1 would be a genitivus subiectivus or a
genitivus auctoris introducing his proclamation (Mark 1:14 – 15). Yet
most of the other occurrences of the term euangelion in the Gospel of
Mark, such as Mark 13:10 or 14:9, apply to the Easter gospel about
Jesus as Christ, as the term was used by the Apostle Paul (genitivus obiec-
tivus).
It seems that the author intentionally utilized the polysemy of the
term euangelion in the literary and theological strategy of his narrative
(see below § 6.2). In any case, Mark 1:1 does not mean the beginning
of a book called euangelion, even if most contemporary readers (or hear-
ers) understand it this way. The first indications of the use of euangelion
to mean traditions about Jesus may be found with some of Jesus’ sayings
being described as quotations from “euangelion” in the writings of the
Apostolic Fathers. Justin Martyr3 is the first direct example of the
term euangelion being used to designate the canonical biographies of
Jesus. By linking the term gospel with the proclamation and teaching
of Jesus, Mark attempted to make his intended readers aware that the
Jesus traditions are complementary to the Easter gospel. We shall discuss
the problem of the meaning of the term euangelion in Mark 1:1 in more
detail later, but here we can already say that this verse, which served as
the original title of the book,4 undoubtedly expressed an awareness of a
2 See § 8 below.
3 See ibidem below.
4 The first verse cannot be considered a scribal note marking the beginning of a
new book, as some scholars have suggested. As we shall demonstrate below in
§ 6.1, it is a well reflected summary of the book as whole.
4 1. The Problem
profound inner link connecting the oral Easter gospel with the Jesus tra-
ditions of the literary gospels. It is highly probable that the later desig-
nation of the biographies of Jesus as Gospels was inspired by the open-
ing verse of Mark. In any case, from the mid-second century until the
present, readers have understood “The beginning (archē) of the gospel
(euangelion)” in Mark 1:1 to mean the beginning of the book called
the Gospel – a book that can be classified in the Gospel category or sub-
genre.5 The Gospel of Mark is a meeting point of all three different
meanings of the term “gospel”: the message proclaimed by Jesus, the
Easter proclamation of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and (indi-
rectly) the later use of this term for a kind of Christian liturgical book
(Gospels).
This is the point from which we can start unravelling the knotty
problem of the diversity, interrelationship and specific functions of all
the meanings of “gospel” we have mentioned. The purpose of our in-
vestigation is to understand the inner dynamics of Christian thinking
which could be demonstrated by the history of the term euangelion.
5 Consequently we shall write Gospel with a capital G when referring to the lit-
erary Gospel, in order for the reader to better understand that it is not the oral
gospel that is meant.
2. The Pre-Pauline Easter Gospel
2.1 The Three Formulae
The oldest Christian literary attested meaning of the term euangelion is
found in pre-Pauline formulae denoting the message about salvation
in Jesus Christ. We know these formulae from quotations in Paul’s let-
ters and therefore we shall start our investigation with a short analysis of
these quotations.
Paul considered himself to be set apart for the gospel of God (Rom
1:1). He often speaks about the gospel in a rather general sense – as the
proclamation of Jesus as the living Lord and of the hope derived from it
(Gal 1:16; 1 Cor 9:23). It is possible to reconstruct his gospel from all
that he says in his preserved letters. This, however, would be predom-
inantly his (Paul’s) interpretation of the Gospel. To go beyond this to
the pre-Pauline Easter gospel we have to concentrate on those cases
where there is a visible link between a short formulation of faith and
its designation by the term euangelion. There are only three such instan-
ces where we can conclude that Paul quotes the content of the gospel by
means of a short formula, and we shall examine them below.
2.1.1 Salvation from the “wrath of God”
In 1 Thess 1:5 Paul mentions that he brought the euangelion to Thessa-

lonica, but it is only in 1:9b-10, after he has described how it was effec-
tive (1:6 – 9a), that he freely reproduces its content. It consists of two
parts. In verse 9b Paul describes the conversion of the former pagans
he is addressing, from idols to the living and true (alēthinos) God – a for-
mulation typical for the Jewish mission of that time6 (see e. g. Joseph and
Aseneth 13:11 – 13; cf. Acts 26:17 – 18). The second part of the gospel
(verse 10) is expressed as waiting for “the Son of God from heaven,
6 According to Acts 7, one of the groups of the Jewish followers of Jesus who
were engaged in the mission among the Gentiles were the adherents of Ste-
phen, the first Christian to suffer martyrdom; see H. Merklein, Studien zu
Jesus und Paulus, 283 f.
6 2. The Pre-Pauline Easter Gospel
whom he [God] raised from the dead and who delivers us from the
coming wrath.” This is a formulation based on the near expectation
of the Last Judgment and the Age to Come, which, at that time, was
shared by the Apostle Paul as well (see 1 Thess 4:17). The affirmation
that the Son of God ( Jesus) was raised from the dead presupposes that
he was a human being. It is a very free and short expression of the gos-
pel. Nevertheless, indirect evidence supports the conclusion that here
Paul is alluding to a confessional formula and reproducing it in a free
way. First, the logic of the paragraph is: the gospel (euangelion) had its
impact on Paul’s addressees in the power of the Holy Spirit (verse 5),
= i. e. they accepted the word (of the gospel) as the effective word
(verse 6), their faith became paradigmatic (typos) for others (verse 7),
and they passed on that word to the Christians from Macedonia and
Greece. The latter confirm that the Thessalonians responded to the gos-
pel by converting. The death of Jesus is not mentioned, although in 1
Thess 5:10 Paul emphasised that salvation was brought about by the
death of Jesus and that his resurrection means hope for the dead as
well as for the living.7 This was what he stressed in his theology. Res-
urrection is the key testimony in the formula, as it is in the other two
formulae, where pre-Pauline liturgical use has been proved (see below).
So far as the rhetorical structure is concerned, the first part (1 Thess
1:9a) is a free characterisation of the conversion of the addressees from a
pagan religion to the living and true God, whereas verses 9b-10 express
the result of the conversion in two infinitives (“to serve…and to
wait…”) and, at the same time, it is also the formulation of what was
obviously a common confession of faith (note the first person “who res-
cues us”) of a religious group assembled for a divine service. Even
though they are expressed indirectly through the apostle’s report, the
two parts (verses 9b and 10) form a balanced whole that obviously rep-
resents a twofold liturgical text transmitted by catechetical instruction.8
The explicit statement that Jesus is the Son of God, who promises
deliverance from the sentence (wrath) at the Last Judgment, obviously
7 This is the meaning of the reference to those awake and those asleep in 1Thess
5:10; see E. Reinmuth, in N. Walter, E. Reinmuth and P. Lampe, Die Briefe an
die Philipper, Thessalonicher und an Philemon, ad loc.
8 1 Thess 1:9b-10 is not a direct quotation, but originates in an older tradition
(see e. g. T. Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher, 57). B. Gerhardsson,
who argues for the persistence of the Christian tradition, defines its reliability
as a consequence of the catechetical use by teachers: The Secret Transmission
of the Unwritten Jesus Tradition 17 f. The folklore tradition varies significantly.
2.1 The Three Formulae 7
inspired Paul and became one of the most important foundations for his
later teaching about the justification of sinners by faith. The gospel is
“good news” because the raising up of Jesus includes hope for all
who belong to his messianic people.
2.1.2 Death and resurrection
The second formulation of the Gospel, found in 1 Cor 15:3b-5 (in verse
1 it is called euangelion), is well known and in New Testament scholar-
ship it has been called the pistis-formula – the Formula of Faith). In its
two parts, it combines two different expressions of Jesus’ significance:
a. Christ died for our sins (according to the Scriptures) + was buried
b. He was raised on the third day (according to the Scriptures) + ap-
peared to Cephas and the twelve
Originally, from the historical point of view, the two parts expressed in-
dependently Jesus’ post-Easter impact:
a. Christ is significant because of his death for others, see the Institu-
tion of the Lord’s Supper 1 Cor 11:23 – 25 par.
b. He is significant in spite of his death, because God “raised him”: he
gave him a new life (e. g. “It is proclaimed that Christ has been
raised from the dead” – 1 Cor 15:12).
Both primary statements are supported by (very general) references to
the Scriptures (the first probably in Isa 53:5 – 12, the second in Hos
6:2 or Ps 16:10).
The second parts of a. and b. confirm the authenticity of the first
parts: burial confirms the death of Jesus, while the appearances attested
by several groups of witnesses confirm the authenticity of the resurrec-
tion. Only Cephas (in Greek Peter) and the Twelve appear to have been
mentioned in the original formula, as is confirmed in Mark 16:7 (“the
disciples and Peter” in connection with a narrative form of the same
events in Mark 16:6 – 7). They have expressed their Easter experience
with Jesus Christ as a consequence of his resurrection.
The other witnesses were added to the formula when it circulated
among different groups of the adherents of Jesus. They were those
among the early witnesses who accepted this term (“resurrection,” in
Greek is denoted by the verb egeirō or the noun anastasis) in its apoca-
lyptic meaning as the most apt expression of their post-Easter experi-
ence with Jesus, even if they might have expressed it originally in anoth-
er way (the continuing spiritual presence of Jesus, the consequence of

his sacrificial death). Paul added himself to the group of witnesses
who proclaimed the gospel as a message about Jesus’ resurrection. He
called himself “untimely born” (ektrōma) – i. e. an incomplete apostle,
since he was not a disciple of the earthly Jesus and he was called by
him, the Risen Lord (at Damascus), considerably later than the other
witnesses.
This version of euangelion is a statement confirmed by a testimony,
even though an indirect one, since the witnesses attest only their meet-
ing Jesus after his death and they deduce that “he has been raised”
(ēgerthē). In fact, this is an indirect testimony in a double sense, since
even the indirect witnesses do not speak directly and are referred to
in the third person as those who met the Risen Lord. Yet the statement
also includes an element of proclamation which is represented by the
expression of the significance of the reported fact: “he died for our
sins”. From the socio-rhetorical point of view, this formulation suppos-
es solidarity within the group that used the formula. A proclamation
(kērygma) would, in the strict sense, include the second person “for
your sins”. Here we may speak about an indirect kerygmatic function:
the community that used this formula attested its impact on itself as a
whole. This means that the formula was used in liturgy, as was the
case in 1 Thess 1:10. The sentence about resurrection (1 Cor 15:4b)
served as a solemn argument for the authenticity of the salvation medi-
ated by Jesus.
This has inspired the dogmatic tradition of the Church as the most
influential formula of the gospel (see e. g. Irenaeus, Haer. 1:10:1), i. e.
the Christological parts of the great Christian confessions (the Apostolic
Creed as well as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan). However, in these
Trinitarian versions which were formulated later, the names of the wit-
nesses and the reference to the Scripture (unlike in 1 Cor 15:3 and 4)
disappeared. It was generally supposed that the confessions accepted
by the councils were, even in their wording, an apostolic tradition, in
which the history of Israel culminated.
The raising of Christ from the dead by God means that he and all
that he represented are rehabilitated. Christ (Christos) is used as a
name here without an article, as is common in Paul, but the meaning
“Messiah” is still recognisable. The raising of Jesus as the Messiah
from the dead by God confirms that he is not adored as a second
god, but as a believer in and representative of the one God, the Lord
of Israel (YHWH) himself. His resurrection is expressed by passivum di-
vinum (grammatically perfect passive) – a periphrasis of God’s name,

which the Jews considered sacred and avoided pronouncing. Therefore
it was possible to adhere to Jewish monotheism when confessing Jesus.9
The resurrection of Jesus became the starting point for solving the
problem of the delayed coming of the kingdom of God. The gospel
about resurrection functioned as a guarantee of the eschatological fulfil-
ment of God’s promise. Here we are at the root of the development in-
side the Early Christian community, the result of which was that most of
the Early Christian groups were able to cope with the problem of a de-
layed coming of the kingdom of God (the second coming of Jesus as the
Lord, parousia). Instead of imminent fulfilment, the death and resurrec-
tion of Jesus became the decisive act in the process that in theology is
called “Salvation History.”
We have already mentioned that the formula of the gospel in 1 Cor
15:3b-5 is a complex formulation connecting two basic expressions of
the Easter experience. It therefore represents the tendency of the Easter
gospel to integrate the various elements of the Christian teaching about
salvation – soteriology.
2.1.3 Jesus Christ the Lord
The third formula of the Gospel is preserved in Rom 1:3 – 4. Again,

Paul quotes it explicitly as the euangelion that he was called to preach
and teach (verse 1). Again, the position of “Jesus Christ, the Son of
God” is described in two steps: according to the flesh (kata sarka) he
was a descendant of David, and through the Spirit of holiness (pneuma
hagiosynēs – a term for the Holy Spirit that otherwise does not appear in
Paul) he was declared to be the Son of God in power by his resurrection
from the dead. “Our Lord” in verse 4 reveals the function of the formu-
la in the liturgy of the Christian community (“our”), as we have ob-
served it in the two previous formulae. Unlike the formula in 1 Thess
1:9 – 10, this one obviously originated in the Jewish-Christian milieu.
In fact, we do not have a direct quotation of any of the formulae, but
we can reconstruct them with a high degree of probability. This formula
interprets the resurrection of Jesus as the enthronement of Jesus, the
Messiah of Israel, as the Son of God. This was its “raison d’être.”
9 See G. Theissen, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments, 100.

The fact that this formulation of the gospel became authoritative

among Paul’s disciples and followers can be deduced from 2Tim 2:8,
where the gospel of Paul (“my gospel”) is reproduced as: “Remember
Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, a descendant of David – that is my
gospel.” It is also echoed in Ignatius’ letters (Smyrn 1:1).
In contrast to the formula in 1 Cor 15:3b-5, which contrasts Jesus’
humiliation in his death with his resurrection, here there are only two
steps of elevation: the first is the Messiah from the dynasty of David,
the second is the Son of God. The followers of Jesus considered them-
selves to be the true Israel, the messianic people itself, the people of
God. This means that those who confess Jesus in the sense of this for-
mula are (through the Spirit) his new Israel, united with the Lord,
who transcends the limits of death. This is the version of the good
news as proclaimed in the formula in Rom 1:3 – 4.
Several scholars suggest that Rom 1:16 may also contain a traditional
summary expression of the faith, where the gospel is characterised as the
power of God revealing his salvific justice (forensic justification). But
this is rather an ad hoc description of the power of the Gospel and, as
far as the character of the gospel is concerned, it is a Pauline interpre-
tation (see Rom 10:9).
2.1.4 A survey of the formulae
In all of the formulae we can find traces of an older tradition that Paul
adopted: a liturgically shaped symmetric structure, non-Pauline vocabu-
lary, position in the context. Since these formulae are the basic expres-
sions of the gospel, we may conclude that (a) there were several versions
of the pre-Pauline Easter gospel, shaped for use in liturgy, and (b) the
theology of Paul was built on the Easter experience of the first groups
of Jesus’ followers and therefore “his gospel” (Rom 2:16; 16:25) was
not his creation but rather his interpretation of one of these formulae
or the features common to all of them (in Rom 1:3 – 4 he quotes one
of the three versions, but in Rom 2:16, he mentions the [Last] Judg-
ment as a part of his gospel; this may be an allusion to the formula in
1 Thess 1:10) or, simply, a proclamation of salvation through Jesus
Christ, generally inspired by the formulae.
In his theological reflection Paul deliberately removes the differen-
ces between the various versions of the gospel, in order that it may be
clear that there is, in fact, only one gospel. That is why he often speaks
about the “gospel of God” (euangelion tou theou – Rom 1:1; 15:16; 2
Cor 11:7) or the “gospel of Christ” (euangelion tou Christou – Rom
15:19; 2 Cor 2:12; 9:13; Gal 1:7; Phil 1:27).
This schema may give a better overview of the structure of the three
formulae:
The one Death Salvation in
Living Messiah Son of For Resur- Judge-
God God others rection ment
1 Thess + – + – + +
1 Cor – + – + + –
Rom – + + – + –
In Rom 1:3 – 4 the role of the Davidic Messiah is the first step in the
raising up of Jesus.
2.1.5 Conclusions
We have demonstrated that all three formulae are different from each
other.
The differences between these versions are substantial. They are dif-
ferent not only in the wording, but also in the whole structure. This is a
phenomenon which we need to discuss. What we have found out can
be expressed in the following points:
a) The common denominator is the resurrection of Jesus as expressed
by the verb egeirō or the noun anastasis.
b) The death of Jesus, which Paul stressed in his theology, is men-
tioned only in 1 Cor 15:3. This confirms our earlier conclusion
that the three formulae are, at least in their core, of pre-Pauline ori-
gin. Paul himself stressed the death of Jesus as the basic element of
his work of salvation, e. g. 1 Cor 1:18 – 25; Phil 2: 8; Rom 6:1 – 11
(thanatos, stauros). This means that the gospel concentrated on the
proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection and, thus, the formulae were
fixed in the authoritative expression of the “good news”10 for Paul.
c) Another common feature is the absence of any reference or allusion
to Jesus’ life or teaching or to the “gospel of Jesus” (see § 3 below).
In the formulae, Jesus is not the founder or the announcer of the
10 A different opinion is presented by H. Koester, From Kerygma-Gospel to the

written Gospels, 362 f.
gospel but, as the Risen Lord, he is its content.11 He has changed

from being the proclaimer to the one who is proclaimed.
d) In 1 Thess ( Jesus rescues us from the coming wrath, i. e. saves us
from the Last Judgment) and in 1 Cor (he died for our sins) the cen-
tral role of Jesus Christ in human salvation supposes that human be-
ings are “sinful” – alienated from their original destination. This is
not mentioned in Rom 1.
This analysis of the formulae is the first methodical step in defining the
Easter gospel, but it has also revealed the problem of their variety. The
differences cannot be explained by the fact that Paul as apostle and bear-
er of the Spirit quoted and transmitted the gospel in a free way. We can
see how the formula in Rom 1:3 – 4 was reproduced in the Pauline
school in 2Tim 2:8. It is a free reproduction, but the basic structure, dif-
ferent from the structure of the other formulae, remains.
For our further discussion it is important that the use of one formula
(one version of the gospel) did not exclude the use of another one in the
same setting. As we shall demonstrate in the chapter on the Gospel ac-
cording to Mark, the formulae in 1 Cor 15:3b-5 and Rom 1:3 – 4 are
basically different from each other, but both were well known and ob-
viously used in liturgy (separately from each other) in the Markan com-
munity,12 and they were obviously considered as complementary ex-
pressions of the same gospel and as a message of salvation in Jesus Christ.
The difference between the individual formulae can be explained by
their different origins in various Christian groups and particularly by
their different functions in liturgy and teaching. The formula in 1
Thess 1:9 – 10 introduces Jesus as the Son of God for recently baptised
former pagans, whereas Rom 1:3 – 4 expresses the resurrection against
the background of Jewish messianic expectations. Both of these versions
are linked by the title “Son of God”. 1 Cor 15:3b-5 is a short narrative
opened by the title “Messiah” (christos) 13 (death – burial – resurrection –
appearances). This formula of the Gospel (the “formula of faith”) inte-
grated various groups of early Christians. “Whether, then, it was I or
they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed” 1 Cor
15:11 /NIV/). Agreement on the formula in 1 Cor 15:3b-5 (spontane-
ous or arranged at a meeting) was one of the conditions that enabled the
11 E. Käsemann, An die Rçmer, 7.

12 See § 6.2. below
13 Non-Jews may have understood Christos without an article as another name for
Jesus.
associated groups of post-Easter followers of Jesus to dissociate them-

selves from the synagogue and, at the same time, respect the authority
of the Scripture and preserve it for the Church as the Old Testament
(see the reference to the Scriptures in 1 Cor 15:3 and 4). These groups
developed into the mainstream Church.
Not all Christians joined the “resurrection-gospel”. Some groups
whose teaching is documented in early Christian texts expressed the
Easter experience in another way. In the Gospel of Thomas we read
about “the living Jesus” who is active through his words (the opening
sentence and logion 1). His promises (the resurrection of other people)
are already fulfilled – in the spiritual sense of the inner conversion of his
followers, even if most people did not recognise it (log. 51). The version
of the Gospel of Thomas that has been preserved originated in the mid-
second century. Its core may have originated earlier, in the early post-
apostolic period, when it was possible to use the names of apostles as ad-
ditional support for some theological opinions, but when the apostolic
period was not yet too far in the past.14 The polemic of Paul against
the group of Corinthian Christians proclaiming an over-developed es-
chatology reveals that the Gospel of Thomas represents in an elaborated
way opinions (on the fulfilled prophetic promises of Jesus) that became
controversial as early as in the time of Paul (1 Cor 4:6 – 13: “already you
become rich…you become kings”).
This means that all the various formulae of the Easter gospel repre-
sent, in spite of their differences, another tendency among Jesus’ post-
Easter followers, one which understood the resurrection of Jesus as
the anticipation of the not yet fulfilled universal restoration in one per-
son.
The particular role played by Paul was not only that he, like many others,
recognised the common denominator of the different formulae, but that he also
used the term euangelion for all of them. It is probable that the term was
used before him (see 1 Cor 15:1 – 2), but, for him, it became the marker
of all the proclamations of Jesus’ resurrection and also of Jesus as the
Risen Lord. For him the gospel was equal to the resurrection of Jesus
that anticipated and guaranteed the apocalyptic general resurrection at
the end of this age. He also used the term euangelion and euangelizomai
in a broader sense to mean any of the dimensions and consequences
of the “good news” about the resurrection of Jesus as the basis of
hope for all. This soteriological concept of Easter is a clear focus of
14 See P. Pokorný, A Commentary on the Gospel of Thomas, 20 – 25.

his understanding of the term gospel. The frontiers are, however, open
and fluctuating. In spite of the abundance of associations (note the ac-
companying titles and narratives in the three formulae), or perhaps pre-
cisely because of them, the Pauline “gospel” became representative of
Christianity through the centuries.
2.2 The Gospel and Myth

2.2.1 Apocalyptic myth15
All the formulae are dependent upon a worldview in which daily life is
framed by a transcendence that has an impact on the human world: the
Son of God appeared among humans, was killed (crucified), God raised
him from the dead, now he is not visible, but appears (from “outside” or
from “above”) to some of his followers, and is able to help other people
at the Judgment of God that obviously marks the end and the fulfilment
of history (the “Final Judgment”). Some elements of this worldview can
be traced back to the earliest Jesus traditions, but as a whole it represents
a particular system of concepts and signs that were understood as expres-
sions of the meaning – not of a meaning that consists in harmony, but a
meaning that enables us to orient ourselves in history with all its ambi-
guities.
Historically, this concept is influenced by the apocalyptic expecta-
tions of that time. Apocalypse is mostly understood as a special kind
of myth. And every myth is understood as a narrative expression of
the last horizon of personal and social life in a general image. It covers
the whole realm of human language and experience. It expresses its ho-
rizon as influenced by the super-human powers and reflects the main
problems of human history, especially the problems of evil, human
guilt and alienation. Compared with fragmentary wisdom and isolated
narratives, it includes a primitive reflection on the framework of the
human world. It has a stabilising but also conservative function in the
society where the myth is narrated.16 In the formulae of the gospel
15 See G. Theissen, The Religion of the Earliest Churches, 2; G. Sellin, Mythologeme

und mythische Züge in der paulinischen Theologie, 209 – 223.
16 Most of the definitions of myth offered by contemporary studies in the History
of Religion (e. g. by J. Z. Smith) are not useful for interpreting the beginnings
2.2 The Gospel and Myth 15
the elements of apocalyptic myth form a framework to the role of Jesus

as the Risen Lord, who thus becomes a figure connecting the present
and the absolute (eschatological) future, earth and heaven. The narrative
framework of mythical concepts underscored Jesus’ extraordinary signif-
icance in the eyes of his followers.
In Paul, who reflected on the pre-existence of Jesus (1 Cor 8:6), the
basic mythical scheme was supposed to be a “descent – ascent”-centred
story (for descent see e. g. 2 Cor 8:9). In the Bible “descent – ascent” is
presupposed as the basic structure of communication between God and
humans (see e. g. Jacob’s vision in Gen 28:10 – 17, or in the deuteroca-
nonical books Tobit 12:14 – 20a).17 Outside the bible, the scheme of a
“descent-ascent” myth of salvation can be traced, for example, in Vir-
gil’s Fourth Eeclogue (a golden human race will start with a boy [Latin
puer] from heaven) or in the biography of Romulus 28: 2 – 3 by Plutarch.
Apocalyptic is a post-biblical term, artificially created in the 19th cen-
tury and applied mostly to later developments of the eschatology of the
Prophets (not so much for the Wisdom traditions).18 According to Ger-
hard von Rad, the apocalyptic is a combination of various genres and
literary functions (epiphanies, heavenly discourses, oracles, astronomy,
geography, commentaries, visions, symbols, prayers, and admonitions)
that are meant to grasp history (this age) in its entirety.19
Some definitions from the end of the 20th century explain the word
apocalyptic strictly according to its forms and modalities as the divine
mediation of mysteries that their bearer has accepted by transcending
the normal cognitive potential of humans.20 Another concept of apoc-
alyptic thought was presented by Lester L. Grabbe. He understands it as
a dimension of prophecy which cannot be considered either as an au-
tonomous literary genre or as its later stage, into which the prophecy
has developed.21
of Christianity, since they do not reflect their relationship to history or the ref-
erential function of Hebrew or Christian narrative, see especially § 6.3 below.
17 See A. J. M. Wedderburn, Paul and the Story of Jesus, 162 ff. For further evi-
dence see C. H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? 57 ff.
18 N. Walter, Zur theologischen Relevanz apokalyptischer Aussagen, 51, 53.
19 G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments II, München: Chr. Kaiser 1960,
314 – 321.
20 This is roughly the definition promoted by M. Wolter, Apokalyptik als Redeform
im Neuen Testament, 181.
21 L. L. Grabbe, Prophetic and Apocalyptic, 107 – 133; for other opinions cf. E.
Noffke, Introduzione a la letteratura mediogiudaica precristiana, 54 – 56.
For our context we prefer a more historical definition of apocalyp-

tic. It places greater emphasis on the common features of the texts that
are traditionally called apocalypses, which were written in the period
between the third century B.C.E. and the second century C.E. and
are oriented towards the near future (often predicted from an antedated
position as a vaticinium ex eventu) and describe the last period of history
and the beginning of the Age to Come – a time that transcends the pres-
ently visible horizon. The mediator of the apocalyptic vision is transfer-
red to a “high tower above the earth” (1 En. 87, 3) or, in a vision, he
anticipates the eschatological future, the fulfilment of history (this age)
in its entirety. This is possible only from a position “outside” history.
Therefore apocalyptic writings are “revelatory literature with a narrative
framework in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being
to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality of an Age to
Come. It is both temporal in that it envisages eschatological salvation,
and spatial in that it involves another, supernatural world”22 (see the spa-
tial images of heaven, earth, and underworld).23 In its original intention
the apocalypse is related to the eschatological destruction of the sinful
world (1En 83:7) and the fulfilment of history through God’s judgment
expected in the near future.24 Various biblical texts were interpreted as
the beginning or the prototype of the apocalyptic fulfilment.25 It seems
to have been a pessimistic view of history, but the apocalyptic view does
not lack an element of hope. All the righteous people and all the values
defended by them will be included in the Age to Come (1En. 90:15 –
42 “New House”).26 With the delayed second coming of Jesus as Lord
(parousia), the apocalyptic expectation was transformed into an apoca-
lyptic myth. Myths lay claim to absolute validity and durability, but
their plurality and the fact that different mythic images can coexist on
the boundary of various religions and cultures opens up the possibility
of their transformation and re-interpretation. In the Bible we can
22 J. J. Collins, The Jewish Apocalypses, 22; idem, Daniel, 105; see also idem, The
Apocalyptic Imagination.
23 A. Y. Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism,
15 f.
24 See the comment about the definition of apocalyptic by E. Käsemann, Zum
Thema der urchristlichen Apokalyptik (1962), in: idem, Exegetische Versuche
und Besinnungen, 105 – 131, here 105, note 1.
25 See C. A. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation, 46 f.
(with further literature).
26 See N. Walter, Zur theologischen Relevanz apokalyptische Aussagen, 53, 63.
2.2 The Gospel and Myth 17
trace conflicts of various myths (vegetative myth, imperial myth, dual-

istic myth). The tendency of their transformation is more important for
understanding the culture to which the myth is related than the tradi-
tional shape of the myth. This applies, above all, to the creation of a
Christ-myth in the beginnings of Christianity by transforming the apoc-
alyptic myth of Judaism (see § 2.4 below – Transformation …).27 The
Christ-myth fulfils all the demands of an integrated global view of his-
tory, sketched from the transcendent point of view. However, by in-
cluding a reference to Jesus as a person in history it accepts the norm
of its interpretation (its “feedback”). Those who want to concentrate
only on the global concept and neglect the conflicts, antitheses and ab-
surdities are warned against ignoring the specific feature of the Christ-
myth, i. e. the suffering and death which cannot be erased by any reli-
gious shortcut.
2.2.2 Interpreting myth
Transformation is the beginning of interpretation. Rudolf Bultmann

recognised that myths as such do not belong to the Christian gospel
and in 1941 he introduced the concept of “Entmythologisierung.”28
He concentrated on the existential impact of the gospel as expressed
through myth. For Bultmann, existential impact conveys the signifi-
cance of the gospel as kērygma (proclamation, message) for the self-un-
derstanding of the addressees and for their decision-making.29 In analogy
to Paul’s argument in favour of justification by faith, he stressed the fact
that the new self-understanding – the conversion – is initiated by an ex-
istential encounter with a new possibility and not by mobilisation of
one’s own inner capacities. The other side of his analogy to Paul was
his statement that myth is as non-essential for Christian proclamation
as circumcision is for human salvation (Gal 5:2 – 6). To demand circum-
27 See G. Theissen. The Religion of the Earliest Churches, 24 f.; U. Luz, Der früh-
christliche Christusmythos, 40 f.
28 R. Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology, especially 32 – 40. His concept
of de-mythologizing was a conscious alternative to the Nazi interpretation of
the Bible in favour of naturally inborn human capacities: G. Theissen, Neutes-
tamentliche Wissenschaft vor und nach 1945, 159 – 162.
29 For the transformation of myth see H. G. Kippenberg, Ein Vergleich jdischer,
christlicher und gnostischer Apokalyptik, 759 ff.
cision or consider a myth the subject of faith would mean despising the
grace of God. This was an authentic approach.
Its drawback, however, was that it isolated the human personality as
the agent of decision-making from the social setting and history that
were, at least partially, taken into account by the myth. Later research
recognised that the kerygmatic appeal is only one dimension of the gospel
and that another dimension is its reference to the Jesus tradition that enables
people to achieve orientation in history. The interpretation of a myth
has to analyse its stabilising function as well as its shortcomings. A gospel
totally isolated from the historical setting would be deprived of its deci-
sive dimension that enables us to achieve orientation in history and to
act in a meaningful way. Bultmann’s interpretation of myth had to be
re-interpreted by a critical analysis of all its functions which resulted
in the proposal to use myth in a “secularized” (non-ideological) way,
i. e. as a metaphor for the context of individual human life. Paul Ric-
oeur called this the “second naivety”.30 “Second” means a reflected na-
ivety, accepting myth as an analogical model of a reality that, in its com-
plexity, is not accessible by description. Such a metaphor functions in a
similar way to a model in the natural sciences. Even in scientific research
an analogical model is sometimes the only possible way to grasp the
problem of some natural phenomena in all their complexity.
The problem with Bultmann’s interpretation of myth can also be
demonstrated by his understanding of sin (hamartia) as alienation, as
the loss of the ability to decide in an authentic way. This is also a correct
but an incomplete interpretation. In history human beings are influenced by
supra-individual enduring powers and social, political and cultural traditions
(“principalities and powers” in Paul). According to the biblical narrative
and the Christian dogmatic tradition, human sin was derived from the
first sin of Eve and Adam and affects the whole of history (2 Cor
11:3; Rom 5:16). This does not mean that human failure and consistent
alienation necessarily had their origin at the beginning of the human
race in time, as narrated by the Yahwist (the modern designation for
one of the narrators/editors of ancient Israelite traditions) in Gen 3.
The biblical narratives about creation are not a history of nature, but
a kind of confession. They point out that the various alienated or misused
30 P. Ricoeur, Philosophie de la volont II. La symbolique du mal; for more on this

concept see M. I. Wallace, The Second Naivet, and L. Dornisch, Symbolic Sys-
tem and the Interpretation of Scripture: An Introduction to the Work of Paul
Ricoeur, 16 f.
2.3 The Gospel and Christian Liturgy 19
powers affecting human beings have no divine authority. They may influence
human activity but they do not determine it. Sin may be interpreted as
human resistance against humanisation, against living responsibly ac-
cording to the divine Law and promises. In the Christian setting this
means that a responsible life inspired by Jesus is possible. The apocalypses an-
swered the need for orientation in history and in the gospel the early
Christian witnesses used the apocalyptic scheme (resurrection) to ex-
press the impact of the Easter experience.
2.3 The Gospel and Christian Liturgy

2.3.1 The death and resurrection of Jesus and baptism
The post-Easter transformation of the apocalyptic expectation has been

supported by it being linked with the rite of baptism. The formula about
death and resurrection is similar in its structure to the rite of Christian
baptism. It represents a transformation of the apocalyptic expectation
much as Christian baptism represents a transformation of the baptism
administered by John the Baptist. Both baptisms include immersion in
running water and in both of them God’s Judgment plays an important
part. In John’s baptism, the culmination was the immersion of the bap-
tised person – an anticipation of the Last Judgment. John proclaimed
“the one who is more powerful” (Mark 1:7par.), obviously God himself
who will come to judge the world, an event which, according to Mal
3:23 f. (=4:5), was to be announced by the prophet Elijah. John the
Baptist evidently decided to play the role of Elijah and was identified
with him (see Mark 9:12 – 13par.). The shock of immersion was a re-
minder of the flood as a punishment for sins and was accompanied by
a proclamation of the Judgment by fire – the other element of God’s
punishment (Matt 3:5 – 11par.). It was intended to evoke penitence
(cf. the characteristics of the baptismal sects of that time in Sibylline ora-
cles 4:162 – 167; 171 – 180) and lead to obedience to the Law ( Jos. Flav.
A. J. 18, 116 f). Unlike the baptism of John, in Christian baptism (bap-
tism “in the name of Jesus Christ”), the culmination was the moment
when the baptised person came up out of the water. It anticipated
the future with Christ: “For if we have been united (by baptism –
verse 3) with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with
him in a resurrection like his” (Rom 6:5).
2.3.2 Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ as a new phenomenon
Baptism was not practised by Jesus or, at least, baptising was not typical
for him;31 the expected one (God himself ?) was supposed to baptise
with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt 3:11 /Q/; Mark 1:8 mentions
only the Holy Spirit). Baptism with the Holy Spirit was a metaphor
for the charismatic activities of the post-Easter followers of Jesus.
From the book of Acts we also know about baptism in the Holy Spirit
and in the same book we can follow the intention to unite baptism by
water and baptism in the Holy Spirit into one event (Acts 2:38). Bap-
tism by water in the name of Jesus Christ became the Christian entrance
rite in a surprisingly short span of time. In the time of Paul it was already
widely practised (see e. g. Gal 3:27). The time in which Christians start-
ed to baptise in the name of Jesus and the time in which the gospel was
spread through the formula of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ
are almost identical. The baptismal rite by immersion or aspersion rep-
resented the ablution of sins (1 Cor 6:11) and judgment of sinners
through a flood (2 Pet 3:5 – 6; cf. Gen 6 – 8), but the oldest comment
on the meaning of baptism in Rom 6 culminates in an existential par-
ticipation in the resurrection of Jesus. The Easter gospel gave the rite
an innovative interpretation and supported its introduction among the
followers of Jesus. John’s baptism was accompanied predominantly by
a warning of the coming judgment of God and the descent into the
water was the decisive moment of the act. In Christian baptism the de-
cisive moment was the coming up out of the water, which represented
the hope in the judgment as the “wrath of God”. This is also how Mark
reported the baptism of Jesus.
The stimulus for using the baptism of John the Baptist in a re-inter-
preted form probably came from the gospel as reproduced in 1 Cor
15:3b-5, and Christian baptism started to spread among Christian
groups soon after the witnesses agreed that Jesus was the risen Christ
as mentioned in 1 Cor 15:5 – 8.
We have no evidence about the formulae of the gospel so far as an
explicit legomenon related to Christian baptism is concerned. But the des-
ignation “baptism in (into) the name of the Lord Jesus” (Gal 3:27; Acts
19:4 etc.) represents the content of the gospel. The unexpectedly rapid
expansion of the Christian baptism was one of the theological and social
31 See the argument in P. Pokorný, Christologie et baptéme à l’époque du chris-

tianisme primitive, 371 f.
2.4 The Resurrection 21
turning points in the life of Early Christianity. Together with the Apos-
tolic council (Acts 15; Gal 2:1ff etc.) it created an important precondi-
tion for emancipating the followers of Jesus from the Temple and the
synagogue.32 Unlike the repeated rite of the Last Supper (the Eucharist),
which accompanied the followers of Jesus from the very beginning,
baptism, as the ritual counterpart of the Easter gospel, became the rite
of entrance into the Christian community.
2.4 The Resurrection

2.4.1 Terminology and theology
The first reaction of Jesus’ followers to the Easter experience of a new

and specific presence of Jesus was spontaneous joy, lacking any devel-
oped reflection. Christians considered themselves inspired by the
Holy Spirit. We have already mentioned that in some of the Christian
groups the promises of the coming kingdom of God and the rule of
the poor (which did not come), were transformed into a spiritual
form. This strengthened dualistic tendencies in Christian traditions.33
We may observe it in the popular traditions about Jesus’ healings or
his other deeds of mercy, e. g. the healing of the blind is interpreted
as inner enlightenment, the feeding of the multitude as a model of a sa-
cral table fellowship. Some of these tendencies are generally accepted in
all the Christian traditions and the Gospel writers have stressed, or at
least not suppressed, them. These tendencies helped Christians apply
the traditions about Jesus to their lives and recognise the impact of Eas-
ter on the present. Nevertheless, this dualistic tendency became danger-
ous.
On the other hand, after Easter, Jesus’ adherents also developed a
theological reflection against an apocalyptic background. In this context
the term resurrection offered the best designation of the Easter experi-
ence and was the starting point for further reflection. Those people who
today maintain that Jesus was “verbally” raised from the dead fail to re-
32 For the “sacraments” in the Early Church see G. Theissen, The Religion of the
Earliest Churches, 15 f., 121 – 138.
33 G. Theissen, The Religion of the Earliest Churches, 277 ff., calls it “the motif of
renewal” and considers it necessary to deal with the problem of the postponed
parousia.
alise that the basic meaning of the verb egeirein and the underlying He-
brew stem q-w-m is get up, or awake, and that the language about the
resurrection of the dead was already a metaphorical one. In the apoca-
lyptic literature “resurrection” started to play the role of a terminus tech-
nicus, but its metaphoric character together with the possibility of its
substitution by other expressions and images reminded those to whom the
Christian proclamation was addressed that its very content transcends the individ-
ual images that were associated with the term “resurrection”. 34 For example in
4 Ezra 7:32 the “resurrection” is expressed as a complex event of awak-
ening those who “sleep” and uniting them with their souls. Easter is
therefore an event of a specific character, for which there was no lexical
code available, and it was necessary to express it analogically – through
metaphors. Originally, the “resurrection” of Jesus was understood as a
prolēpsis (anticipation) of the eschatological general resurrection at the
end of time, which was peculiar to Jewish apocalyptic literature.35 It
is expressed explicitly in 1 Thess 1:10: the coming wrath (Gr. orgē
/Hebr. ’af/), from which humankind can be rescued through Jesus as
the risen Son of God, is the Last Judgment as in Zeph. 2:2 – 3 or
Luke 3:7 (Q). For Jesus it was an event that would take place in a
near future (Matt 10:15.23). The expectation of judgment as part of
the apocalyptic cosmic scenario developed as a transformation of Israel’s
prophecy in the Persian and Hellenistic period. In the apocalyptic ex-
pectations the culmination of the eschatological events was the resurrec-
tion of “many,” i. e. of all people, (4 Ezra 7:32 f; Sib. Or. 4:180 – 190; 1
En. 51:1 – 3) or only of those who were saved (T. Sim. 6:2 – 7; T. Levi
18; T. Jud. 25; 2Macc 7:7 – 9; 2 Bar. 30:1 – 2 etc.). For the latter the res-
urrection is the result of their surviving the judgment. The Hebrew
verb for resurrection is q-w-m, ‘-w-r or ‘-m-d (in hip‘il of hitpa‘el) used
in a metaphorical sense. These verbs correspond to the meaning of
the Greek egeirō (in the passive voice or with God as the subject), or anis-
tēmi: to stand up, get up or rise (including the metaphor of rising from
the dead).
34 E. Lohse warned against the consistently apocalyptic concept of resurrection

(euangelion theou, 91); we would rather stress the profound transformation of
the apocalyptic image of resurrection.
35 The term “eschatology” designates events, expectations and ideas related to the
end or fulfilment in a general way, “apocalyptic” relates to uncovering the mys-
tery of the end in cosmic dimensions, opening a transcendent Age to Come.
The resurrection as a collective event at the end of this age was ob-
viously the basic idea that formed the background against which we
have to understand the Easter gospel as it is expressed in all the ancient
formulae. Its persistence is documented by Luke’s description of Paul’s
speech in Athens, in which Jesus’ resurrection was presented as proof
that he would be the coming judge of all people (Acts 17:31), i. e. his
teaching and activity represent the will of God. If Jesus had already
been raised, it must have been understood, but rather as a promise
and hope for all humankind. God vindicated the proclaimer of the king-
dom of God, the “friend of sinners” and the one who forgave sins in his
name. His resurrection is therefore the guarantee of hope for the rest of
humankind.
The idea of resurrection was not typical for Old Testaments texts,
but a hope in death (mostly in the form of immortality) was present
in some Greek texts and movements.36 The expectation of a collective
bodily resurrection was attested in the pre-Christian period in some
apocalyptic texts only, and the post-Easter followers of Jesus trans-
formed it radically (see below). This means that their belief in resurrec-
tion was caused by the Easter experience itself.
2.4.2 Resurrection and the Last Judgment
Resurrection means to acquire a new life, as in Ezek 37:1 – 10, where

the concept is applied allegorically to Israel: dry bones are restored
into bodies covered with skin. But it is only by the power of the breath
sent from God and mediated by the prophet that they stand up (‘-m-d in
hip‘il) on their feet (verse10). This is the idea of resurrection (cf. 1
En. 7:32). Resurrection does not occur through the heroic power of
the one who was raised, but is caused by the power of God. God’s spirit
(breath) is the giver of life. In this case the reanimation of dry bones is an
image of the revival of Israel as a whole. However, in Daniel 12:2 we
read about an eschatological awakening of individual people – “some to
everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Resurrec-
tion is expressed as a kind of absolute awakening. What follows is im-
plied in the next part of the sentence about the two contrasting forms
of post-existence: life or contempt. This is the general result of the
36 S. E. Porter, Resurrection, the Greeks and the New Testament, especially 80 f.

Last Judgment,37 which is presupposed here. Resurrection at the Last

Judgment (in other texts: as the result of the Last Judgment for the
righteous) also means the evaluation and qualification of an individual
life.38 The Christians who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord through
the Easter experience and faith lived their lives with their eyes fixed
on the horizon of the Last Judgment and resurrection (Rom 6:1 – 11).
This is the first thing we can and should say about “the resurrection”.
We must not start with a reconstruction of the historical basis, apart
from the fact that the event of the resurrection relates to Jesus of Naz-
areth. Our first task is to define the meaning of the Easter faith that de-
rives its origin from what Christians soon started to call “the resurrec-
tion” through theological reflection. The same event has also been
interpreted as exaltation (Phil 2:6 – 11), and retold in a popular and leg-
endary way (in the apocryphal Gospels), but the ecclesiastical tradition
has been shaped by the Easter gospel and its theological interpretations.
2.4.3 Apocalyptic vision as a world concept
The eschatological horizon of the Last Judgment and the Age to Come
is elaborated in Jewish texts between the Bible and the Mishnah. As we
have already mentioned, in 4 Ezra 7:32 – 35 a resurrection is depicted as
a re-union of what is asleep in the earth (the corpses) with the souls in
“the chambers” as a prelude to the Judgment of God. Justice will decide
on the fate of all humans. The main intention of this narrated mythic
construction is not the assumption of a post-mortal existence, but the
proclamation of the victory of God’s plans in history – in this age.
This is the source of consolation in times of suffering and distress.
37 By Last Judgment we understand the expected revelation of the justice of God

expressed by the image (in several instances consciously understood as a meta-
phor) of a heavenly legal process which will take place at the end of “this age”.
E. Brandenburger presented a wider definition of the Judgment of God in the
article “Gericht Gottes II-III” in TRE, 466 – 483.
38 This is not an anachronism, since the individual “I” also plays an important role
outside the apocalyptic context in the Prophets and Psalms. God deals with
prophets as individuals, who call people to personal conversion and the psalmist
can confess “God is… my portion … forever” (Ps 73:26). In Job the eternal
value of an individual human life is even reflected on against the background
of death: “And after my skin has been destroyed …I will see God; I myself
will see him” ( Job 19:26). See W. H. Schmidt, Gotteserfahrung und Ich-be-
wußtsein im Alten Testament, especially 217 f.
The Last Judgment is the most vivid image of the victorious justice of
God. In 1 En. 51:1 the righteous and holy ones will be chosen from
among the other risen dead and will dwell on the new earth (cf. Pss.
Sol. 3:10 – 12; 1QS IV:22; Rev 20:11 – 15).39 The resurrection of the
dead at the end of this age may be considered a mythic element of
late biblical and inter-testamental literature, but it arose out of the
real experience of the suffering of the righteous under the Seleucid
rule. Resurrection is the presupposition for a reward from God – a com-
pensation for the suffering of the righteous and punishment of the en-
emies. This can be well illustrated by the story of seven brothers who
underwent martyrdom in Palestine because of their faith: they died
with the firm hope that the King of the universe would raise them to
an everlasting life (2 Macc 7:9). However, the social and religious func-
tion of such imagery goes even deeper.
2.4.4 Theological function of the apocalyptic imagery: Interpreting the

resurrection I
When interpreting the apocalyptic myth we have to take seriously con-

temporary research into apocalyptic texts represented for example by
John J. Collins or Michael Wolter. HphHowever, what we intend to
do at this point is to carry out a theological and philosophical reflection
on the apocalyptic texts inspired by some of the results of their critical
scrutiny. Its main intention is to confront the function of apocalyptic
texts with the contemporary “human world” as described by phenom-
enology.40
In the apocalyptic images used by the Early Christian tradition and
the first Christian authors, the story of humankind (“this age”) is eval-
uated from the position of its end and fulfilment. Since all humans are,
in general, a part of this human story (we speak of history) and are not
able to step back from their own setting, the anticipation of the meaning
of human history from the viewpoint of the expected Last Judgment of
God created a good position from which it was possible to evaluate his-
tory and anticipate the absolute, divine eschatological future. This is the
achievement of the apocalyptic, even though it was not reached by a
39 For further material see G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and

Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, Cambridge (USA) – London 1972.
40 P. Ricoeur, Temps et rcit II, part IV/3.
systematic reflection but rather by a lucky inspiration during the devel-

opment of older traditions. The far-reaching and long-lasting (in fact till
the present) acceptance of this prospect in Jewish and Christian thought
is an indirect sign of its importance. Many myths include eschatology,
but in the apocalyptic images of the oral gospel and early Christian lit-
erature eschatology is the end and fulfilment of history in its entirety. It
is the point of view from which all history appears to be its pre-history,
a point from which it is possible to recognise the meaning of all that
went before it (including our present time).
Such an eschatological perspective was able to grasp the interrelation
between human life and the story of humankind as a whole: the hope
for justice in history (social hope; the hope of the meaning of history as
guaranteed by the Judgment at the end of history) on the one hand and
the hope at death (the value of an individual human life) on the other
hand do not appear to have conflicting dimensions any more. The fu-
ture resurrection of humans is only occasionally depicted from the point
of view of individuals (as in the story in 2 Macc, mentioned in the pre-
vious paragraph). Attention is focused rather on the outcome – the two
groups of people after the Last Judgment: the accepted and the rejected.
But it is not intended as information about these two groups of people.
It serves as an exhortation for the readers/hearers to do everything pos-
sible in order that they may be among the elect, among those “on the
right side” (cf. Matt 25:31 – 46). The character of the apocalyptic writ-
ings is one of consolation and admonition, even though the form is an
apocalyptic revelation and is occasionally linked with elements of a hid-
den aggression against those who are “outside” the group of the elect.
In our reflection on the biblical apocalypse as used in the post-Easter
era by the adherents of Jesus, we have to realise that in human history it
was and is common to use human lives as material to achieve success in
the “great story” (the historical import). This brutal manipulation with
human masses in wars and revolutionary transformations of society caus-
es people to want to escape from evil. Marxist philosophy considered
this escapist view as typical for religion in general.
In the Hebrew and Early Jewish view the apocalyptic concept at-
tempts a solution. Through their resurrection individuals will participate
in the fulfilment of history even if, during its course, they were among
the oppressed. Such a hope does not necessarily mean an endless life in
terms of a time sequence, but it can better be expressed as an encounter
with God as the supreme truth and power. The human life would lose
its individuality in an endless continuation. Individual hope means rath-
er a transformation of the whole human life through God’s justice

( Judgment) and love (inviting/including into a community). In this
way the apocalyptic concept in both the Jewish and the Christian ver-
sions recognised the value of a human life – a life that is kept in God’s
memory (see Ps 8:4 – 5) and related to his “glory” (Hebr. kābōd; Gr.
doxa – see e. g. Ps 73:24; 2 Cor 3:18; Eph 1:18), a life that may be writ-
ten in the book of life (Mal 3:16; Phil 4:3; Rev 3:5; “in heaven” Luke
10:20) and that culminates in seeing God “face to face” (1 Cor 13:12).
“Glory” is, in this context, the area in which God is immediately
accessible and in which the power of his presence can be experienced.
The purpose of the divine plan for humans is not a union in the sense of merging
into God, but rather a communion between God and humans, as it was pre-
figured in the experience of Israel accepting God’s covenant (Ps 50:5;
89:4 f.; Jer 33:25 – 26), sharing table fellowship with God (Ps 23:5;
Matt 22:21) or “speaking” with God (Isa 65:24) and, in Christianity,
in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23 – 26; Mark 14:22 – 26parr.) We
may accept such images and metaphors with a slight smile, but a deeper
insight reveals that in them human hope is revealed in its essential fea-
tures.
When we consider the motif of encounter or meeting – the social
language found in many texts dealing with resurrection (e. g. 1 Thess
4:17 – 18: “we… to meet the Lord… we will be with the Lord forever…
encourage one another…”) – we may conclude that eternity in the bib-
lical sense includes interrelation with other lives (the Last Judgment as a
“synoptic” evaluation of humanity).41 Such a confrontation is a compre-
hensive process; “eternity” does not mean rest in the sense of an inert
state.
All of this is a secondary reflection (ultra-reflection) on the biblical
texts and even as such it is not identical with the modern idea of human
individuality, and yet it is one of its presuppositions. The older corpo-
rate concept of the human being as a part of a wider social group was
not abandoned but rather taken to a deeper level when the prophets
stressed personal responsibility before God. The unique value of a
human life is based on the fact that it is destined to be in community with God.
The convergence and the eschatological integration of the two di-
mensions of human hope, as we have described them (hope at death and
41 P. Pokorný, The Genesis of Christology, 196 f.; P. Lampe, Paul’s Concept of a

Spiritual Body, 114.
hope in the positive meaning of history), express the horizon of human

life.
Reflected in secular terms, it includes a conclusion that is extremely
relevant today: A human being (a person) must not be used as the means or an
instrument for achieving any higher aim – social, political or even religious (fusion
with the divine substance). The aim of human life and of history as a whole is the
same: God’s community with individual humans as social beings, where humans
are confirmed as humans through community with other humans and with God
who is acknowledged as God through their conscious confession. The individual
human life can be defined in a social context only: it is expressed by the
apocalyptic image of humans being raised from the dead and enjoying
the victory of God’s justice. A living organism can be built from
non-interchangeable parts only. If the unique character of each
human being is not recognised, it can only result in a human mass.
The idea of the Last Judgment with the evaluation of each human life
impacted in an indirect but suggestive way on the general problem of
humanity.
What we have mentioned up till now is not only the fruit of a de-
liberate theology, but also the result of the process of a theologically se-
lective liturgical reception by early Christian communities. The under-
standing of the Last Judgment as an expectation that led to the discovery
of the value of the individual human life is one-sided, since apocalyptic
expectations work predominantly with groups of people and provide
the principal alternatives (saved – rejected). But in the tradition of the
Easter gospel the apocalyptic image of Jesus as the eschatological Sav-
iour is the subject of personal testimony and appeals to every human
being to make a decision.
2.4.5 Shortcomings of the apocalyptic paradigm
One problem with the apocalyptic paradigm comes from the linear and
spatial framework of the mythical concept which suggests a feeling of
fatality. This is understandable, since in the times and situations in
which the apocalyptic texts originated, most people did not usually
have the chance to change the course of events by their intervention.
They were compelled to be passive. The apocalyptic description of
the catastrophes coming at the end of this age in a given sequence
may at most lead to the ethics of passive resistance and inner solidarity
inside the group. These are not negative values, but such ethics can
be effective for a short time only. Ultimately this may cause depression
and degeneration. Apocalypse is “good news” just for a short and dan-
gerous time, e. g. when the people to whom the apocalyptic texts were
originally addressed were under immediate threat from apocalyptic pla-
gues. Such a situation might lead to the impression that the danger was
so great that God’s plans might come to nothing. And an apocalyptic
prophecy, according to which this was foreseen and included in the di-
vine plan, might have stabilised their faith. Furthermore, the apocalyptic
texts say that all this suffering is not yet the end, for the end is still to
come (Mark 13:13 “Who endures to the end, will be saved”). Howev-
er, the spatial images of the future are not able to express the openness of
the concrete course of history: What are individuals to do in the face of
the pre-programmed course of history and the expected division of hu-
mankind into those who are saved and those who are rejected? That is
why the early followers of Jesus had to transform the apocalyptic myth
and interpret it in the light of the basic Easter experience with Jesus,
who had such a profound impact on history even after his crucifixion.
Another problem with the apocalyptic myth is the gap between the
death of the righteous on the one hand and the Last Judgment at the end
of this age on the other. Do the righteous “sleep” during this time, as
they are supposed to in most of the inter-testamentary apocalyptic
texts? Or are they provisionally separated into the Garden of Eden or
into Hell (Hebr. sheol; Greek hadēs) as is indicated, for example, in
the Gospel according to Luke (12:20; 16:22 ff.: “The poor man died
and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham”; 23:43)?
These are secondary problems; nevertheless, they demonstrate the com-
plexity of the issues that have to be considered when interpreting the
consequences of the apocalyptic vision of human hope.
The most important problem was the derivation of apocalyptic im-
ages from an extraordinary revelation through a dream or some form of
special inspiration. The dubious verification and unclear character of
such revelations were already criticized in the Law and the Prophets
(Deut 13:2 – 6; Jer 23:25 – 32). In Jesus’ movement and the old Chris-
tian tradition the apocalypse appears in a new context: as a reflective ex-
pression of the event of Jesus’ resurrection, confirmed by the testimony
of witnesses which related to their inner encounter with Jesus, the Risen
Lord. And when Paul interprets this Easter confession by means of re-
flection and logical conclusion (1 Cor 15:12 – 57), it is an ultra-reflec-
tion that deprives the myth of its ideological character. This is the be-
ginning of the Christian transformation of mythical imagery.
2.4.6 The Christian transformation of apocalyptic imagery
The decisive change in the Christian concept of the “good news” can
be expressed by describing the grammatical operations that were already
present in the shortest sentences describing the resurrection of Jesus: the
plural (humans) was changed into the singular (he – i. e. Jesus); the gen-
eral designation “humans” was replaced by a proper name ( Jesus or
“Christ,” used as a name); and the future tense (will be raised from
the dead) was replaced by the past tense (has been raised/ he was raised/
God has raised him/ he is risen). Since the past in which the formulae
were rooted was not a primordial, archetypal past, but a past attested by
persons who, at the time when this transformation was in progress, were
still alive or had it fresh in their memory, the myth was reinterpreted by
a transposition into history. “Revelation” became a special part of his-
tory.
From the original apocalyptic structure of the Easter proclamation it
could be deduced that Jesus’ resurrection is not simply a happy ending
to his story, but that it has a profound and positive significance for other
people as well. This means that:
(a) Jesus’ resurrection was considered to be an anticipation and a guar-
antee of Jesus’ second coming in glory (1 Thess 1:10) 42 and the gen-
eral resurrection at the end (presupposed in Paul’s argument in 1
Thess 4:16 – 17). For those who believed in him, it became a prom-
ise of resurrection to eternal life (see Paul’s argument in 1 Thess
4:14 – 17; 1 Cor 6:14: “God raised the Lord and will also raise us
by his power”; Rom 6:8: “If we have died with Christ, we believe
that we will also live with him”). In this way the problem of the gap
between the time of the individual life and the time of the eschato-
logical fulfilment receded into the background. Once God had
given a guarantee of his power over death and corruption in history
through the resurrection of Jesus, the timing of the fulfilment is no
longer a pivotal problem.
(b) As for Jesus, who “was raised from the dead as the first” (1 Cor
15:20), his resurrection was considered to be practically identical
42 E. Käsemann, Zum Thema der urchristlichen Apokalyptik, 105 – 131; cf. N. T.

Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 477.
with his exaltation to a position equal to God (kyrios, ’adonāy,

YHWH – Phil 2:6 – 11).43 His promises are therefore validated.44
(c) Paul summarised the consequences of Easter for other people by
saying that the communion with Jesus Christ cannot be interrupted
by death: “I am convinced that neither death nor life … will be able
to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, our Lord” (Rom
8:38 – 39).
In this manner, as we have already mentioned above, the apocalyp-
tic image is split into two parts: one rooted in the past (Christology)
and the other in the future fulfilment (eschatology), which we shall
discuss below. This meant a complete re-shaping of the apocalyptic
mythical image. The Easter gospel implied a way of solving the de-
layed coming of the kingdom of God (the “second” coming of
Jesus in glory) and at the same time it meant postponing the fatal
catastrophes that were due to come according to the apocalyptic
myth. They are not a fatal necessity any longer. The apocalyptic
confrontation now runs right through the history of humankind
as we shall demonstrate under (d) (and see also in the Gospel of
Mark, § 6.2).
(d) As with the apocalyptic visions, humankind is divided into two
groups after the Last Judgment. However, Paul developed an alter-
native view in 1 Cor 3:10 – 17. According to this view, the fire of
the Last Judgment will make visible what each individual has used to
build upon the only foundation which cannot be destroyed, i. e.
Jesus Christ: whether they built using gold, silver, wood or straw.
What was built out of wood or straw will be destroyed by fire,
but even in such cases the builders may be saved “as through
fire” (verse 15). They will be saved because the firm foundation
is provided by God and accepted by the believer through faith.
Faith enables individual human beings to find some orientation in
what transcends them, and in this way take a step back from them-
selves. Paul wrote this for the Christian community as an exhorta-
tion to them to reconsider their own ideas and activities in the light
of the overall goal. Nevertheless, it may be a useful and effective
model for any human life plan, if we logically add a totally negative
43 It was only Luke who decomposed Easter into two events – resurrection and
ascension – in order that the two dimensions of Easter might be better reflected
on and experienced.
44 U. Wilckens, Überlieferungsgeschichte der Auferstehung Jesu, 53.
option: those who fully identify themselves (their “I”) with their
possessions and achievements will be destroyed together with
their work as described, for example, in Luke 12:13 – 21. The others
may draw a lesson from the misfortune of their work, and the Judg-
ment through fire may become the cause of their transformation for
eternity.
We did not intend here to anticipate a discussion of the Pauline concept
of the gospel, but rather to present a sample of the possible transforma-
tions of the apocalyptic scheme which demonstrate that apocalyptic im-
ages were open to creative transformations. This is the reason for the fact
that, as metaphors, apocalyptic images are still used today and they in-
fluence the scheme used by systematic theology to interpret the main
statements of Christian faith. Interpretation for the individual life
means that it acquires its meaning in relation to what transcends it (pray-
er being the marker), that this relationship is expressed and reflected in
social terms and realised in social relations (You and I), and that the
communion with the transcending reality (God) includes individual hu-
mans; otherwise it would be a deficient community. A community, like
any living body and even like any machine, can consist only of different
parts.
In this way, individual human beings can participate in the other,
wider dimension of hope to which they are related – the hope of a
righteous consummation of history as “this age” (the kingdom of
God or the “Age to Come” as a common horizon).
2.4.7 A miracle? Interpreting the resurrection II
The current category used to characterise the resurrection of Jesus is

that of a miracle. But the reluctance to describe it, this almost ascetic at-
titude towards describing such a fundamental phenomenon of Christian
faith, calls into question the attempts to interpret the resurrection as a
miracle (a unique and shocking wonder).
As we have demonstrated, the common denominator of the three
formulae of the euangelion as an oral proclamation is the resurrection
of Jesus. In order that we may better understand the meaning of resur-
rection, we have to examine the texts that we have at our disposal. Jesus’
resurrection is described in none of them. A description of Jesus leaving
his grave is a later phenomenon, attested first in the Gospel of Peter,
which originates in the mid-second century. There we read a report of

how Jesus left the tomb as a huge figure reaching up to heaven (Gos.
Pet. 34 – 42). In the canonical Gospels the witnesses of resurrection, as
mentioned in 1 Cor 15:5 – 8 (Peter, the Twelve and others and, finally,
Paul), encountered Jesus as the living one. From this experience they
deduced that after his death he must have been re-animated in a new
status; N. T. Wright calls it “transphysicality.45 Quite soon they obvi-
ously began to use the term resurrection, which in Judaism, as we
have seen, was associated mainly with the apocalypses. In various layers
of the Early Christian literature (the Gospels, Paul, the Revelation of
John, Acts) the nature of Jesus’ post-resurrection existence is described
in different ways: as a human being, an extraordinary human being, a
light, a voice, etc. The features of theophany (light, shocked witnesses)
are often present, but they do not play any decisive role. In all cases the
Risen Lord has the character of a person or, at least, he makes people
persons by calling them to testify to his new presence. The intention
of such texts is clear, but a description is not easy. The bodily resurrec-
tion, in the tradition of the Christian confessions, means that Jesus’ res-
urrection (a) applies to the earthly Jesus of Nazareth and thereby affects
history, and that (b) his new status is a social phenomenon – he commu-
nicates with humans in the world. His body is a means of communica-
tion. That is why Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the spiritual body (sōma
pneumatikon). This does not mean that the material of the body is spirit.
Rather, it means that irrespective of the material, the body (and the
communication it mediates) is governed by the Spirit of God. Once
we admit that Jesus as the Risen Lord has been transformed, it is
quite difficult to make the empty tomb a necessary part of the faith in
his resurrection.46
To stress the significance of the bodily resurrection, N. T. Wright
insists on the historical authenticity of the narratives about the empty
tomb, so that even the appearances of Jesus as the Risen Son of God
are in his view a necessary supplement to the discovery of the empty
tomb.47 We understand this thesis as a reaction to the criticism that
45 N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 606 f., 612, etc. We could ac-
cept this as a characteristic of the way it is depicted in the Gospels except for
Mark. It is not a category which enables us to understand the event by
means of contemporary natural science.
46 Cf. A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1201, 1279 ff.
47 N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 695.
takes too seriously various alternative explanations for the origin of the
resurrection kerygma and narratives without any attempt to interpret
the intention and function of the related texts. This applies to some sol-
utions proposed by the liberal research of the 19th century and by some
individual scholars of the Third Quest for the historical Jesus at the end
of the 20th century. We have to start with the interpretation of the re-
lated biblical passages as literary and theological texts.
From the historical point of view we have to be aware of the fact
that Paul did not know the narratives of the empty tomb, even if his
idea of resurrection included the transformation of the body, or that
he may have known them, but did not use them as a part of his testi-
mony of the Risen Lord. This conclusion has theological ramifications.
It means in both cases that the empty tomb, even if we may consider it
as historically probable, cannot be the only or even primary constituent
part of Christian faith.48 The real impact of Jesus in history is not de-
rived from the manner of his resurrection, which the earliest testimonies
do not describe, but from the fact that Jesus is present and active in a
new way (Easter appearances) 49, that he impacts history and wins the
hearts of people. Wright himself admits that what is crucial is the present
“Jesus-centred spirituality”,50 obviously inspired by God himself. We all
know the story in Luke 24 about two disciples walking to Emmaus after
Easter. The disciples sadly share their disappointment with Jesus and
even mention the story about the empty tomb and the vision of angels.
And they are still sad. They do not recognise the new presence of Jesus
until they are in Emmaus, when he “took bread, blessed and broke it”–
i. e. in the Eucharistic meal. This experience of encountering the impact
of Jesus’ presence, so authentic that it is indeed Jesus in persona,51 is the
source of the Easter faith that is transmitted by witnesses, by oral testi-
mony, or by the whole life of the witnesses and their community. It in-
cludes a call for a creative and innovative response communicating the
power of the resurrection into the burdens and pains of the contempo-
48 For another opinion see ibidem, 636.

49 The reports about the appearances do not say anything about the way in which
Jesus was present. In the Greek and Latin literature of Late Antiquity, appear-
ances in visions are mostly understood as the consequence of an ecstatic expe-
rience or apotheosis (D. Zeller, Erscheinungen Verstorbener, 19).
50 N. T. Wright, The resurrection fo the Son fo God, 721 f.
51 E. Schillebeeckx, Jesus, 388.
rary world and anticipating the consummation of God’s plans for hu-
mankind.52
The empty tomb, be it an authentic story or a legend, is an illustra-
tion or supplement. The “point of reference” of the Easter faith in the
sense of the “point of orientation” or even the “feedback” of ethical
practice, is Jesus of Nazareth in the whole of his life. The event ex-
pressed as “resurrection”, which Christians now understand by faith
only, is part of history, since it applies to Jesus of Nazareth who lived
at a certain time and place, and impacted history from that time on.53
However, the Christian faith does not mean believing in resurrection
but in Jesus of Nazareth as the Risen and present Christ (Lord, Son
of God, etc.). For the methodology and in particular for the character-
isation of Christian faith in resurrection we may refer to Dale Allison,
especially to the last pages of his book on the resurrection of Jesus.54
As we have demonstrated above, an important argument against un-
derstanding Jesus’ resurrection as a miracle is the fact that within the
apocalyptic scheme the resurrection was an event concerning human-
kind in general (Mark 12:23), and the resurrection of Jesus was consid-
ered to be an anticipation of a general resurrection – Jesus Christ was
soon called the “firstborn from among the dead” (Col 1:18). Paul devel-
oped this idea because of the Christians who died before the parousia,
which was expected soon: “Christ has been raised from the dead, the
first fruits of those who have died” (1 Cor 15:20). Being submerged
in water during baptism meant dying with Jesus Christ and submerging
“into his death”. And similarly – this is the pivotal argument – the sub-
sequent “walking in newness of life” opened the way towards a union
with him “in a resurrection like his” (Rom 6:3 – 11; see § 2.3 above).
Consequently, according to this theological interpretation, the
apocalyptic imagery acquired a new function in the Christian context:
being linked with the person and life of Jesus of Nazareth, it expressed
the depth and universal validity of his impact and claim.55 However,
52 G. Thomas, Resurrection to New Life, 276.

53 This link with history has theological significance and the lack of reflection of
this phenomenon may distort the results of research. This is for example the
case with G. Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, last part (6).
54 Dale C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 373 – 375.
55 This is also stressed by R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, II, 535. However, ac-
cording to him the appearances confirm what Jesus foretold about his death and
resurrection. The source of the Easter experience (appearances) is in his view
Jesus of Nazareth. The earliest traditions, however, say that resurrection refers
since it was Jesus who played the decisive role, the apocalyptic imagery
had to be transformed: attention was concentrated primarily on Jesus as
an event of the past, the images of the fulfilment of history were adapted
in keeping with the character of the experience with him, and they be-
came as a matter of principle open towards new interpretations, such as
we may see in the reflective interpretation of eschatology mentioned
earlier, in Paul (the main texts are 1 Thess 4:13 – 18; 1 Cor 15:12 –
58), in the Revelation of John 20 – 22, or in the Gospel according to
John (e. g. John 5:25 – 29). Even the resurrection of Jesus itself was par-
tially emancipated from the apocalyptic scheme. In many cases it was
conceived of as an individual lifting up into heaven like those we are
familiar with from the Jewish tradition, e. g. that of Enoch (Gen 5) or
of Elijah (2 Kings 2), or as a reanimation, later followed by ascension
into heaven. It was similar to the Greek tradition of apotheosis, when
a mortal man was (because of his aretē) taken up to heaven and accepted
among the deities. This is the model used in the reports about the lifting
up of Jesus in Luke 24:39 and 24:50 – 53 and Acts 1:9 – 11.
A theological hint that can help us in interpreting the resurrection is
the conclusion that gradually developed concerning the characteristics
of God himself. The Jews characterised God according to his deeds in
history: God was the one who “brought Israel out of the land of
Egypt” (Ex 20:1). Now he is primarily the God who “raised Jesus
from the dead” (e. g. 1 Cor 6:14; 4:24; Acts 3:15) and even the God
who “gives life to the dead” (Rom 4:17), “who raises the dead” (2
Cor 1:9; cf. Acts 26:8). The conclusion is that the resurrection does not be-
long to the category of a miracle in the sense of a singular intervention into the
laws of creation, but it was rather an event, through which a special power (dy-
namis) of God as Creator and Saviour was revealed in history. In Rom 1:4 the
agent of resurrection is the Holy Spirit (called there pneuma hagiosynēs).56
This means that the gospel centred on Jesus was recognised as an event of uni-
versal validity. As Hans Weder puts it: “the concretum of the existence
of Jesus becomes the concretum universale of God’s incarnation”.57 This
is meant as an expression of Jesus’ universal impact on history.58
to Jesus by mediation. It is a new event –God’s answer to the life of Jesus which
ended on the cross, the answer to what is represented by his cry of dereliction.
56 U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 1 – 5), 65.
57 H. Weder, ‘Evangelium Jesu Christi’ (Mk 1,1) und ‘Evangelium Gottes’ (Mk
1,14), 406.
So far as the interpretation of resurrection in the New Testament is

concerned, we have to note these individual features of the theological
intention and ethical consequences: the resurrection as a promise for
other humans expressed the unique value of human life, it is a social
event and, in particular, it has been witnessed as an act of God.
The confrontation of exegetical findings and their interpretation
with the natural sciences, especially anthropology or cosmology, is a
necessary but secondary task. The differences of methodology between
science and the humanities prevent us from creating a closed and com-
plete image. What we can do is express the results in a critical and sober
way and prevent any ideological deviation from occurring in the differ-
ent images. In some ways this is the “apophatic” method, saying what
the experience of faith is not. In this respect the statement that resurrec-
tion in the Pauline euangelion is not any form of re-animation or resus-
citation is maintained. The most we can do in attempting a dialogue
with science is to search for certain analogies in other areas of life or na-
ture in general. And our prophetic function as regards scientific endeav-
ours consists of keeping the world view open. This means in secular
terms maintaining a critical distance from any transformation of
human knowledge into ideology and in theological terms the acknowl-
edgment of the superiority of the supreme truth over current human
knowledge. This corresponds to the theological thinking of most of
the New Testament authors who in spite of their poetic imagination
and narrative art leave open the question of HOW the hope is given
by God. This applies especially to Paul.59
When interpreting the resurrection as it is presented in the formulae
of the euangelion and their use in Paul, we may use the terms “reveal” or
“revelation” in the broader sense, not in the sense of apocalypse, but
rather in the sense of the later Christian dogmatic tradition,60 according
to which some events attested by the congruent testimony of a com-
munity of individual witnesses can attest for other people events tran-
58 For W. Pannenberg, Grundzge der Christologie, 97 – 103, the empty tomb rep-
resents a reality which is present only in anticipation and will be verified only in
its eschatological fulfilment. For criticism of his worldview see A. Kendel, “die
Historizität der Auferstehung ist bis auf weiteres vorauszusetzen”, 161 ff.
59 P. Lampe, Paul’s Concept of a Spiritual Body, 114.
60 This category of revelation is derived from short summaries of faith in the
Apostolic Fathers, which are often introduced by the verb fanerō, e. g. Ignat.
Magn. 8:2, where we read that the one God revealed himself through Jesus
Christ his Son.
scending the current world view.61 So it is with the resurrection. (See

below Interpreting the resurrection IV).
2.4.8 Resurrection and testimony: Interpreting the resurrection III
Paul Ricoeur pointed out that such events are not accessible by descrip-
tive research. They can be recognised and attested through the testimo-
ny of concrete people. A testimony does not belong to the non-critical
category. Not only theology, but also law and history as scholarly disci-
plines are based on testimony.
Testimony is valid under specific conditions only if:
(a) It agrees with other testimonies about the same event,
(b) It is not attained by means of violence or corruption,
(c) There is no reason to suppose that the witness produced the infor-
mation on the basis of his/her own wishes and intentions – and
(d) The testimony fits the other (verifiable) information that we possess
about the events, data, and affairs which are related to the attested
event. In the case of the testimony of Jesus as the bearer of hope,
these are the data about his teaching and activity, and – indirectly
– about the response of the society of his time.
Testimony always includes an element of interpretation which must not
disagree with this historically accessible information. In our case it
means that euangelion is a revelation that vindicates the historical Jesus
and guarantees that his story is the basis of human hope. However, at
the same time, it means that the interpretation of the gospel must not
contradict the teaching and the attitude of Jesus as we learn about it
from the historical research.
Testimony is not a substitute for logical evidence. Testimony concerns impor-
tant issues that need more than mere verification. A solid testimony, meeting the
conditions mentioned above, has to be taken seriously. Influenced by a testimony,
we have to take responsibility for our own decisions, and we have to decide
whether we accept the testimony or not. If not, we have to know why and say
so. Judges in court are in the same situation. They may have persuasive evi-
dence at their disposal, but this does not absolve them of the responsi-
bility of making a decision.
61 See P. Ricoeur, Toward a Hermeneutics of the Idea of Revelation, 101 – 107.

The Easter gospel has been presented till the present time as a testi-
mony attesting the key role of Jesus’ story for human hope and con-
firming the identity of the present Risen Christ with Jesus of Nazareth.
If a credible testimony is ignored, one dimension of human life is
suppressed.
2.4.9 Revelation: Interpreting the resurrection IV
From what we have said about testimony and about the proclamation of
resurrection as preserved in the ancient Christian texts it follows that the
term resurrection was used to denote the event that led to the appear-
ances of the crucified Jesus as the living one. These appearances were
thus situated within a broader picture of the apocalyptic consummation
of history. The category “revelation,” which was later introduced into
theology as the designation for the whole story of Jesus (his incarna-
tion), was derived from this apocalyptic context. Such a revelation as
a theological concept does not imply supernatural information about
something; rather it presents an event in history62 as a unique expression
of a reality with general significance that had not previously been dis-
covered. In this way the communication of God with humans as attest-
ed in Christianity is fundamentally different from the spiritual experi-
ence of the “other world” which we are familiar with from dualistic
religions or, for example, from Gnosticism.63 Some of the Christian Fa-
thers, like Athanasius or Cyril of Alexandria, developed a concept of
resurrection, which may be interesting even for theological reflection
today, but which is only indirectly an interpretation of biblical texts.
The Swiss Protestant theologian Karl Barth limited this revelation to
the resurrection of Jesus itself. It relates to the life of Jesus, but unlike
his teaching and the whole of his life story including his crucifixion,
which are all historically attested facts, the resurrection should be con-
sidered as “an original and exemplary act of revelation”64 linked with
the fact of resurrection in a time sequence. “Original and exemplary”
express that Barth intended to articulate the character of the resurrection
as an event (it is not simply an expression of the significance of Jesus or
62 For revelation as a communication in time see G. Etzmüller, Ich lebe und ihr
sollt auch leben, 234.
63 Cf. also the paragraph on F. Overbeck in § 7 – The Gospel of Luke and Acts.
64 K. Barth, KD IV, 1, 336.
his influence on history or his memory) and, at the same time, avoid the
category of miracle. For Barth it was a special part of the divine creative
power which had not been discovered previously because of human ali-
enation through sin. If the attested experience of Christian faith with Easter as
a revelation 65 of God’s decisive intention is valid, then the experience with pos-
itive, surprisingly persistent ideas, deeds and living traditions present in history
and resisting the tendency towards alienation are an indirect trace of this power
and intention (logos) which was fully represented in Jesus’ resurrection. 66
In the New Testament in 1 Cor 15:36 – 38 or in John 12:2467 (cf. 2
Cor 9:10 – 13) the power of growth in nature is declared to be an anal-
ogy of resurrection on a lower level. In 1 Clem 24 the rising of the sun
in the morning is also given as an analogy. The non-self-evident char-
acter of these phenomena helps us discover the importance of spiritual
traditions that influence our lives with surprising persistence.
These considerations belong to the realm of systematic theology or
philosophy, but when discussing the term euangelion we have to be
aware of all its implications and inner potential. In representing the ul-
timate effect of the power of God as Creator and Saviour, the “good
news” acquired decisive authority for the movement of the post-Easter
followers of Jesus who were, shortly afterwards, expelled from the syn-
agogue and eventually became the Christian church.
The Resurrection of Jesus as a guarantee of the eschatological power of God’s
good will towards humans motivated human activity. Humans can be fully com-
mitted to a cause only when it has a future that does not depend on them only.
On this point the biblical heritage disagrees with many ideologies of the
present day.68
65 In Paul the verbs faneroyn (2 Cor 2:14 f.) and epifainomai (Tit 3:4 ff.) are some-
times also used in this sense. However, epifaneia refers mostly to the manifesta-
tion of the Risen Lord at the end of history (Tit 2:13).
66 It was R. Bultmann, Revelation in the New Testament, especially 87 ff., who
recognised the importance of the concept of revelation for interpreting Chris-
tian faith. However, he concentrated on revelation as an existential occurrence
only and did not consider the consequences which it has for orientation in his-
tory.
67 For interpretation see M. Theobald, Herrenworte im Johannesevangelium, 397 –
400.
68 More than a hundred years ago this problem was discussed by the Marxist phi-
losopher G. V. Plekhanov (later expelled from the Communist party for his re-
visionist views) in his study about the role of the personality in history (“K vo-
prosu roli litchnosti v istorii”, 1898, the end of chapter I). His argument from
history is derived from the activism of the Calvinists as a consequence of
2.5 Euangelion 41
2.5 Euangelion69
Euangelion can be translated as “good news” or “good tidings”, even

though a better expression of “good news” in Greek would be euangelia
(fem.) or kalē angelia. In all cases the motif of mediation by a messenger
(angelos) is implied. Why did the followers of Jesus use this particular ex-
pression for the central message of their movement? Can this term be
derived from the teaching of Jesus himself ? To answer these questions
we have to review the history of the term in Greek documents and lit-
erature as well as in the Hebrew Bible.
2.5.1 Lexical problems
Since the formulae of the gospel that have been preserved are all written
in Greek, we should start our survey with an analysis of the Greek term
euangelion and some of the expressions derived from the same root. They
are attested from the beginnings of the Greek literature. For example,
the noun euangelos for the proclaimer of good (lucky) tidings is common
in Euripides (Medea 975; 1010: “you will be called euangeloi”).
In Plutarch’s Pompeius 66:3:7 euangelizomai relates to a message
about the end of a war. In the novella Philopseudes (31) by Lucian
(died 180 C.E.) it refers to news about expelling a demon. In Flavius
Josephus (B. J. 3:503:1) it is used in a message about the imminent cap-
ture of Jerusalem, as seen through the eyes of the Romans.
The Septuagint is the closest neighbouring literary area to the “gos-
pel” as a term of the Christian oral proclamation. The verb euangelizomai
or euangelizō (in the active voice) is used in 1 Kings (=1 Sam in the He-
brew Bible) 31:9 (parallel in 1 Chron 10:9 – in the passive voice) for
Philistines proclaiming the death of Saul as good news (bad news for Is-
rael), or (in the passive voice) in 2 Kings (2 Sam) 18:31 about the death
their consciousness about the necessity (predestination) of what they are doing.
He also mentioned Luther and his proclamation “Hier stehe ich und kann
nichts anders” – an attitude that gave him inexhaustible energy. As an example
of the opposite attitude he mentioned Hamlet with his doubts about the mean-
ing of human existence.
69 For the problem as a whole see J. Schniewind, Euangelion; E. Käsemann, An die
Rçmer, 4 – 11; H. Koester, From the Kerygma-Gospel to Written Gospels,
361 – 365; U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rçmer, 74 – 75; W. Horbury, ‘Gospel’
in Herodian Judea.
of Absalom (good news from the point of view of Israel’s history, bad
news for David as father). In all these cases it is used in the context of
battle and war and, as in the Greek usage, it reflected the meaning
“news of victory”, or, more generally, “news from the battlefield.”
Especially interesting for us are the prophetic promises of the escha-
tological messenger who will bring the message of salvation (Hebr.
mbaśśer) for Israel, e. g. Isa 52:7 [parallel in Nah 2:1]; 40:9; 41:27; cf.
Ps 39:10; 67:12 [LXX]). Salvation is conceived of as the definitive lib-
eration from all inimical powers. Isa 61:1, where the prophet is author-
ised to “preach good news (in the Septuagint: euangelizomai) to the
poor” (NIV) is the most important instance where the messenger of
“good news” appears in the Prophets.
The equivalent of these Septuagint texts in the Hebrew original are
expressions derived from the root b-ś-r (mostly in pi‘el, partially in hit-
pa‘el; the noun beśōrāh). We have just mentioned that the Hebrew equiv-
alent of the Greek “good news” originally meant simply “news” (see 1
Sam 4:17) and sometimes it is linked with the Hebrew adjective tōb –
good (Isa 52:7 or 2 Sam 18:27; 1 Kings 1:42), but in most instances
it already implies a positive meaning – “good news.”70
In Isa 61:1 the good news (expressed by the verb b-ś-r in pi‘el) about
the Year of the Lord’s Favour (Deliverance) is a metaphor for the escha-
tological salvation of Israel which became popular in Israel in the Hel-
lenistic period, as can be documented by allusions in the Messianic
Apocalypse from Qumran (4Q521:6 – 8, 12 – 13; in verse 12 the verb
b-ś-r appears). In Luke 4:16 – 21, the text of Jesus’ first sermon in Naz-
areth, euangelisasthai ptōchois (to proclaim good news to the poor), sums
up the “good news” or “good tidings” (they are good in the eyes of
God), and this can be followed in Early Christian literature, e. g. in Bar-
nab. 14: 9:2. In Luke 4, this is considered not only a prophetic message,
but also a programmatic message of Jesus himself. And, as we shall see
below (§ 3), in this case the Lukan editorial strategy may have coincided
with a real trace of the teaching of Jesus.
The noun euangelion does not appear in the Septuagint in the singu-
lar. We find only the plural euangelia, which most likely means the re-
ward for a messenger bringing good news (2 Kings [MT 2 Sam]
18:22) and is not commonly understood as “good news”, since in the
same context in 18:27 we read about euangelia agathē, Hebr. besōrāh
tōbāh (“good good news”). Only in 18:25 does euangelia without any at-
70 J. Schniewind, Euangelion, 29 f.
2.5 Euangelion 43
tribute mean “good news”. However, William Horbury demonstrated

that “good news” expressed by the noun besōrāh, the synonymous
shemū‘āh, or the Aramaic besorethā, “were used in Judea by early Judean
Christians and possibly by Jesus”.71 For example, the Syriac Apocalypse
of Baruch (2 Baruch), which dates from the early second century and
was translated from the Greek translation of the Hebrew original,72
mentions a message which will be “made known” and mean a turn
for the better for the faithful Jews (44:6; cf. 77:12). The Hebrew and
Greek equivalents may have been the nouns besōrāh and euangelion.
The same applies to the Aramaic tractate “On the Public Fasts” from
the Mishnah containing a calendar of 36 days of joy, on which fasting
is not allowed. Here we read that on the 28th Adar (the 12th month), in
the time of the Macabbean wars (about 3rd April 162 B.C.E.), the Jews
received the “good news” (bśwrt’ tbt’) allowing them to keep the com-
mandments of the Law.73 These observations support the conclusion
that in some instances the Semitic and Greek expressions for “good
news” were used as terms related to salvation and integrity of hope.
Nevertheless, the verb euangelizō (euangelō) in the passive voice (eu-
angelizomai), less frequently in the active voice, was more common than
the noun in the Greek of the Septuagint, which Paul used in his mis-
sion. Paul also used the verb in a more general meaning, as when he re-
ferred to Timothy reporting (euangelisamenou) about the faith and love of
the Thessalonians (1 Thess 3:6). But the most important use of the verb
euangelizomai in the New Testament is where it is applied to the message
or teaching of Jesus in Matt 11:5 (parallel in Luke 7:22): ptōchoi euange-
lizontai – a saying from Q and an indirect quotation of or an obvious
allusion to Isa 61:1.
2.5.2 The noun “euangelion”
In Greek literature the noun euangelion (also in the plural – euangelia) is

originally attested as a reward given to the messenger for good tidings (a
tip or baksheesh), as in Homer, Odysseia 14:152, or in Plutarch, Deme-
trios 17 (Demetrios’ victory announced to Antigonos). It seems that a
71 W. Horbury, ‘Gospel’ in Herodian Judea, 86. See also M. Hengel – A. M.

Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien, 154 f.
72 A. J. Klijn, 2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch, 616 f.
73 For the text with an introduction see in: K. Beyer, Die aramischen Texte vom
Toten Meer, 354 and 358 f.
similar meaning was represented by the Hebrew beśūrā (from b-ś-r) in 2

Sam 4:10 or 18:22. It is most likely to have been an analogy in sema-
siological history; it is less probable that it is a mutual influence in his-
tory. In Greek, euangelion later became an expression for a thank-offer-
ing to gods for good news: Isocrates (436 – 338 B.C.E.), Orationes 7:10;
Plutarch Demosth. 22:3:1; Demetr. 11:4:5; cf. Josephus B. J. 4:618 (Ves-
pasian proclaimed emperor).
In the Hellenistic and early imperial period euangelion is especially
used for good news in the sense of political propaganda.74 Only Jewish
texts avoid this usage. A well-known documentation of this use is the
Inscription of Priene in the south-eastern part of Asia Minor (in the
area of the former Roman province Asia), apparently from 9 B.C.E.
The inscription represents a decree of the provincial assembly and relates
to the emperor Augustus. The term euangelion, as used here and in sev-
eral similar inscriptions,75 is part of the official imperial cult. The term
archē also plays an important role in this cult (cf. Mark 1:1), since the
“good news” of the new divine Emperor is, at the same time, confirmed
as the beginning (archē) of a new era. The emperors mostly regarded it as
ceremonial propaganda, but some of them (Caligula, Nero, Domitian)
took the cultic adoration seriously. From Domitian on, the Christian eu-
angelion about Jesus Christ as the Lord could have provoked conflicts
with the Roman authorities with fatal consequences for the Christians.
To sum up: Isa 61:1 played an important role in the earliest Chris-
tian teaching and theology. However, the pre-Pauline formulae of the
gospel (euangelion) cannot be understood against this background only.
These short texts seem to be primarily liturgical and catechetical formu-
lae, whereas in Isa 61 we have a prophetic promise. In terms of the con-
tent, the formulae of the gospel are confessing statements about Jesus’
(death and) exaltation, whereas in Isa 61 we have a set of concrete
promises given to the poor. The only common denominator with the
Easter gospel is the eschatological horizon, including the Last Judgment,
and the hope of salvation that was represented by the promise. It follows
that the reception of the term euangelion by Paul was also influenced by
the use of this term in the imperial cult. He did not mean it as an explicit
polemic, but rather as an expression of the decisive significance of Jesus.
74 For the evidence and discussion see C. Ettl, Der Anfang der.. Evangelien, es-
pecially 138 ff.
75 See the evidence in A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, 266 f.
2.5 Euangelion 45
2.5.3 Sequence in history
We have demonstrated that the roots of the Christian term gospel (eu-
angelion) originate in the Hebrew Bible and its Greek translation (the
Septuagint). If we analyse the three formulae of the gospel as we have
found them in Paul, the inevitable conclusion is that they must have or-
iginated in the Jewish setting. The one God, the expectation of the Last
Judgment (the “wrath of God”), the messianic function of Jesus, “ac-
cording to the Scriptures” as a certificate of authenticity of the content,
Hebrew lexical elements (pneuma hagiosynēs – a phrase intended to avoid
pronouncing the word God) – all this reveals that the groups of follow-
ers of Jesus inside the Jewish Hebrew- or Greek-speaking community
were the original milieu for these versions of euangelion.
The term euangelion as the designation for each of the formulae and
as a summary of them has entered into Christian literature and teaching
through Paul. Nevertheless, it can be deduced from 1 Cor 15:1 – 3a that
the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus was already referred to as
euangelion in the oral tradition before Paul: “…the good news (euange-
lion) that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received … through
which you also are being saved… For I handed on to you as of first im-
portance what I in turn had received …” Thus it is very probable that
euangelion was used for the Easter message before Paul. His argument in
1 Cor could also be interpreted as a description of his communication
with the Corinthian Christians in his own terminology. However, it
is more probable that the members of the groups mentioned in 1 Cor
15:5 – 8, who accepted 1 Cor 15:3b-5 as the common basis of their pro-
clamation, already spoke about euangelion. It is certain that they accepted
the text that we know from 1 Cor 15:3b-5 as the basis of their confes-
sion, which Paul called euangelion. The fact that in Rom 1:3 – 4 euange-
lion seems to be linked with the quoted formula from an earlier oral tra-
dition changes the probability into what is virtually evidence. Paul had
not visited the Roman congregation before but he still assumed that eu-
angelion was familiar to its members. Already before Paul it was related to
the Easter experience. Some of the witnesses enumerated in 1 Cor
15:6 – 8 may earlier have expressed the Easter message in another
way, but, through an ecumenical agreement, they all accepted the pro-
clamation of the resurrection as the most appropriate expression of their
experience and proclaimed it as euangelion.
When mentioning “the other” gospel in Gal 1:6, Paul makes the
reader aware of the fact that it is not a different gospel.76 All three for-
mulae are concentrated in the same gospel. According to him they are
only different expressions and applications of it. In the next chapter Paul
speaks about the gospel for the uncircumcised and another gospel for the
circumcised (Gal 2:7), i. e. the gospel as applied to the uncircumcised
and to the circumcised. “Other” does not mean “basically different”.
A different gospel /heteron euangelion/ was obviously a different and
false interpretation and understanding of the euangelion, as was offered
by those who “pervert the gospel of Christ”, in this case: who make
the validity of the gospel dependent on circumcision (Gal 1:7b). That
is the different gospel. It means that the fundamentally different under-
standing (interpretation) of the main Christian proclamation is not the
euangelion – the good news.77 In 1 Corinthians the gospel is regarded
as the concrete formula that Paul taught the Corinthians . . . to euange-
lion ho euēngelisamēn hymı̄n. This means that the gospel (apparently as a
proclamation of the resurrection in general) has special versions (here
the one from 1 Cor 15:3b-5), which Paul received from tradition.
Other expressions of faith in resurrection (as in 1 Thess 1:9 – 10 or
Rom 1:3 – 4) belong to the gospel and are also proclamations of the res-
urrection (1 Cor 15:12), but they are not the gospel as it was originally
proclaimed by Paul in Corinth. When comparing the three formulae,
we find that it might be the death of Jesus for he sake of others (1
Cor 1:18, 23 – 24) that was the specific feature of the gospel proclaimed
and interpreted by Paul in Corinth (cf. e. g. 1 Cor 15:12; or “our gos-
pel” in 1 Thess 1:5.10; 2 Cor 4:3 – 6 mentioning only the resurrection)
To sum up: at the beginning of the Christian proclamation was the
message about the resurrection of Jesus, which was soon (before Paul)
called euangelion in some of its versions. Some of them took a short
and fixed form and were passed on as the normative catechetic tradition
(see the chain of paralambanō – paradidōmi – paralambanō in 1 Cor
15:1 – 3a). The “ecumenical” version in 1 Cor 15:3b-5 (death – resur-
rection), the gospel that Paul proclaimed and taught in Corinth, with an
addition containing the list of other witnesses of Jesus’ Easter appearan-
76 Heteros means “other,” “further,” “different in interpretation” allos rather “dif-

ferent in content”.
77 A. Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 48 – 50; for a detailed exegesis see
J. Schröter, Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament, 152 ff.
2.5 Euangelion 47
ces, became the most influential formula of the gospel. We shall see that
this version played the key role in shaping the literary Gospels.
The problem is that the pre-Pauline, post-Easter formulations of the
gospel are clearly related to the Jewish milieu, but in terms of content
they are not related to Isa 61:1. This means that in the Jewish
(Greek-speaking) milieu euangelizō/ euangelizomai expressed salvation
in a broad sense. After Easter (and most probably before Paul) some
of the followers of Jesus started to use the term euangelion in the absolute
sense (without indicating why it was “good”, or what the object of the
proclamation was) as a short expression for the hope that was linked
with Jesus of Nazareth as their Risen Lord (kyrios). That they adopted
the language of Isa 61 is understandable. But the fact that they switched
from the verb to the noun was obviously influenced by the role of ta
euangelia in the imperial cult.78 It expressed the unique character (the
novum) of Jesus as the universal Messiah and Saviour. The shift from
plural into singular (euangelion) reflects the good news as expressed in
the Easter experience in one event, namely the (death and) resurrection
of Jesus. The formula in Rom 1:3 – 4, where Jesus is proclaimed as the
Davidic Messiah (without explicitly mentioning his death), may be di-
rectly influenced by this tradition. The Hellenistic-Jewish followers of
Jesus usurped the Hellenistic and Roman imperial term euangelion and
used it more often than the verb euangelizomai in order that it might
serve the Christian proclamation. Paul started to use it as the designation
for the message about the resurrection of Jesus in all its versions or, at
least, he introduced this use of the term euangelion into all Christian
communities (congregations) created or influenced by him or his co-
workers. In fact, he also used this term in a wider sense, denoting the
act of proclaiming the “gospel” (“good news”) 79 or spreading the mes-
sage about salvation , especially to non-believers (“Missionspredigt” in
German). However, the awareness of the central significance of the res-
urrection and elevation or enthronement of Jesus into his position as
kyrios of the Christian community and as the representative of God in
the whole world was always present.
The Christian euangelion was presumed to be valid from the time of
Jesus’ resurrection until the eschatological fulfilment of history, the end
of “this age”. From what we have said it may be deduced that having a
78 G. Theissen, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments, 88, note 43; C. Ettl, Der
“Anfang der … Evangelien”, 146.
79 U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rçmer I, 74.
special term for a concrete good message means that such good news is
well known and important for a wide social group over a period of time.
Euangelion should be understood as a terminus technicus. In the ecclesias-
tical sociolect of many languages the word is simply transcribed. The
drawback is that such a term is not understood by those outside the
Church. On the other hand, the advantage is that the positive meaning
is generally accepted (even in a metaphoric, secular use) and that the
term invites interpretation that may avoid simplification of its under-
standing.
The problem of the difference between the gospel in Isa 61 that, ac-
cording to the Synoptics, was quoted by Jesus, and the Easter gospel re-
mains open. Before discussing the problem of the literary Gospels, we
have to take into consideration this difference between the proclamation
of the good news as a vision and a program in the Hebrew Bible, in the
Septuagint, and in Jesus traditions on the one hand, and the Easter gos-
pel with the mere fact of Jesus’ existence stressed by Paul as the key
point of a cosmic myth connecting earth and heaven on the other.
The cause of the difference lies predominantly in the Easter experience,
as we have tried to express above: as the validation and legitimacy of
Jesus’ story it acquired priority over the narrative tradition about
Jesus’ life and teaching. For Paul the gospel was the “gospel of his
(God’s) Son” (Rom 1:9). We need to discuss this development.
2.5.4 The “doubled” eschatology
The first reaction of the earliest Christian communities to the Easter ex-
perience was enthusiasm, lacking any developed reflection. Soon it was
necessary to modify the expectations of its fulfilment. The promises of
the coming kingdom of God and the rule of the poor were not fulfilled
in the near future as had been expected, and some events and phenom-
ena were interpreted as the fulfilment of the promises of Jesus in a spi-
ritual way. This development strengthened dualistic features inside the
emerging Christian movement.80 The Christians, linked with Jesus
Christ as their Lord through baptism and guided by the Holy Spirit,
lived in this world a new life – a life related to the prospect of resurrec-
tion (Rom 6:1 – 11).
80 G. Theissen, The Religion of the Earliest Churches, 276 f.

2.5 Euangelion 49
The Easter experience was soon verbalised as the resurrection and

exaltation of Jesus and thus it changed the global view of the world
of the early Christians. The “gospel” is the concise expression of this in-
sight. The eschatological perspective split into two parts. We may speak
about a double eschatology: the Messiah has come – his messianic king-
dom is not yet here. In the formula of the gospel in 1 Thess 1:10 we
hear about waiting for Jesus, the Son of God from heaven, whom
God raised from the dead. The decisive part of history unfolds between
the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of all humankind ( Jesus’
“second coming” and the “Last Judgment”). This is the most ancient
expression of the horizon of Christian faith in a formula. The fulfilment,
the Age to Come, will be a real social entity, but in the present it is a
human horizon – a hope for the absolute future.81 It is important to re-
alise the nature of the Easter experience and how it could be interpreted
(cf. § 2.2 Interpreting the resurrection above). The visions of Jesus as the
Risen Lord must have been so unique and impressive that the witnesses
were convinced that this was the fulfilment of the messianic apocalyptic
expectations. And since the surrounding world did not change, it was
necessary to adapt the image of the eschatological fulfilment. This
seems to be a defensive manoeuvre. But in fact, if the Easter testimony
had matched the expectations that the early Christians accepted as the
pre-history of their faith, they would have been suspected of having
created an artificial religion. And the traces of a tension between the
previous expectation and the real experience of fulfilment, for which
it was necessary to look for a new expression, confirm the authenticity
and depth of their new experience.
Unlike the first spontaneous reactions to the Easter experience, the
pre-Pauline post-Easter formulae are the first conscious attempts to ex-
press the specific character of the Easter experience. They represent the
beginnings of Christian theology. They dared to transform the apoca-
lyptic myth and speak about the resurrection of Jesus as an event of
the past. It is an image that differs substantially from the expectation
of Jesus and his role in introducing the kingdom of God. However,
from the ruins of his vision a new experience emerged that became
the basis of hope. At the beginning the interval between Easter and
the general resurrection was understood as a necessarily short one (see
81 The problem of the “doubled” eschatology has been formulated by Josef B.

Souček, see P. Pokorný, In Honour of Josef B. Souček, in idem and J. B. Sou-
ček, Bibelauslegung und Theologie, 13 – 14.
1 Thess 4:15). However, later Paul considered the time between the
resurrection of Jesus and the (postponed) “second coming” as a special
period. This was a shift in the apocalyptic image. The future role of es-
chatological fulfilment is not denied, but the continually increasing dis-
tance in time is no longer a decisive problem. Luke elaborated this ex-
perience into a new Christian view of history. In the Acts of the
Apostles the eschatological future is the time of “universal restoration
(apokatastasis) that God announced long ago” (Acts 3:21) and to the
Greek philosophers the “Lukan” Paul says that God “has fixed a day
on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man
whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by rais-
ing him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). This means that the apocalyptic
myth has been substantially transformed, but the main structure is still
recognisable.
These considerations crossed the border from biblical exegesis into
the domain of systematic theology. But the character of the text we
are discussing produces such a reflection on a more profound level.
Let us add another consideration concerning the apocalyptic scheme
of the Easter gospel as a part of the Christian spiritual and cultural her-
itage. In the time of the Enlightenment, European thinking was influ-
enced by the idea of progress. In the twentieth century the foundations
of the idea of progress were shaken. The two world wars and cruel to-
talitarian regimes seemed rather to support a catastrophic view of histo-
ry. However, the totalitarian regimes collapsed and the Declaration of
Human Rights was accepted (although not yet necessarily invoked)
by practically all nations. The oppressive powers with all their destruc-
tive potential dissolved and the tendencies and groups who do not reject
the ethics of Jesus are active in history again. History is neither cata-
strophic nor optimistic. When observed, it appears unclear, but open.
Only the view inspired by faith recognises that the negative powers
are a reaction against the values and powers represented, in a nutshell,
by the person and story of Jesus. This is a general reflection of history
inspired by the Easter faith in the resurrection of Jesus, but, as a matter
of principle, communicable to all.
The problem arises with Paul. Yet, before we discuss the Pauline
gospel, we have to glance back and discuss the problem of the Gospel
of Jesus. The general impression about the Hebrew roots of the term
“gospel” (euangelion, euangelizomai) can only be verified by an analysis
of the ancient Jesus traditions.
3. The Gospel of Jesus
3.1 Jesus proclaimed the gospel – an early tradition
In Mark 1:14 – 15 we find the first Markan summary of Jesus’ activity:
“After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the
good news (euangelion) of God. ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom
of God has come near (ēngiken), repent and believe in the good news
(euangelion)’.” The Markan summaries do not sum up what was said
in the immediate context of the Gospel, but they repeatedly make
the reader aware of the typical actions and themes of the teaching of
Jesus.82 Also, according to Luke 10:9b (Q), Jesus commissioned his dis-
ciples to proclaim the kingdom of God. This might reflect an older tra-
dition about Jesus’ activity. However, the formulations may be influ-
enced by Mark. This also applies to the term euangelion. The choice
of this expression may have been taken from the designation of the
pre-Pauline formulae about Jesus’ resurrection. In spite of all these
facts, the summary remains a valuable piece of evidence for Jesus as pro-
claimer of the gospel, even if, in the tradition, it may have been ex-
pressed by the verb euangelizomai (see e. g. Luke 16:16par. Q).
The most important text of this kind appears in the source Q: Matt
11:5 // Luke 7:22:
“…the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the
deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to
them (euangelizontai).”
The proclamation of “good news” to the poor (quotation of Isa 61:1):
“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed
me; he has sent me to bring good news to the poor”) is the culmination
of the list of saving acts of Jesus that qualify his activity as the fulfilment
of various prophetic promises of Isaiah. In Isa 61:2 we read about the
Last Judgment and the eschatological salvation. And in Isa 52:7 the messen-
ger who brings good news says to Zion: “Your God reigns.” This is an
82 Charles W. Hedrick, The Role of ‘Summary Statements’ in the Composition

of the Gospel of Mark, 303 f.
52 3. The Gospel of Jesus
analogy to Jesus’ proclamation of the coming kingdom of God.83 The re-

turn of YHWH to Zion (see e. g. Isa 40:3 – 5; Mal 3:1), the pilgrimage of
the nations to Jerusalem (e. g. Isa 2:2 – 4 = Mica 4:1 – 3; Ps 22:27 – 28) and
the general resurrection (Isa 26:19; 1QH / a/ XIX: 12 – 14; Shemoneh Esre
2; see also § 2.2 above) are the three main features of the reign of God that
were popular in Israel, especially in the post-exilic period. The Kingdom
(Reign) of God was therefore expected as an eschatological phenomenon
that Jesus expected in the near future (Matt 10:23),84 but at the same
time it was a phenomenon that had an impact on the present and changed
the life orientation of those who took it seriously, i. e. those who accepted
it as the horizon of their lives (as the subject of a prayer as in Luke 11:2par.,
or present in some actions such as Jesus’ exorcisms in Luke 11:20par. [Q]).
This dimension of the kingdom of God has often been interpreted in
the sense of a permanent transcendent counterpart of history.85 Indeed,
we have to admit that so far as his estimation of time was concerned (the
imminent coming), Jesus was mistaken (the classical Christian confession
insists on his humanity and a miscalculation is not a sin). Such an inter-
pretation is acceptable only if Christians, even if they accept the post-
ponement of the fulfilment of the kingdom of God on earth, neither
reconcile themselves to violence, war and corruption in the world,
nor reject the whole world as wrong and escape from it into a spiritual
realm. This is the only responsible interpretation of Jesus’ proclamation
of the Kingdom of God as a promise, an interpretation that is compat-
ible with praying every day the Lord’s Prayer with its petition that the
kingdom might come.86
Jesus’ final act of salvation is the raising of the dead as fulfilment of
“Your dead shall live” from Isa 26:19. It might be expected that within
the enumeration of Jesus’ messianic prerogatives this would be the apex
but, surprisingly, the proclamation of the gospel appears as the last ele-
83 M. Merklein, Studien zu Paulus, 282 ff. (Zum Verständnis des paulinischen Be-
griffs “Evangelium”).
84 J. Gray, The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God, 354 ff.
85 E.g. J. Gray, The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God, 356 f. It is an interpretation
along the lines of C. H. Dodd’s theory about the “realised eschatology”. N.
Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, especially 198 f., and J. D. G.
Dunn, Jesus and the Kingdom, 34 – 36; idem, Jesus Remembered 388 f., inter-
preted the kingdom of God as we find it in the Jesus traditions as a metaphor
in the full sense of this word, as a designation for something for which the com-
mon language does not (yet) have a generally accepted code (see P. Ricoeur, J.
M. Soskice, extended information and discussion in P.Pokorný, Hermeneutics as
a Theory of Understanding I, § 4.2).
86 H. Merklein, Jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft, 57 f.
3.1 Jesus proclaimed the gospel – an early tradition 53
ment in the series. It is a clear allusion to Isa 61:1, even though it is not
formulated as a verbal quotation. The penultimate statement obviously
refers to the resurrection as the re-animation of individual people by
Jesus as an argument for the real power of the coming kingdom of
God and for his messianic authority. Similarly, Jesus (according to Q:
Matt 10:7 – 8, shortened in Luke 9:2) sent his disciples to proclaim
the good news about the kingdom of heaven (Luke 9:2: “kingdom
of God”), heal the sick and raise the dead. In this case it is clear that
the proclamation of the gospel is not a subsequent event, but it seems
that it was supposed to be an activity occurring in parallel with resurrec-
tion. It is the same in Peter’s sermon in Acts 10:34 – 43: Jesus, as the es-
chatological judge (verse 42), healed in the power of the Holy Spirit
those who were oppressed by the devil and proclaimed the good
news of peace (verse 43). This was, however, written as a recollection
of Jesus’ deeds during his earthly life, which is no direct evidence for
Jesus using the expression “good news” either in Hebrew (bsōrā as influ-
enced by the Hebrew Bible) or in Aramaic.
And still, a careful assessment of these facts can serve as indirect evi-
dence that Jesus considered his proclamation of the kingdom of God to
be identical with the prophetic proclamation of good news. The fact
that the two earliest documents including traditions about Jesus (Q
and Mark) indicate the use of the term euangelion in his lifetime, may
speak in favour of a traditional consciousness according to which Jesus
proclaimed the “good news” which, in this case, is identical with his
teaching about the kingdom of God. The antedating of the Easter gos-
pel into the life of Jesus cannot be the only motif for including the two
short pieces into the text of the literary Gospels. In Q (Matt 11:5par.)
the good news is addressed to the poor and the oppressed, and the state-
ment is clearly an allusion to Isa 61:1; in Mark 1:15 the “good news”
should apparently be the “gospel of God” (euangelion tou theou) in 1:14.87
(Euangelion tou theou in Rom 1:1 is another case. What it means here
is the pre-Pauline Easter gospel. In Rom 1: 9 the same thing is evidently
called “the gospel of his Son”: Paul serves God by announcing the gos-
pel of his Son. “Of God” [tou theou] is most probably genitivus auctoris
[subiectivus], of his Son genitivus obiectivus, i. e. the gospel is defined as
the gospel “about his Son”. Yet the structure of these sentences reveals
the influence of the proclamation of Jesus. This means that Pauls under-
87 P. Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium, 236 f.

stands the enthronement of Jesus as the Son of God as the first step to-
wards the coming of the kingdom of God (see 1 Cor 15: 20 – 28.)
In Mark 1:15 the term “gospel” appears once more, this time in the
absolute sense. It is the only instance in Mark where this word used in
the absolute sense relates to the message proclaimed and taught by
Jesus.88 The Gospel writer may have been influenced by Paul and is ob-
viously responsible for this innovation – for introducing the noun euan-
gelion into the tradition about Jesus. In the other places where the Mar-
kan Jesus speaks about the gospel, the term (euangelion), even though we
hear it from the mouth of Jesus, could (and in Mark’s intention should)
be simultaneously identified with the Easter gospel as Mark adopted it
from the Pauline tradition:89 Mark 8:35 can be understood as suffering
for the Easter gospel and as the way towards eternal life; in 10:29 – 30 it
is even the way towards a fuller life on earth within the groups of post-
Easter followers; according to 13:10, it is the “good news” that has to
be proclaimed to all nations before the end of this age; and in 14:9 it is
the message about the suffering and death of Jesus and his resurrection as
the pivotal part of the literary Gospel. The only instance in Mark where
euangelion cannot be understood as a coded Easter proclamation is, in-
deed, Mark 1:14 – 15. Thus Mark intended to bridge the gap between
the proclamation of Jesus and the Easter gospel. He gave hints to his
readers (hearers) in order that they might understand the proclamation
and teaching of Jesus as the preliminary part (a pre-history) of the Easter
gospel. However, he must have been aware of the “good news” in the
Jesus traditions. Whether he was familiar with it only from the Greek
traditions about Jesus or whether he knew about Jesus using some ex-
pression derived from the Hebrew root b-s-r and Isa 61:1 is, in this con-
text, an open although secondary question. Undoubtedly he was inter-
ested in using the noun euangelion, in order that the link between the
proclamation of the gospel by the earthly Jesus and the post-Easter pro-
clamation of his early adherents might become visible.
88 See also H. J. Klauck, Vorspiel im Himmel, 73 f.

89 See R. Schnackenburg. ‘Das Evangelium’ im Verständnis des ältesten Evangel-
isten, 318; cf. G. Strecker, Das Evangelium Jesu Christi, 215 ff.
3.2 The prophecy in Isa 61:1 ff. and the self-understanding of Jesus 55
3.2 The prophecy in Isa 61:1 ff. and the self-understanding of

Jesus
Jesus’ answer to John the Baptist in Matt 11:5// Luke 7:22 (Q) 90, where
we read the verb euangelizomai, includes an apparent allusion to Isa 61:1
in the climax. The whole cluster of sayings in Luke 7:18 – 35par. (Q)
contains snippets of Jewish eschatological expectations and allusions
to Isaiah (cf. Isa 35:5 – 6; 42:18). Luke 7:33 – 34par. (Q) reflects a situa-
tion in which John the Baptist (mentioned first) was more popular than
Jesus and his disciples, and the slander against both of them was still fresh
in people’s memories. We do not find any influence of the Easter euan-
gelion in this segment of the text. This does not mean that the text as
whole is an authentic Jesus tradition. It simply means that Isa 61:1 played
an important role in the Jewish eschatological expectations that inspired
Jesus in his proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Therefore it is prob-
able that Jesus has understood his own mission on the basis of the book
of Isaiah (mostly the parts that we ascribe to the Deutero- and Trito-
Isaiah). As a part of a cumulative argument this plays an important role.
The crucial argument in favour of this interpretation of the given
evidence is the fact that the sayings from the source Q – from the Ser-
mon on the Field/Mount – include several themes and phrases that ap-
pear in Isa 61, especially “Good news to the poor” (ptōchoi euangelizon-
tai; Luke 7:22par.; cf. 6:20par.. makarioi hoi ptōchoi 91 – as an allusion to
Isa 61:1) or “Blessed are those who weep now (hoi penthountes; Matt
5:4par.– Isa 61:2). The fact that these clear allusions/quotations are
not patently linked with the book of Isaiah by mentioning the prophet’s
name is an argument in favour of their pre-Easter origin. In the post-
Easter period the relationship between the Jesus traditions and some
of the texts from the Law, the Prophets or the Psalms was explicitly
mentioned and stressed, since it supported the argument for the scriptur-
al basis of the Jesus movement in the eyes of the other members of the
synagogue.
90 This belongs to a cluster of sayings that have been composed by the editor of
Q: J. S. Kloppenborg, The composition of Q, 100 f. However, the argument in
Luke 6:22 – 35 includes several arguments that belong to the most ancient
Jesus tradition. According to P. Hoffmann, Vom Freudenboten zum Feuertufer
96 – 97 it undoubtedly belongs to the most ancient Jesus tradition. See also
G. Theissen – A. Merz, Der historische Jesus, 335 f.
91 Compared with the Matthean version, this is the more original wording. Cf.
also Gos. Thom. 54 and see J. M. Robinson, The Critical Edition of Q, ad loc.
It follows that the early Christian term “gospel” (“good news”) may
be influenced by the teaching and proclamation of Jesus (he used the
verb or the noun derived from the root b-ś-r as it was used in Isa
61:1 ff.), even though in the Septuagint we find only the verb euangeli-
zomai, and the Greek expression euangelion entered into the Christian
religious language predominantly as the Easter gospel. The gospel of
Jesus, the gospel of the coming kingdom of God, became the pre-
form or presupposition of the Easter gospel and, as we shall see, influ-
enced the written Gospels. However, our interpretation of the role of
euangelion does not depend on the reliability of this thesis.
(Another eschatological gospel [euangelion], but still like Isa 61:1, is
proclaimed in Rev 14:6 – 8: all creation has to fear God. The “good
news” here is identical with the proclamation of the Last Judgment.
Only the presence of Jesus as the Lamb of God makes this proclamation
of the gospel different from the message of the great prophets of ancient
Israel.)
The problem of the basic difference in the content between the gos-
pel of Jesus and the post-Easter formulae (see the end of § 2 above) has
not been resolved but rather has become more acute. For our further
investigation it is important to realise that the main problem is the strik-
ing difference between the gospel of Jesus and the post-Easter gospel,
or, to express it better: between the gospel of Jesus and the Pauline un-
derstanding and theological development of the post-Easter gospel. It
was only the appearance of the literary Gospels that balanced the
one-sidedness of the post-Easter gospel and introduced a complex liter-
ary work of a new kind, integrating, among other elements, the oral
gospel and the gospel of Jesus. Before we analyse the origin of the lit-
erary Gospels, we have to clarify the Pauline concept of euangelion.
4. The Pauline Gospel
4.1 EUANGELION in Pauline Theology
4.1.1 Paul as seen by liberal researchers
The liberal and early post-liberal critical research recognised and descri-
bed the striking absence of some typical elements of the Jesus traditions
in the letters of Paul.
Nevertheless, as we have demonstrated, Paul took the term euange-
lion, together with its content, from an older tradition. In this respect he
cannot be considered the second founder of Christianity, as was main-
tained by some liberal theologians in the 19th century, represented by
William Wrede. According to Wrede, Paul replaced the moral teaching
of Jesus by the dogmatic Christology of the Church.92 In our days this
view is maintained by Burton L. Mack (“His [Paul’s] gospel really may
have been his own construction”) 93 and has been adopted by some con-
temporary schools of thought in the History of Religion field.
This opinion was expressed in a more general and abstract form in a
lecture by Martin Kaehler (Kähler) in 1892 entitled “The So-Called
Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ”. “Historic” here does
not mean “historical” in the sense of a descriptive history, but rather
“historic” in the sense of an event as a challenge. This is the Christ of
the Easter gospel. Kaehler deduced the dominant position of the Easter
proclamation from the fact that it was considered by the first Christians
as Jesus’ rehabilitation by God. This was more important for them than
all the traditions from his earthly life. Thus Kaehler called into question
the relevance of the Jesus Research. In short: the true Christ is the
preached Christ.94 In our following discussion we will examine this
problem and look for methodologies for its solution.
92 W. Wrede, Paulus, 90.

93 B. L. Mack, The Myth of Innocence, 98 f.
94 M. Kähler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ. Philadel-
phia, Fortress Press, 1964, 40, 42.
58 4. The Pauline Gospel
4.1.2 Paul as servant of the gospel
Paul derived his own apostolic authority from a divine vocation (a spe-
cial private revelation) to proclaim the gospel of God.95 As an apostle he
was “set apart” to fulfil this task (Rom 1:1).
The content of the gospel was the Easter message of the resurrection
of Jesus. We have already mentioned that Paul insisted on the gospel
(euangelion) in the sense of the post-Easter proclamation of Jesus’ resur-
rection as the only way to salvation. In terms of its function, the empha-
sis shifted from the formula to its originator – to God as the Creator and
his power (dynamis – Rom 1:16) – on the one hand, and to its impact –
the re-birth of those who accept it in faith –on the other (1 Cor 4:15).
The gospel is coming in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction (1
Thess 1:5). This is still a possible echo of Jesus’ proclamation of the
kingdom of God. A quotation from Isa 52:7 (culminating with the pro-
clamation of God as the Lord) in Rom 10:15 supports the conclusion
that Paul consciously presented the Easter proclamation as the fulfilment
of Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God.96 Euangelion is thereafter
salvation (sōtēria) anticipated in the present (Rom 1:16; 2 Cor 6:2).97
4.1.3 The incarnation and death of Jesus as the basis of human hope
In this concept, the central role of Jesus was emphasised, as it had al-
ready been emphasised in the Easter gospel, in which he himself became
a part of the gospel that was proclaimed. Paul elaborated this intention
theologically, especially in terms of the death of Jesus, as it is already un-
derstood in the formula of the gospel in 1 Cor 15:3 (“Christ died for
our sins”). In one of his metaphorical statements Paul explained the
death of Jesus as a sacrifice for the sake of others (2 Cor 5:21 or Gal
3:13). He may have had in mind Isa 53:4 – 6 as the scriptural basis. Be-
cause of Jesus’ substitutionary death, all who believe in him as the Christ
may pass muster at the Last Judgment, may be released to freedom as the
95 P. Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium, 70 f.

96 H. Merklein, Zum Verständnis des paulinischen Begriffs “Evangelium,” in H.
Merklein, Studien zu Jesus und Paulus, 275 – 295, here 287.
97 P. Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium, 107: “To sum up this concept (of
the gospel by Paul) we have to say that the Pauline gospel represents the rev-
elatory power and reality of the Age to Come” (transl. P.P.).
4.1 EUANGELION in Pauline Theology 59
righteous ones, and may become members of the messianic people. A

reflected expression of the meaning of the death of Jesus for other peo-
ple is that his life culminated in his (sacrificial) death for the good of
other people.98 Some of the Pauline statements were later transformed
into the teaching about justification by grace – one of the programmatic
articles of the reformation in the 16th century. In this context Jesus plays
the role of a martyr, whose death has a redemptive power and a cosmic
dimension. His birth is conceived of as a descent from heaven. The third
step was that he would come back to earth again at the end of this age,
and the fourth was that he was even the mediator of creation. This
means that what Jesus represents through his teaching and his life ex-
presses the meaning of the entire universe, of all creation (1 Cor 8:6;
Col 1:15 f.; Heb 1:1 f.; John 1:1 – 5).99
Albert Schweitzer in his book The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (Die
Mystik des Apostel Paulus, 1930) recognised these mythic elements and
interpreted them as a transformation of the eschatological expectation
of Jesus for the post-Easter period. He supposed that Paul accepted
the spatial imagery of the myth as the basis of his theological reflec-
tion.100 This was true only to some degree. For Paul the mystic concept
was more a framework for expressing his own religious experience with
Jesus as the Lord (kyrios). Admittedly, Paul did not interpret Jesus of
Nazareth in his teaching and his activities; or, at least, this was not his
primary intention. For him the encounter with Jesus was a mediated
confrontation with God himself, who in all his sovereignty promised
him his protection and authorised him to be his witness (Rom 1:1;
8:38 – 39).
The soteriological dimension of the incarnation (humiliation “for
us” – 2 Cor 8:9; humiliation as the way towards exaltation Phil 2:6 –
11) is, at the same time, the motif for Christian ethical admonition (2
Cor 8:9 – 15; Phil 2:1 – 11, 12 – 16). Some scholars consider this empha-
sis on the humility of Jesus as an argument for the fact that Paul was in-
spired by the traditions about the earthly Jesus. This is very probable, but
it is certain that for him the highest expression of humility was Jesus’
incarnation and his sacrificial death, the obedient and voluntary descent
from heaven (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6 – 8) which is strikingly different from
98 K. Rahner, Grundkurs des Glaubens chapter VI/1; K. Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik

IV/1, 181.
99 We shall discuss Pauline soteriology again in § 6.2.
100 See the chapter Mysticism of Death and Resurrection with Jesus Christ.
the unhappy fall of the Gnostic heavenly Saviour to earth. The words
about Jesus’ humiliation and humility in Rom 15:3 and 2 Cor 10:1
are to be read in this context. According to Paul the mythically ex-
pressed incarnation of Jesus was a better inspiration for human ethics
than Jesus as a moral paradigm in his earthly life. This is the reason
why only this “passive” part of the “earthly” life of Jesus (the
“cross”) was mentioned and reflected on by Paul.
This does not mean that in Paul the cosmic myth – the background
to the formulae of the gospel – swallowed up the earthly Jesus. Rather it
is admirable that Jesus, the crucified one, became the centre of the all-
embracing mythical framework. Here we can see the theological basis
for the programmatic return to the Jesus traditions about one generation
later. Paul demythologized the Christ-myth by linking it firmly to his-
tory. It was well known that Jesus was sentenced in Jerusalem at the
time of the Emperor Tiberius. In addition, in Gal 1:19 Paul mentioned
that he saw James, the brother of the Lord. By using the title Lord for
Jesus and combining it with a report about the meeting with his blood-
related brother in Jerusalem, Paul subconsciously offered a good illustra-
tion for the later teaching on Christ’s incarnation and a firm argument
for Jesus’ historicity. But he was so fascinated by the power of the sac-
rifice of Jesus, his present influence and spiritual activity, that he did not
realise that not only Jesus’ humiliation and death are important for
human salvation, but also his teaching and earthly activity can be inspir-
ing in shaping individual lives and gaining orientation in human history.
The Easter gospel confirmed that Jesus plays the decisive role for human
hope and that such a hope can be substantiated by the experience of his
new presence and action among Christians. This was the testimony of
the Christian faith. For Paul, the attitudes and deeds of Jesus, which
represented what was decisive for human hope, would have expressed
only a nice idea if the hope had not been rooted in the post-Easter ex-
perience. This was the logic of Pauline theology.
4.2 Paul and the Jesus Traditions

4.2.1 Was Paul reluctant to quote the words of Jesus?
For readers of the canonised books of the Bible the one-sidedness of

Paul is not so apparent, since they read Paul in the context of narrative
texts and Jesus’ sayings in the Gospels. But once we realise the situation,
4.2 Paul and the Jesus Traditions 61
the absence of the Jesus tradition in Paul’s letters becomes a serious

problem. In his own way Wolfgang Wiefel formulated this problem
in 1981 when he recognised the striking difference between the tradi-
tions about Jesus as preserved especially in the source Q on the one
hand and the Easter gospel on the other. The Jesus traditions were un-
able to bridge the gap between the activity of Jesus as an eschatological
prophet and the postponed eschatological fulfilment.101 The exposition
of this problem is one of the major tasks confronting us when interpret-
ing the gospel.
One hypothetical reason for Paul’s reluctance may be that his
knowledge of the Jesus tradition was limited. Otherwise he would
have quoted Jesus when he preferred faith (pistis) to (the ritual of) cir-
cumcision. His use of analogy was masterly, but to demonstrate the sec-
ondary importance of circumcision as compared with faith as a life atti-
tude, he did not avail himself of the analogy of the priority given to
obedience to God over the dietetic prescriptions as proclaimed by
Jesus according to Mark 7:15.102 On the other hand, he may have quot-
ed Mark 7:15 in Rom 14:14a: “nothing is unclean in itself”, which is
not a fully anonymous allusion since Paul introduces it by saying “I
know and I am persuaded in the Lord” (verse 14a) 103 and so we can ob-
serve that his knowledge of Jesus traditions, even though it was limited,
was still more far-reaching than it might have seemed, and so the prob-
lem remains open.
In Gal 1:18 Paul recalls his visit to Jerusalem, where he “got ac-
quainted”104 with Peter. In Greek the phrase “got acquainted” is ex-
pressed by means of the verb historeō, which here most probably
means “to get information from”.105 He certainly concentrated on Eas-
ter and its interpretation in the sense of the oral euangelion, as we dis-
101 According to him the bridge was the Passion and Easter-Kerygma transmitted as
kanōn together with the Jesus traditions: W. Wiefel, Erwägungen zum Thema
Jesuanismus im Urchristentum, especially 21 f. He did not reflect on the char-
acter of the gospel.
102 E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11 – 12, 264 – 266.
103 U. Luz, The use of Jesus-traditions in the post-Pauline letters and Paul, part III.
104 This is what O. Hofius suggested as a translation of historēsai Kēfan in Gal 1:18,
ZNW 75, 73 – 85.
105 G. D. Kilpatrick, Galatians 1:18, 144 – 149; J. D. G. Dunn, The Relationship
between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2, and idem, Once
More Gal 1,18 “historēsai Kēfan”; others support the translation “to get
known by Cephas” (O. Hofius, Gal 1,18 historēsai Kēfan; N. Walter, Paul and
the Early Jesus tradition, 64 – 66).
cussed it above. But we may suppose that he also got some information
about the life of Jesus and learned some of his sayings, since this was a
tradition that was not accessible to him in Damascus or Antioch. In Acts
19:9 we read about his daily teaching in Corinth in the hall of Tyran-
nus. He may have commented on the various versions of the oral gospel
about the resurrection of Jesus, but this could not have filled up all the
time.106 It is also improbable that he would have taught for hours a day
what he had learned from Peter during their one encounter in Jerusa-
lem. If we are to judge from his arguments in his letters, he may have
spoken about the prophecies and prototypes of Jesus in the Jewish
Bible (the Christian Old Testament) and about a new understanding
of the Jewish religion from the point of view of the Easter experience
of Jesus as the living Lord of the Christian community.
In 1 Cor 7:25 Paul mentioned that he did not have any command
from the Lord about virgins. This means that he must have known at
least one collection of sayings from which he (probably only from his
memory) selected the appropriate ones. They may have been inspired
by the Holy Spirit and some of them may have been formulated by
early Christian prophets.107 Their authority was derived from the
Risen Lord. But for Paul the Risen Lord was identical with the earthly
Jesus, the brother of James (Gal 1:19). Paul must have known several
traditions about the life of Jesus. It is self-evident that he knew that
Jesus was a Jew (Gal 4:4), that he had brothers (1 Cor 9:5) one of
whom was James (Gal 1:19; cf. 1 Cor 15:7), and that he gathered a
group of disciples, one of whom was named Cephas/Peter (Gal 2:14;
1 Cor 9:5; cf. 15:5a) and another John (Gal 2:9).108
However, he explicitly quoted the “commands of the Lord” only
three or four times. In 1 Cor 7:10 (concerning divorce, cf. Matt 5:32
106 According to codex Bezae (D) this was for the equivalent of from 11 a.m. to 4
p.m. our time. This does not mean that Paul taught for five hours each day, but
rather that he rented the hall for this time, i. e. before the evening lectures of
Tyrannus (evidently a philosopher) started.
107 D. E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity 210, 235, 242, 255 f.
108 For more on this theme see V. P. Furnish, Jesus according to Paul, 11 – 13. An
extant knowledge of the Jesus traditions in Paul is assumed, for example, by
D. C. Allison, The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels, especially p.
25, N. Walther, Paul and the Early Christian Jesus-Traditions, 54, and G.
Theissen, Jesusüberlieferungen und Christuskerygma bei Paulus 119 – 138.
See also Labahn, The Non-Synoptic Jesus, in: T. Holmén – S. E. Porter
(eds), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3, 1933 – 1996, here 1941 f.
par.; Mark 10:11 f. par.) and in 9:14 (the rights of an apostle, cf. Matt
10:10b par.) we find two sayings related to basic problems of the early
Church: the problem of marriage, especially marriage between a believ-
er and a non-believer (cf. 1 Cor 7:12 – 16) and support for those who
proclaim the gospel. Paul himself was neither married nor did he
need any support from the congregations, so he quoted the word of
the Lord as valid in specific situations only. Nevertheless, he rightly in-
terpreted the sayings as a statement on the value of marriage (rather than
a commandment) and the necessity to support the proclamation of the
gospel financially or materially.109
In 1 Thess 4:15 he introduces “in the word of the Lord” (en logō
kyriou) an apocalyptic saying about the future resurrection of the
dead. His understanding of the traditions about Jesus can be illustrated
by the text known as the Institution of the Lord’s Supper and quoted
by him in 1 Cor 11:23 – 25. He claims to have received (parelabon) it
“from the Lord”, even though he never met Jesus. He must have re-
ceived this tradition from some of the apostles or other followers of
Jesus (as was the case with the gospel in 1 Cor 15:3b-5 according to
1 Cor 15:1). However, he became spiritually convinced about its au-
thenticity and authority through some special religious experience,
most probably his conversion at Damascus.
We can find further Pauline allusions to Jesus traditions, such as the
word about the thief in the night in 1 Thess 5:2 as an allusion to Luke
12:39 f. (Q), but a reluctance to quote the sayings of Jesus and the ab-
sence of references to stories from Jesus’ life or to his parables that would
provide good illustrations of Paul’s theological statements, still remain a
problem. It is surprising, since the authority of the Lord would have
strengthened the effect of his teaching and preaching.
He could have expressed the activity of Jesus at least in a short sum-
mary as in Acts 2:22: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God
with deeds of power, wonder and signs that God did through him…”
Even in the non-Christian pseudonymous “Letter of Mara bar Serapion
to his son” (most probably from the beginning of the second century
C.E.) we can find short characterisations of Jesus as the “great lawgiver
of the Jews” (p. 46). All these images were overshadowed for Paul by
the characterisation of Jesus in the Easter gospel as the one who was
crucified and raised from the dead by God and also by his messianic titles
of Christ (Messiah), Lord (kyrios), or the Son of God. Behind each of
109 M. and R. Zimmermann, Zitation, Kontraktion oder Applikation, 96, 100.

these titles we may find a story in which the title played a role, but for
the Christians the definitive confirmation of their validity was the pro-
claimed resurrection of Jesus.
This means that the decisive reason for the infrequent references to
the words of Jesus in Paul cannot have been the difference in literary
genres nor the fact that Paul may have supposed that his addressees
would have had a knowledge of the Jesus traditions, but it was his de-
liberate theologically motivated reluctance to use Jesus traditions in his
argumentation. We do not appreciate this problem, since we understand
Paul and the Jesus traditions in the Gospel as a complementary whole
because of their common appurtenance to the Christian canon. We
shall demonstrate that Mark in his book on Jesus reconciled these differ-
ent traditions, which was an admirable theological achievement – by no
means self-evident.
4.2.2 The reasons for Paul’s reluctance
When discussing Paul’s reluctance to quote the sayings of Jesus and the
reflective parts of his teaching, the reasons are predominantly theolog-
ical:
1) One could be Jewish monotheism, which Paul took seriously and
which allowed him to proclaim the commandments of God, the
Lord himself. Only Jesus who was raised from the dead by God
could be considered his trustworthy representative. That is why
Paul stressed the role of Jesus as the one who achieved his position
through an act on the part of God.110 On the other hand, we have to
take into consideration that at the time of Jesus there were already
Jewish teachers (Hillel, Shammai) whose interpretation of the Law
and concrete admonitions were transmitted as important for life.
2) Another reason is linked with the Easter experience and the Easter
gospel, which changed the concept of the coming kingdom of God
as proclaimed by Jesus. According to the post-Easter “doubled” es-
chatology human lives take place in the time span between the death
and resurrection of Jesus on the one hand and the Age to Come on
the other. Some of God’s promises were already fulfilled. The Mes-
siah is already known, he is even accessible through prayers, but his
110 G. Theissen, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments, 100.

full presence and the establishment of his kingdom are a matter of

the eschatological future, of his second coming. Instead of the mes-
sage of Jesus, his promises, expectations and deeds, it was now he
himself, his life story as a whole, including his resurrection, which
moved into the foreground. The Announcer became the An-
nounced one. His story, connecting earth and heaven, guaranteed
the future he proclaimed. This did not devalue the Jesus traditions
and it cannot fully explain the absence of Jesus traditions in the let-
ters of Paul. However, it changed the priorities of the Christian pro-
clamation in favour of the Easter gospel. This will be even more ap-
parent in the absence of narratives about Jesus in Paul.
3) One reason for Paul’s reluctance to quote the sayings of Jesus must
have been the fact that the collections of sayings of the Lord did not
offer instructions for all the problems that arose in the Christian
groups and communities (see the argument of Paul in 1 Cor 7).
And even if he had possessed a collection of sayings of Jesus cover-
ing most of the problems, he would not have decided to regulate
moral issues in a casuistic way. Paul’s personal decision of faith
was based on the application of Jesus’ attitude towards humankind
as expressed in his Love Commandment. In his eyes this was suffi-
cient to resolve social and inter-personal problems (see Phil 2:1 –
14). Such an attitude was implied in the Easter gospel.
4) Some sayings of Jesus are alluded to anonymously. The reason why
some words of Jesus were re-interpreted and others avoided can be
found in the spiritual re-interpretation of the Jesus traditions by
some Christian prophets who interpreted their Easter experience
in a different way from Paul.
In 1 Cor 4:6 – 13 Paul argued against those who experienced salvation
in their present spiritual conversion. They assumed that they would
overcome all troubles by suppressing their earthly needs and focusing
only on the promises in Jesus’ beatitudes. This can be deduced from a
mirror reading of Paul’s polemics against them: they are filled (satiated,
not hungry), they are (spiritually) kings (heirs of the kingdom of God),
wise etc.111 The beatitudes of Jesus are being alluded to here (Luke
6:20 – 22/Matt 5:3 – 5), but the understanding of them corresponds
rather to the sayings of the “living Jesus” from the Gospel of Thomas.
111 See J. M. Robinson, Kerygma und Geschichte im Neuen Testament, in Koester

and idem, Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frhen Christentums, 21 – 66, here
41 – 43.
According to these sayings the kingdom of God is already present

(log. 3, 22, 49 or 82) and the resurrection is not proclaimed because
it has already (spiritually) happened (log. 51): “Whoever finds the mean-
ing of these words will not taste death” (Gos. Thom log. 1 = Papyr.
Oxyrh. 654, 1 – 5112).113 Paul refused such purely spiritual interpretations
of the divine promises as influenced by the religious atmosphere of the
late Hellenistic period. From the second century onward they found
their expression in the Gnostic movement and here they can be called
pre-Gnostic.
4.2.3 The religious situation
Historically Gnosticism was of non-Christian origin, though it shared

some features of spirituality with the post-Easter followers of Jesus,
and in this way it infiltrated Christianity. This was most likely the posi-
tion of those who denied the resurrection of the dead in 1 Cor 15:12 ff.
They were not representatives of an ultra-apocalyptic clique according
to whom the resurrection applied only to those who would still be
alive at the imminent second coming of the Lord and the cosmic trans-
formation connected with the establishment of the Age to Come. Paul
had such people in mind in 1 Thess 4:13 – 18. Those who denied the
resurrection in 1 Cor 15 were rather representatives of a pre-Gnostic re-
ligiosity. They were not sceptics who denied any hope at death, since
they obviously did not deny the gospel in 1 Cor 15:3b-5.114 They
were people who simply denied the resurrection of the dead, since ac-
cording to them the true (i. e. spiritual) resurrection had to be experi-
enced in this life before death.115 Death was, according to them, only
liberation from the body. This purely esoteric, spiritual understanding
of salvation corresponds to the position of the opponents in 1 Cor 4
and, more than a hundred years later, was attested in the Gospel of Philip
from Nag Hammadi (NHC II/3; 56:15b-20). There we find a bitter
criticism of those who maintained that the Lord died first and then
112 Translation “Berliner Arbeitskreis für Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften”.

113 Similar spiritual tendencies likewise influenced the Gospel of John, in spite of
its different theology: “…anyone who hears my word and believes in him, who
sent me, has eternal life, and does not come under Judgment, but has passed
from death to life” ( John 5:24).
114 See J. Becker, Auferstehung der Toten im Urchristentum, 72 – 75.
115 W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (4th part), 113 f.
rose (56:17 – 19). According to the Gospel of Philip, the correct se-
quence is resurrection – death. Death cannot do any harm to those
who have already been (spiritually) raised from the dead. Such an inter-
pretation of the sayings of Jesus the “Lord” was not an exception as can
be attested by a warning in the letter of Polycarp from the first part of
the second century:116 “Whoever misinterprets the sayings of the Lord
according to his own and denies resurrection and Judgment is the first-
born of Satan” (Polyc. 7:1). This was the most important reason why
Paul was reluctant to use the traditions of Jesus’ sayings and preferred
to adhere to the Easter gospel.
Since the Jews expected the Messiah from the family of David to be
a deliverer from foreign domination and Jesus was confessed as Messiah,
many of the Jewish Christians understood his Messiahship as liberation
from enemies in a purely spiritual sense. This is the reason why soon
(from the end of the first century till the mid-second century) many
Jewish Christians accepted pre-Gnostic and Gnostic ideas. If Jesus is
the Messiah, his messianic kingdom must be a purely spiritual reality.
In Epiphanius (died 403 C.E.) we read about a Jewish-Christian
group of prophets who legitimized their teaching by saying “Christ
has revealed this to me” (Pan. 30:18:9). In this way the two fronts of
Paul’s opponents – the Judaists and the pre-Gnostics – were brought
close to each other.
The consequence of our argument is that Paul was reluctant to
quote the sayings of Jesus because he was afraid of their misinterpreta-
tion. He distinguished the attested resurrection of Jesus from the ex-
pected resurrection of other humans at the end of this age (1 Cor
15:23) 117 and he elaborated the “doubled eschatology” of the Easter
gospel. History is, according to him, a period of active patience, a
time of expectation and testing the faith, a time of “living honourably”
(Rom 13:11 – 14). Since everybody has to struggle against sin until the
end of their life, no one can judge others (“do not pronounce Judgment
before the time” – 1 Cor 4:5). The eschatological salvation will be a so-
cial and cosmic event (Rom 8:18 – 24). Those who interpreted the mes-
116 H. W. Kuhn, Der irdische Jesus bei Paulus als traditionsgeschichtliches und the-
ologisches Problem, 316 f.
117 A survey of the discussion about the concepts of resurrection among Paul’s
Corinthian opponents was presented by G. Barth, Zur Frage nach der in
1Kor bekämpften Auferstehungsauslegung. The possibility that these opponents
were those who understood the resurrection as having already (spiritually) oc-
curred is, however, the most probable one.
sianic expectations as having already been fulfilled, obviously argued

against Paul by quoting the sayings of Jesus with their own prophetic
interpretation. The same practice of his opponents that caused his reluc-
tance to quote the sayings of Jesus may lie behind his re-interpreting
some of the sayings of Jesus on his own apostolic responsibility, quoting
them anonymously or avoiding using them.118 His theology was, in
principle, built upon the firm basis of the Easter gospel. Paul interpreted
the life of Jesus from the point of view of his death and his raising from
the dead by God. And he understood all the ethics of Jesus from the
point of view of the Love Commandment, which, according to him
was represented by Jesus’ descent from heaven to the human world (2
Cor 8:9). He would not have been able to put forward the concept
of the literary Gospels in the same way as Mark did. However, his in-
terpretation of the Easter gospel with the “not yet” of the eschatological
fulfilment was able to create a need for orientation in history and so it
was an indirect presupposition for the re-introduction of the Jesus tra-
ditions in catechesis and the liturgy.
According to Paul Christians gained the boldness to address God as
Abba – Father from the Holy Spirit (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15), who was
closely linked with the resurrection (Rom 1:3 – 4, see above § 2 Jesus
Christ the Lord). In spite of this, the Lord’s Prayer, the only part of
the Jesus tradition transmitted orally down to the present time, repre-
sented with its openness toward the kingdom of God a piece of the
Jesus tradition in Pauline communities.
It was very probable that in several Pauline congregations the collec-
tion of sayings called Q was known and used. If Mark was influenced by
Pauline theology (see below § 6.2) and was used in Pauline communi-
ties, the shape of the Gospel according to Luke and Matthew reveals
that, in the eighties, Mark and Q were both used together in various
Christian communities. This is a very indirect (and somewhat anachron-
istic) argument which may support the tendency towards a harmonizing
explanation, but once we are aware that the Christian canon in its com-
plex structure was not yet in use at that time, we realise even more how
serious is the problem of the mutual relationship between the Jesus tra-
ditions and the Easter gospel in Pauline theology.
118 It is not helpful to suppose that he quoted some sayings of Jesus without indi-
cating the source since the addressees of his letters knew them by heart from his
catechesis (so P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments I, 304).
4.2.4 The problem of Christian prophecy
Christian prophets felt entitled to interpret, select, combine and repro-

duce pieces of Scripture or Jesus tradition from memory, and to apply
them and comment on them according to their prophetic inspiration
and insight into the needs of the community and the given situation.119
Paul considered himself to be an apostle first of all, and then a prophet,
and he supposed that the gift of prophecy, at least in terms of the topical
interpretation of the Jesus traditions and the Scripture, was part of his
apostolic mission. Early Christian prophets did not only speak about
topical issues under the influence of divine inspiration (like Agabus,
who predicted famine all over the world – Acts 11:27; cf. 21:11), but
their function was also that of inspired interpreters of the Scripture
and, especially, the sayings of Jesus.120 Unlike speaking in tongues (glōs-
solalia), prophecy (in the Pauline terminology) was not ecstatic but rath-
er a rational and theologically reflected reading in the given situation.121
In 1 Cor 13:2b Paul even took a well-attested radical saying of Jesus
about faith moving mountains (Mark 11:23parr.; Matt 17:20 [Q]; Gos.
Thom. 48), and subordinated it to the Love Commandment,122 since
some of his opponents considered extraordinary and supernatural abili-
ties to be a sufficient legitimation for their authority in Christian com-
munities.
In Rom 13:9 and Gal 5:14 Paul quoted the Love Commandment as
“the fundamental principle and fulfilment of the Law”.123 The exhorta-
tion “to overcome evil by good” in Rom 12:17 – 21 is probably a Pau-
line re-interpretation of the commandment to love one’s enemies taken
from the Jesus tradition (Luke 6:27 – 36parr.) or, even, of the exhorta-
tion not to resist the evildoer (or the evil – tō ponerō in the Greek text; it
119 See D. E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, 245, (a balanced conclusion); cf.
M. E. Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 110; 225 P. Pokorný, Words of Jesus in
Paul, 520 ff., 534. We may call this a creative prophetic transmission. In the Old
Testament some themes of the prophet Isaiah were reinterpreted by the Deu-
tero- and Trito-Isaiah (Isa 40 – 66). This was admitted even by Scandinavian
scholars like S. Byrskog, who insist on the continuity of traditions in the Bible.
120 M. Eugen Boring, The Continuing Voice of Jesus, 154, 270 – 274.
121 U. Luz, Die korinthische Gemeindeprophetie im Kontext urchristlicher Pro-
phetie, 284 ff.
122 Cf. G. Theissen, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testament als literaturgeschichtliches Prob-
lem, 98.
123 Th. Söding, Das Liebesgebot bei Paulus, 210 f.; Luz, The Use of Jesus-traditions
in the Post-Pauline letters and Paul, part III.
may be translated in both ways), which may have been understood as

capitulation in the face of injustice.124 He places the commandment in
the wider context of suppressing the power of evil (or the Evil One).
Incidentally, this is in accordance with an important saying about
Jesus’ exorcisms in anticipation of the kingdom of God (Luke 11:20
[Q]). He does not say that this is the commandment of Jesus as the
Lord, probably because he changed the wording using his prophetic au-
thority.
It may help us to compare Paul’s use of the sayings of Jesus with his
quotations and allusions to the Scripture. He also acted in the freedom
of the Spirit in this area (“Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is free-
dom”, 2 Cor 3:17; cf. Gal 5:1). His application of Scripture was based
on one single point – its fulfilment in Jesus Christ and the impact of his
death and resurrection on the Church. His Bible exegesis was “not overt
but allusive”,125 as is the case with his Israel-Church typology in 1 Cor
3:1 – 6, which is full of allusions to Exodus combined with individual
references to prophets, or the discussion of the problem of Law and
Faith in Gal 3. However, the difference is that Paul was acquainted
with Jesus’ sayings through oral teaching only, whereas he knew the
Law from reading it or from hearing the reading of the written text.
In both cases the Easter gospel determines the interpretative tradition.
4.2.5 The absence of narratives about Jesus in Paul
Paul was reluctant to quote the words of Jesus. What may be more sur-
prising is that his theology of Jesus’ cross and resurrection (his gospel)
excluded any narratives about the life of Jesus. In his letters we do
not find the parables of Jesus, not even a story from his life, nothing
about his healings and miracles, the disputations with his opponents,
how he approached sinners or wandered through Galilee. This fact is
so striking that we have to offer at least some explanation, differing
from the reasons we have given for Paul’s reluctance to quote the say-
ings of Jesus.
124 P. Pokorný, Römer 12, 14 – 21 und die Aufforderung zur Feindesliebe. . . ,

109 – 110.
125 R. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the letters of Paul, 155 f.; cf. U. Luz, The Use of
Jesus-traditions in the Post-Pauline letters and Paul, part III.
1) It may be that, particularly in Mark and the Lukan special traditions,

such narratives framed Jesus’ sayings as stories related to his typical
activities (they were known as chries [Gr. chreia], pronouncing sto-
ries, apophthegms or paradigms).126 Apparently, Paul mostly learned
about the sayings from collections of sayings which did not contain
the descriptions of the (typical) situations in which such words were
pronounced (“Concerning virgins, I have no command from the
Lord” – 1 Cor 7:25).127
2) The “novels” (short stories mostly dealing with Jesus’ healings and
other miracles) were theologically rather suspect, since Paul must
have known them from the folklore tradition, adapted as legends.
In the second part of the 20th century several scholars formulated
a hypothesis according to which in Early Christianity there was a
special group that based its faith on Jesus’ miraculous power, Jesus
as the divine man (theios anēr).128 Paul hesitated to mention the mi-
raculous healings and other wonders that belonged to the Jesus tra-
dition, since he feared that they could become an external support
for Christian life, overshadowing the faith: “For Jews demand
signs…” (1 Cor 1:22a). This may have been the consequence of
his theological orientation. For that matter neither Q, nor the Mat-
thean special material, nor the Gospel of Thomas contain narratives
about miracles.129
3) The emphasis he placed on Easter as the rehabilitation of Jesus by
God and the validation of his whole work (for Paul, Jesus’ work
was, in fact, the incarnation culminating with his death on the
cross – Phil 2:6 – 11) changed the whole perspective in which
Paul saw Jesus. In 2 Cor 5:16 he said that Christians no longer
knew Jesus “according to the flesh” (kata sarka). The “according
to the flesh” does not apply to the earthly Jesus, Jesus as a human
126 See § 5.2 below.

127 J. Schröder, Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament, 98 ff., supposes that collections of
isolated sayings (logia) are a secondary phenomenon and the living Jesus tradi-
tion always combined narratives and sayings.
128 T. J. Weeden, The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospel, 146 ff., suggested
interpreting some of the features of Markan theology as polemic against the
adoration of Jesus based on the Hellenistic idea “divine man” (the miracle
worker and exorcist). This may also have been the case with some Christians
in Corinth.
129 C. Breytenbach, Das Markusevangelium als traditionsgebundene Erzählung?,
95 f.
being, but to the fleshly knowledge of him, to the view of Jesus that
does not take into consideration his resurrection and exaltation.130
The Risen Lord validated all Jesus traditions. Nevertheless, this
caused the earthly Jesus to be undervalued to some extent. Bult-
mann emphasised this viewpoint in an exaggerated and clear way:
The earthly (kata sarka) Christ does not concern us.131
4) We may interpret the tension between the Easter gospel on the one
hand and the proclamation and the story of Jesus on the other as a
temporary problem of different kinds of tradition and different gen-
res of literature: the narrative one in which the memory of Jesus
survived, and the kerygmatic or catechetic one which includes the
oral gospel. Ulrich Luz wrote: “Letters are part of an ongoing com-
munication between two partners and normally not an initial com-
munication. In an ongoing communication a lot of information is
presupposed. The genre of texts is an important vessel, but also a
limitation for the transport of information.”132 Luz also mentioned
the fact that in the Johannine community, there is a similar differ-
ence between the epistles and the literary Gospel of John.133 Indeed,
when reading the epistles (in fact only 2 and 3 John are real epistles),
we would never suppose that the same community (or even the
same author) would also produce a Gospel.
In spite of all these arguments, the gap between Paul and Jesus, as attest-
ed by the early traditions, still remains a mystery to some extent. What
we can say for certain is that this mystery is connected with the over-
whelming experience of Jesus’ new impact on his followers after his
crucifixion. The key that unlocks the mysterious code is the resurrec-
tion of Jesus as the revelation of God’s wisdom, by which he demon-
strated his intention and his definitive power on Jesus (1 Cor 1:24).
For Paul, Jesus was primarily the proclaimed Saviour and not so
much a teacher who represented divine philanthropy in daily life.
130 J. B. Souček, Wir kennen Christus nicht mehr nach dem Fleisch, passim.
131 R. Bultmann, Zur Frage der Christologie (1927), in: idem, Glauben und Verste-
hen I, 101.
132 U. Luz, The use of Jesus-traditions in the Post-Pauline letters of Paul, part IV.
133 Ibidem, part II.
4.2.6 An inner analogy between Paul and the narratives about Jesus
We know that in spite of Paul’s reluctance to quote the words of Jesus

and the gap in Pauline use of Jesus traditions, the traditions of Jesus, in
the end, influenced the liturgy and the life of the Church and shaped the
canon of the Christian bible in a decisive way. To some extent this was
contrary to Paul, and we may feel a certain tension between the two
parts of the New Testament – the Gospels and the letters of Paul. It
is, in some respects, a paradox that Paul calls the oral Gospel euangelion
and the four narrated biographies of Jesus with their vision of the com-
ing kingdom of God bear the same designation. According to Rudolf
Bultmann, the expected Age to Come is already present in Pauline the-
ology through the fact that the crucified Christ is proclaimed Lord and
Saviour.134
However, there are some common elements in the gospel pro-
claimed by Jesus and the gospel attested by Paul. We can trace the
inner links between the two general concepts of euangelion in early
Christian literature. When comparing the common points of the struc-
ture and intention of both versions of euangelion, the interpretation of
Christian faith by Paul is surprisingly not so very different from the in-
tention of the narratives about Jesus that we find in the Gospels. For
Paul, too, Jesus in his incarnation and death represents the grace of
God, which will be revealed at the time of the eschatological end of
this age.
Eberhard Jüngel devoted his well-known monograph (“Paulus und
Jesus”, 1962) to the problem of the theological relationship between
Paul and Jesus. Both Jesus and Paul construct their soteriology (build
up their hope) on the eschatological intervention of God. In this con-
text, eschatological intervention means an action fulfilling the final good
intention of God in his relationship with humankind. With Jesus it is the
eschatological future (the kingdom of God) that qualifies the present as
the time of (the acceptance of) salvation, whereas in Paul it is the past
(the death and resurrection of Jesus) that opens the future as the time
of hope.135
As we have seen, Paul interprets the individual commandments of
the Mosaic Law from the point of view of the Love Commandment
134 R. Bultmann, Die Bedeutung des geschichtlichen Jesus für die Theologie des
Paulus, 211.
135 E. Jüngel, Paulus und Jesus, 272; cf. P. Ricoeur, Biblical Hermeneutics, 136.
(cf. Rom 13:8 – 10 or Gal 5:14 with Mark 12:31par.). For Paul, loving
one’s neighbour has its source in the love with which God loves hu-
mankind. In Romans he introduced his exhortation to love as the strat-
egy for the struggle against evil by an appeal in the name of the mercies
of God (Rom 12). Paul seems to have alluded to the love of God here as
it was mentioned in the Jesus traditions (cf. Luke 6:27 – 28, 32 – 36 [Q]);
oiktirmones – oiktormōn may be a Lukan re-interpretation of the Q text
from Matt 5:48 – an interpretation of a Jesus tradition from the view-
point of Pauline theology. This confirms the inner analogy between
Paul and Jesus.
Paul’s theological intention based on the Easter gospel and his insist-
ence on the future fulfilment led him to a similar concept of hope as is
represented in the Jesus traditions. The reason is the inner analogy be-
tween the Easter gospel and the Jesus tradition in their view of the fu-
ture fulfilment, in spite of their different narratives and source of
hope.136 This openness toward the future fulfilment was missing in the spiritual
pre-Gnostic piety of Paul’s opponents and also, most likely, in the teaching of
some of his disciples who shared with him the emphasis on Easter as a new be-
ginning. 137 The other opponents in Galatia were obviously Jewish Christians, so
that Paul had to engage in polemics on two fronts, 138 but both these (for Paul)
dangerous movements drew close to each other in a comparatively short time on
the basis of a spiritual, a-cosmic concept of salvation. 139 On the other hand, Paul
and the Jesus traditions were later integrated into the literary Gospels on the basis
of their common commitment within history as the way towards the horizon of-
fered by God. It was not the number of Jesus traditions in the traditional move-
ment that was decisive, but rather the degree of social responsibility and the com-
mon horizon of human lives and history in its entirety. This orientation
eventually led to the integration of the Easter confession and the Jesus
traditions. The integration itself was a first-class theological achieve-
ment.
From the discussion with his opponents in 1 Cor 4:1 – 13 it follows
that Paul was familiar with the beatitudes, and from the instruction on
136 R. Bultmann understood the analogy rather as the consequence of a similar un-
derstanding of human “self” in its relation to the world (“Jesus and Paul”,
193 ff.).
137 This is why Paul, with his different theological orientation, was attractive for
Gnostics: See E. Pagels , The Gnostic Paul, passim.
138 See the classical study by W. Lütgert, Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeist in Kor-
inth. 7.
139 G. Strecker, Judenchristentum und Gnosis, 277 ff.
unconditional love for one’s neighbour in Rom 12:9 – 21 it also follows

that he knew the commandment to love one’s enemies. We know both
of these units of tradition from the Sermon on the Mount/on the Plain
(Matt 5/Luke 6). In the first case Paul, when contrasting his apostolic
poverty, thirst and weakness, with his opponents’ feelings of being
kings already, rich and satiated, obviously criticized their spiritual expe-
rience of perfect salvation. He considers himself poor and weak, but his
firm hope is in the (second) coming of the Lord (1 Cor 4:5). This is stat-
ed explicitly in 1 Thess 1:10: the one, whom “we” already know as the
Son of God, rescues us from the coming “wrath of God” (the Last Judg-
ment). Here the span of time between the appearance of Jesus Christ
and the eschatological salvation plays a similar role to that of the span
between the present blessing of the poor and their promised rule in
the kingdom of God.
The three formulae of the euangelion are influenced by the Jesus tra-
ditions. The ecumenical federation of groups mentioned in 1 Cor 15,
who verbalised their Easter experience as the resurrection of Jesus,
used the eschatological concept of the resurrection, as did Jesus (and,
obviously, also John the Baptist), and as it was translated into Greek
and later took on a fixed form in the literary Gospels (Mark
12:25par.; Luke 14:14; cf. Mark 12:18par.). Even though they trans-
formed the concept of resurrection by declaring one person ( Jesus) to
have risen before the time of the general resurrection, the “firstborn
from the dead” and the key person for the rest of Christian history,
most of them assumed that a certain period of time would still remain
between the resurrection of Jesus and the eschatological salvation.
So the analogy between the general structure of Jesus’ proclamation
and teaching on the one hand and the Easter gospel on the other is, to a
large degree, dependent on the Pauline reflection on the Easter procla-
mation. Paul reflected on the fact that God exalted a simple man of Gal-
ilee who was sentenced to death on the cross and who empowered his
followers to proclaim his new presence and the eschatological hope rep-
resented by his story.
The problem of Paul and te traditions about Jesus arises from the
fact that Paul experienced the post-Easter visions of Jesus as the
Risen Lord in such an intense way that the THAT of his new presence
overshadowed the WHAT and HOW of his teaching and his activity.
The resurrection of Jesus as Christ and Lord (kyrios) was, in his view,
a guarantee of hope for all who are linked with him by faith even in
THEIR humiliation and death.
4.3 Social Background
The Easter gospel that was firmly rooted in the resurrection of the
earthly Jesus and still never omitted the eschatological horizon, influ-
enced the social structure of the early Christian communities and recti-
fied the tendencies towards an a-cosmic orientation of piety.
Pauline communities represented a specific social phenomenon. In
Israel, religion (the cult of YHWH) was basically bound to an ethnic
group and the kings were considered as representatives of God (see Ps
2 or 110). The prophets could, in the name of God, to whom they
promised obedience, warn the kings and the officials of Israel against in-
justice ( Jer 26), and the people against self-evident trust in the unity of
nationality and faith. They called for a conscious decision in favour of
faith in the one God. In the first century B.C.E. the Jews even lost
their limited political rule and preserved only an unstable autonomy
under Roman rule. In the diaspora their social position was not much
different from that of the other new religions. The situation of the ad-
herents of Jesus as Messiah was even more complicated. Already in the
time of Paul of Tarsus they were expelled from several synagogues, and
after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. the Pharisaic movement dominated
the synagogues even in the diaspora and the Christians had to separate
from Israel. Christians became Christians by decision, through their
faith. In this respect, they resembled the groups of adherents of new
(mostly eastern) deities and their mystery cults in particular. And yet
the ambition to create a social structure corresponding to the inner in-
tention of their faith still remained. They did not oppose the structures
of the Roman Empire, but they created an alternative culture, an alter-
native social space, in which they the key events of their life took
place.140 Such an alternative space, although it may be considered a dan-
gerous phenomenon, offers an inspiration for society as whole. The so-
cial solidarity of early Christians was greater than in other religious (cul-
tic) associations. Among other examples of this we could mention the
collection for the poor in Jerusalem (see e. g. 1 Cor 16:2), and the social
solidarity misused by devious characters, as satirized by Lucian, the
Greek author of Syriac origin from the second century C.E., in his Per-
egrinos 11 – 16. In fact it documents Christian social sentiments. In this
respect the church preserved a part of the social heritage of Israel.
140 For the alternative culture (counter-culture) see § 6.3 (The Son of God and other
titles).
4.3 Social Background 77
This is also reflected in the self-designation of the Christian commun-

ities. In less than two generations from the beginning of Christianity,
Christians adopted the Greek self-designation ekklēsia (the translation
used in the Septuagint for the Hebrew qāhāl – the assembly, i. e. of
God’s people). It is first attested in the Pauline milieu (1 Thess 1:1;
for the whole of the church 1 Cor 15:9; Col 1:18). In Greek, the reli-
gious associations, based on the conscious choice of their members,
were mostly called thiasos, eranos or leschē. The Christians opted for ek-
klēsia, not for the term synagōgē – another translation of the same He-
brew word and designation of the same phenomenon. The choice of
ekklēsia was intentional. In the Greek setting ekklēsia ebrew word also
meant a public assembly of the free citizens of a Greek city, called to-
gether by an official announcer (kēryx). Thus the emerging Church
was saying that its proclamation, the kērygma, had a public implication,
open for all: “…this was not done in a corner” (Acts 26:26b). This was
a marker distinguishing the Church from the mystery cults, and was spe-
cific to the Christians.
This is why Christian communities became an influential minority
within society in the Roman provinces, and in the city of Rome
they united a wide spectrum of social groups and classes including a
large number of slaves.141 They expanded over a large territory, mostly
in provinces that were not occupied by Roman legions (belonging
under the authority of the senate).
The proto-Gnostic groups of Paul’s opponents lived as internal fac-
tions of the Jewish synagogues or penetrated into the Pauline (Corinth)
and other Christian congregations (Alexandria). They did not partici-
pate in the leadership of the Christian communities of former Jews
and former pagans as members, but they considered themselves to be
the spiritual core of each such group and ridiculed the bishops and dea-
cons who were their representatives (Apoc. Pet. NHC VII, 3; 79:21 –
31).142
It was the Easter gospel which helped the Pauline communities and
the main stream of Jesus’ followers and sympathizers to build up a new
confidence in Jesus after his expectation of the imminence of the Last
Judgment was not fulfilled, and which inspired the specific social struc-
ture of the emerging church.
141 See P. Lampe, Die stadtrçmischen Christen, 121 ff.

142 Cf. K. Koschorke, Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das kirchliche Christentum, 64.
The necessary consequence was that Christians had to formulate

theologically their attitude towards the pagan governing authorities.
This is a special chapter of early Christian history and theology. Here
we will confine ourselves to mentioning that, in accordance with the
gospel, Paul exhorted Christians to accept earthly rule as the instrument
of a preliminary justice, and to accept rulers as people whom they
should also love. However, the reason for this was not the will of the
rulers, but the commandment given by the one true God himself
(Rom 13:1 – 10). This means that the highest authority is God himself
and the rulers depend on him and obviously are also subject to his judg-
ment. In 1 Pet 2:13 – 14 earthly rule is explicitly described as a human
institution (in Greek ktisis – creation; cf. Rom 13:1).143 These were
problems that were unknown in the Jewish Bible (our Old Testament),
apart from the texts relating to the period of Babylonian captivity. A
certain analogy can be found in the instruction in Jer 29:7: “But seek
the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to
the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.”
A similar attitude towards earthly power is expressed in 1 Tim 2:1: “I
urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving be
made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so
that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity”.
At the present time, after the great (and probably necessary) experiment
with the whole of society as corpus christianum, the question of the Chris-
tian attitude towards non-Christian rulers and systems of rule has be-
come a topical one once again. The early Christian attitude is derived
from an orientation in history rooted in the gospel as the revelation
of God’s good will in Jesus and looking forward towards the eschatolog-
ical coming of the “kingdom of God”. Consequently, the relationship
to earthly rulers is also derived from and conditioned by confidence
in God.
4.4 “Good news” in Deutero-Pauline Texts

The context in which euangelion occurs in Deutero-Pauline letters con-
firms that it was the key term in the proclamation and teaching of the
later Pauline tradition, too. In 2 Tim 2:8 we find a paraphrase of the
143 B. Blumenfeld, The Political Paul ( JSNTS 210), 378 f., called this tendency, al-
ready visible in Romans 13, a secularisation of the state.
4.4 “Good news” in Deutero-Pauline Texts 79
gospel from Rom 1:3 – 4 described as “my gospel,” i. e. a living heritage

of the Apostle.
Three new motifs and connotations became associated with the gos-
pel in the post-Pauline period.
With the progress of time, as the apocalyptic expectation disap-
peared from the centre of Christian hope, the role of the gospel as
the guarantee of (personal) heavenly salvation (eternal life) came to be
stressed more (Col 1:5; Eph 1:13 f.; 2 Pet 1:4; 2 Tim 1:10; cf. 2
Thess 1:8).
However, the strengthening of individual hope was formulated
against the background of the universal validity of the gospel, which ap-
plies to both Jews and pagans (ethnē, Hebr. gōjı̄m – Eph 3:1 – 6), and
even to the whole of creation (Col 1:23; cf. Rev 14:6). This was re-
garded as a special mystery. It was derived from the formulae in
which Jesus was seen as the mediator of creation (Col 1:15 f.; Heb
1:1.2; John 1:1 – 5), and which are already attested by Paul (1 Cor
8:6), but it developed into a special chapter of Christology. Some
texts, like the hymn in Col 1:15 – 20, were commented on by the au-
thor of the letter and thus re-adapted for use among those Paul was ad-
dressing.
The third new development in Paul’s sayings, as in 1 Thess 2:2 or
Phil 1:13, is the necessary risk of suffering for the sake of the gospel
(2 Tim 1:8; cf. 1 Pet 4:17 – 19).
All these developments demonstrate how the basic nucleus of the
gospel was open to re-interpretation.
4.4.1 The prospect
The next document we need to discuss is the Gospel of Mark. It is al-

most contemporaneous with the Deutero-Pauline letters to the Colos-
sians and Ephesians, but it includes older traditions. In addition, as we
have mentioned above, it represents a link between the oral Easter gos-
pel and the literary Gospels. However, before we deal with Mark, we
have to examine the Jesus traditions. They were overshadowed by the
Easter gospel in the Pauline letters and are therefore accessible only in
an indirect way. For the reconstruction of the role of these oral tradi-
tions (and most probably also a few written ones) prior to Mark, we
have to use later writings (the other canonical Gospels, and writings
from the first part of the second century up to the time of Justin Mar-
tyr), which may have conserved and reflected something of the pre-
Markan situation. We know that the Jesus traditions and their documen-
tation survived at least one or two generations after some of them were
incorporated into the written Gospels and became an important part of
the Christian liturgy.
5. The Survival of the Jesus Traditions before Mark
In this chapter we would like to describe the pre-history of the Jesus tra-
ditions – the majority of the content of the written (literary) Gospels. In
the time in which we are interested, these traditions had not yet been
incorporated into the Gospels. In this sense this chapter deals with the
Gospels only indirectly. On the other hand, since the Jesus traditions
represent the majority of the content of the Gospels, they constitute a
material of primary importance for our theme.
5.0 The general character of the Jesus traditions
The problem is that the traditions about Jesus, which go back about
twenty years further into the past than the earliest letters of Paul, are
mostly accessible only as a part of the literary Gospels – texts that origi-
nated about fifteen years after the letter to Romans. The reason was,
first of all, the fact that the Jesus traditions – narratives and sayings –
were transmitted predominantly orally throughout their “hidden peri-
od”. In addition, the school of “form criticism” has demonstrated that
the oral tradition includes an element of creativity and does not preserve
the text as reliably as most written texts do. In the traditions that were
incorporated into the literary Gospels the element of creativity is in-
creased by the impact of the Easter experience.
We know that the Jesus tradition was orally transmitted in pieces
corresponding roughly to the size of individual pericopes, connected
by various features, ranging from connection by time sequence (then,
next day, etc.) to theological logic (e. g. the prediction of suffering
after Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah in Mark 8:27 – 33).
Human memory, unless it is trained and reproduces texts that are poeti-
cally shaped in an epic metre,144 is able to retain only small isolated text
144 This is valid from the time of the Homeric epic until the present in some rural
cultures, as demonstrated by A. B. Lord, The Singer of Tales, 124 ff., even if the
recited versions are never identical (ibidem p. 125). It is inappropriate to apply
82 5. The Survival of the Jesus Traditions before Mark
units for a longer time.145 Even these memories gradually become mixed
with fantasy.146 Interrelationships between individual sayings or stories
disappear from human memory after a short period. That is why the
Gospel writers had to create a framework for the story of Jesus that en-
abled them to interpret the tradition in the light of their Easter experi-
ence, of their faith in Jesus as the revelation of God’s will.
In addition, most of the Jesus traditions were originally a re-telling
of Aramaic sayings or narratives and, before they reached the first Gos-
pel-writer, who was evidently “Mark” – i. e. the author of the Gospel
according to Mark – they were translated into Greek.147 Since the in-
habitants of Galilee were mostly bilingual, it is possible that some
parts of the tradition were re-told in Greek by the original hearers.
And it is very probable that Jesus himself spoke Greek. His hometown
of Nazareth was one hour’s walk from the predominately Greek-speak-
ing city of Sepphoris – the centre of South Galilee in the time of his
childhood. If the crowds from the Decapolis did indeed follow him
(Matt 4:25), he must have spoken to them in Greek,148 since after the
Roman conquest of Palestine in 64 B.C.E., the Decapolis rejected Jew-
ish influence, which had violently been imposed on them by the Jewish
Hasmoneans. In spite of all this, we have to suppose that the majority of
the tradition was translated into Greek at the time when the number of
Greek-speaking Jewish Jesus-people increased and early Christianity ex-
tended into the Greek-speaking territories (beginning with Antioch on
the Orontes and Alexandria). On the other hand, there is no persuasive
evidence that the Aramaic influence on the language of the Gospel ex-
ceeded the average amount of Semitisms in the Greek spoken in the
Mediterranean by both Jews and pagans.149
the laws of rhythmic orality to the Jesus traditions, see W. Kahl, review of A. B.
Baum, Der mündliche Faktor, in: ThLZ 135 (2010), 47 – 49.
145 Cf. the rabbinic tradition; on this discussion see P. Pokorný – U. Heckel, Ein-
leitung in das Neue Testament, 324 – 329.
146 V. Karbusický, Anfnge der historischen berlieferung in Bçhmen, ch. 1.
147 Reconstructions of an Aramaic Pre-Mark are however dubious, see J. H. Char-
lesworth, Can one Recover Aramaic Sources Behind Mark’s Gospel? 257 f.
148 See S.E. Porter Criteria of Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research, 126 – 180.
149 M. Reiser, Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums, 160 ff.
5.1 Reconstruction in retrospect 83
5.1 Reconstruction in retrospect
5.1.1 Jesus traditions that survived in the liturgy
It holds true for most of the Jesus traditions that their transmission was
controlled by regular use on fixed occasions in the life of the Christian
communities – in their liturgy and teaching.150 The price for this trans-
mission, in some respects a more conservative one, was a partial accom-
modation of the traditions to the needs of the communities. This was a
substitute for their explicit interpretation. Such an adaptation by trans-
parent retelling of some stories and sayings enabled the Christians to
read them as a direct instruction or exhortation for their life. The
same aim could have been reached by using the Christian sociolect in
their reproduction: resurrection in the sense of re-animation (the
daughter of Jairus – Mark 5:41 – 42) became a prototype of the resur-
rection from the dead to eternal life; the teaching of Jesus was transmit-
ted as a model of Christian catechesis which is, in the preserved texts,
clearly linked with the Easter gospel. There may have been other prin-
ciples for interpreting the older traditions (the Messiahship of Jesus,
conformity with prophecies, dualism), but their interpretation from
the viewpoint of the Easter gospel was the most effective, and it sur-
vived in the literary Gospels.
Sometimes the adaptation was quite profound, and some of the say-
ings presented as words of Jesus were individual sayings of Christian
prophets that were formulated in the name of Jesus as the living
Lord. Nevertheless, almost all of the Jesus traditions have some, at
least indirect, relation to Jesus. They did not originate ex nihilo. In ad-
dition, the advantage of the institutionalized tradition is that we know
the general tendency of all the adaptations and we also know what
we have to abstract when reconstructing the older strata.
From what we have said, it follows that an investigation into the
Jesus tradition prior to the canonical Gospels has to be linked to a recon-
struction of the communal life of Jesus’ followers who gradually eman-
cipated themselves from the synagogue and became Christians. This was
the subject of the research carried out by “Form Criticism” in Germany
before World War II, as represented by Martin Dibelius151 and Rudolf
150 K.L.Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, VI: “The oldest Jesus tradition is
dependent on cult and therefore metaphoric and trans-historical.”
151 M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, ch. I
Bultmann.152 Form Criticism did pioneering work in the investigation

of the survival of the Jesus traditions in the time before they were incor-
porated into the Synoptic Gospels. They used some of the findings and
insights of folklore studies concerning the workings of human memory
and, since we have no testimonies for that period, they concentrated on
the analysis of the literary form of small units of the text of the Synoptic
Gospels. In 1919, Karl Ludwig Schmidt convincingly demonstrated that
the general structure or scheme of the canonical Gospels was a secon-
dary creation of the Gospel writers.153 Bultmann and Dibelius supposed
that the shape of these small units was influenced by the needs of the
liturgy and catechesis of the Christian communities. The repeated use
of such small orally reproduced texts on special occasions – their posi-
tion and function in the life of the community (in German “Sitz im
Leben”) – can to some degree be traced through the analysis of their
grammatical (number, person, mode) and literary structure (lexical
and stylistic level, modus, subgenre).
Form Criticism underestimated the theological and literary achieve-
ment of the Gospel writers that was evaluated by Redaction Criticism,
which started in the middle of the 20th century. Dibelius consciously
attached little importance to historical analysis, and so reading his
book on Form Criticism of the Gospels, we sometimes get the impres-
sion that the community not only adapted but even created the peri-
copes. In spite of this, the methodology of Form Criticism shed the
first light on the hidden pre-history of the Gospels. An especially useful
feature was the way it redistributed the individual parts of the Gospel to
the literary “forms” (modalities) in which they survived before being in-
corporated into the Gospels. Some of these forms, like short sayings,
parables or prayers on the one hand and, for example, disputations (po-
lemic dialogues), legends (narratives related to real persons developed in
a popular laudatory sense) and extant narratives from history (with leg-
endary elements) on the other hand, were well known, but the defini-
tion of an apophthegma (Bultmann) or paradigma (Dibelius) was a step to-
wards a better understanding of an influential unit of the Jesus tradition.
An apophthegma is a saying (of Jesus) framed by a short narrative, as
was the case of the Greek chreia – a form in which we often find an ab-
breviated expression of the teaching of philosophers. The denotation
152 R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition. For his approach see the in-
troductory paragraph.
153 K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, 17.
paradigma or “Pronouncement Story” refers to the same phenomenon

but from a different point of view. The saying is the key to the story;
the story illustrates the saying in the same way as a story narrated by a
preacher illustrates the text of his sermon. The problem of the historical
origin of the two parts and their combination lies outside the scope of
the form-critical view. They may be original or secondary, but what is
important is the meaning that the teller or witness intended to share
with the hearer or reader.
By analysing the structure and function of the apophthegmata, we can
trace the tendencies of interpreting and reshaping the individual pieces
of tradition: they were selected, combined and adapted. For example,
the two-act story about the calling of Levi (Mark 2:13 – 14 + 15 – 17)
combines two sayings of Jesus: one is a parable which would not be un-
derstandable without the story (“Those who are well have no need of a
physician, but those who are sick” – verse 17a), the second is a saying
which summarises the whole of Jesus’ endeavour (“I have come to
call not the righteous ones, but the sinners” – verse 17b). Since the in-
dividual units of tradition were narrated separately (the pericopes of the
Scripture are still being read in a similar way today), most of them have a
tendency to allude to the whole of Christian existence as it developed
from the Easter gospel. In this case the “come” in the second sentence
may and should be related to Jesus’ coming into this world in accord-
ance with the teaching of his pre-existence and as it had already been
presented in Paul (1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:6 – 7), not only to his coming
into Levi’s house.
The individual forms of tradition as described by Form Criticism are
mostly constructs that are rarely clear-cut. Dibelius admitted this, and on
several occasions he gave the same pericope as an example of two differ-
ent forms. Even the story about the calling of Levi is a paradigma com-
bined with a short disputation. Some of the combined units are linked
together by the same temporal and geographical location, for example
the “Day in Capernaum” in Mark 1:21 – 34.
For example, the story of the sinful woman is a paradigma extended
into a dialogue. It circulated in several versions and the one in Luke
7:36 – 50 is most likely the oldest one. After the woman had anointed
Jesus during a table fellowship and the host was upset, Jesus told a para-
ble, commented on it and concluded it with several important sayings
such as “…her sins, which were many, have been forgiven, since she
has shown great love…..Your sins are forgiven…Your faith has saved
you; go in peace” (verses 47 – 50). The post-Easter adaptation is very
slight here: The faith (pistis) that Jesus may have understood as confi-
dence in his deeds in anticipation of the kingdom of God was, in the
post-Easter communities, understood as Easter faith – an attitude of
openness and confidence in God based on the experience of Jesus’ res-
urrection as we interpreted it above. – The other version as represented
by Mark 14:3 – 9 and the parallel in Matthew and partially also in John is
located in Bethany and in his answer Jesus mentions that the woman has
anointed his body beforehand for its burial. The act of love is trans-
formed into an act incorporated into the story of his death for the
sake of others – the story has been adapted to the Easter gospel.
As the second and last example in this context, I would like to men-
tion the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen in Mark 12:1 – 12parr.
This has an interesting parallel in the Gospel of Thomas logion 65.
The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of Jesus’ sayings fully preserved
in the Coptic translation only (Texts from Nag Hammadi, codex II/
2). In the present version it originates from the mid-second century,
but the core of the collection probably already existed at the end of
the first or at the beginning of the second century. The compiler of
the Gospel of Thomas knew some of the Synoptic Gospels, quoted
from them, and added some sayings of Jesus in a radically spiritual adap-
tation (transformation). But in several cases it is possible that he presents
the sayings (parables) in a version that is older than the ones in the Syn-
optics. In Mark the owner of a vineyard sent his servants and eventually
his own son to the tenants in order that he might collect the fruit be-
longing to him, but the tenants beat and killed them. The parable is
an allegory of Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah, as the crucified
Lord of Israel, the vineyard of God. This is confirmed by a quotation
from Psalm 118:22 f. at the end of the story.
The version from the Gospel of Thomas (log. 65) seems mysterious
since it concludes with the killing of the son and seems to yield to the
injustice. Recently a new translation154 has won favour: the text of the
damaged papyrus may be read so that the owner of the vineyard was not
a “good man” (in Greek chrēstos) but a “usurer” (Gr. chrēstēs).155 The
154 Already considered (but rejected) in 1974 by B. Dehandshutter, La parable des

vignerons homicides. . . see the list in the Bibliography. This is the translation
of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften; for the interpre-
tation see U.-C. Plisch, Das Thomasevangelium, 171 – 173; P. Pokorný, A Com-
mentary on the Gospel of Thomas, 11 – 114.
155 Coptic used many Greek words.
Coptic translation preserved here the Greek expression. Then the word-
ing of this version is better understood: The farmers do the work and
the usurer receives the fruit. He exploits them. But he does not realise
that his human planning is flawed. The farmers revolt against him and
he loses not only his possessions, but also his own son, who was his
heir and his representative and for whom he had accumulated the pos-
sessions. The resistance of the farmers is not evaluated, since this was
outside the scope of the parable. Its intention was to demonstrate
how uncertain and unstable a greedy life based on accumulating posses-
sions is. This corresponds to the other similar sayings and parables of
Jesus, e. g. the parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12:13 – 21), which also
has its impressive short parallel in the Gospel of Thomas (log. 63). If
this is a true interpretation and the Gospel of Thomas preserved an
older version, it would mean that some texts underwent considerable
transformations during the course of their being handed down in the
Christian communities. We have to admit that this argument may
seem suspect, since an older version is found in a newer text. We
have to be very careful in such cases. But here some findings support
our conclusion: in the Gospel of Thomas there are also other sayings
that are preserved in a form that is obviously older than those in the
Synoptic Gospels. They represent a minority of the 114 sayings, but
they are not exceptions. For example, the Parable of the Sower in
Mark 4:1 – 9 appears in logion 9 without the allegorical explanation ap-
plied to the life of Christian communities which is to be found in Mark
4:13 – 20. Unlike in the parable, which tells the hearers that the power
of the kingdom of God, even if shared only by a minority, is stronger
than all the various weapons of Satan, the allegorical interpretation con-
centrates on the individual reaction of various people to the (Christian)
proclamation of the Word (the kērygma). This would have been an ap-
propriate form for spreading the teaching and piety of the dualistic
groups that used the Gospel of Thomas. If we do not find this explan-
ation in the Gospel of Thomas, it means that the version of this parable
used by the author of the Gospel of Mark is a post-Easter addition.
We have already mentioned the tendency to group several units into
collections that we can reconstruct from the Gospel of Mark. This was
mostly for teaching purposes. H.-W. Kuhn described several such col-
lections:156 Disputations or polemics (Mark 2:1 – 3:6), parables (4:1 –
34), parenetic apophthegms (10:1 – 45) and miracle stories (4:35 – 6:52).
156 H.-W. Kuhn, ltere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium, 47 and passim

Our investigation and discussion in these paragraphs demonstrate

that the material for the Gospel of Mark and the other canonical Gospels
was passed on in smaller units. Many of them were already combina-
tions of several elementary parts: clusters of sayings (mostly arranged ac-
cording to the themes or at least catchwords), locally concentrated sto-
ries (the day in Capernaum – Mark 1:21 – 34), stories related to the same
event (the complex of the Passion Story), etc.
5.1.2 Transformations of the Jesus tradition before Mark
In the previous paragraph we reviewed the form-critical attitude and the

methodology used in the critical examination of the Jesus traditions in
their post-Easter setting in the early Christian communities (we can
call it, at the risk of oversimplification, the “ecclesiastical” setting.).
We used some of the generally accepted results of Form Criticism
and placed them in a diachronic context. This is not in full accordance
with the main intention of Form Criticism, which concentrates on the
relationship between the Jesus traditions and their ecclesiastical setting,
but it is not contrary to it. Form Criticism investigates the text units
in a synchronic way in order to define their function in the pre-literary
layer of the Gospels. All the protagonists of Form Criticism, especially
K. L. Schmidt, were also interested in the diachronic dimension of the
problem.
We found that the Jesus tradition was “disciplined” predominantly
by the Easter gospel and reflection on it. As we have seen, this meant
a good deal of reinterpretation, but it was a transformation that can
be recognised as such. The Jesus traditions were subordinated to the
Easter gospel as prefigurations, predictions, or allegories of it, or even
as its primary part (the Passion Story). This does not mean that the
Jesus traditions were totally re-shaped. Many parts survived untouched
because of their inner authority or because they fitted the needs of the
community without adaptations being necessary. But the overall hori-
zon in the autosemantic (i. e. understandable without any additional in-
formation) lexemes, clusters of sayings and legends was always linked
with the Easter gospel. On the other hand, the Jesus traditions played
only a secondary part in terms of the programme of the Easter gospel
and of Pauline theology which is based on it. Later we shall attempt
to evaluate it theologically, but already at this stage we can draw useful
consequences from comparing the forms of the Jesus tradition that were
selected by the Gospel writers with those that survived through apocry-
phal channels.
The extra-canonical Christian literature which has survived comes
almost exclusively from Christians of pagan origin or pagan ancestry,
whereas the canonical books of the New Testament were written by
Jewish followers of Jesus; only “Luke” was probably originally a
God-fearer (sebomenos or foboumenos) from among the uncircumcised
Greek-speaking adherents of the Jewish religion. The extra-canonical
Christian literature can mostly be divided into two major groups,
which were formed more or less spontaneously and, additionally,
were defined by scholars.157 One group consists of the writings of the
so-called Apostolic Fathers, the other group is the New Testament
Apocrypha. The difference is that the Apocrypha mostly (without suc-
cess) claimed that they belonged in the canon and in fact were pseudon-
ymous, which the writings of the Apostolic Fathers were not. The latter
mostly bear the names of their true authors and did not claim to be part
of the canon. Of the corpus of the Apostolic Fathers, only the apoca-
lyptic text known as The Shepherd of Hermas was a case of liturgical
reading for a particular region (Rome) and time (till the third century).
The rest of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are predominantly let-
ters, whereas the Apocrypha are mostly narratives: Gospels, Acts, and
Apocalypses.
When analysing the literary level and the degree of theological re-
flection, we find that the apocryphal Gospels (as well as Acts) mostly158
belong to a popular category of writings that combine popular piety,
miracle stories and the intention to celebrate Jesus on the one hand
and to amuse the reader on the other with a dualistic view of the
world, ascetic morals and also, occasionally, a genuine sentiment.
They promoted the self-identification of Christians as a spiritually priv-
ileged minority in a hostile world. Apocryphal stories circulated mostly
outside the liturgical reading of the communities. Some of the texts
were influenced by the Greek genre of a tale (novel) and have a corre-
157 J. H. Charlesworth, The Fourteen Literary Collections for Studying Early Ju-
daism and Christian Origins, 185.
158 The Gospel of Thomas, as we have seen, is a special case; see U.-K. Plisch, Das
Thomasevangelium, 24 ff.; P. Pokorný, A Commentary on the Gospel of Thomas, 5 –
10
sponding literary structure,159 while others spontaneously extended and

developed the Synoptic or Johannine narratives.
None of the apocryphal Gospels originated as a whole in the first
century, and some of them were composed in the Early Middle Ages.
However, they represent a style of celebrating Jesus by a fable-like re-
production of the traditions that may already have existed in the popular
traditions in the second half of the first century. Insofar as they repro-
duce some miracle stories and legendary elements, the canonical Gospels
and Acts also belong to this genre and represent the same kind of piety
(e. g. Matt 17:24 – 27; Acts 16:25 – 34). However, they are mostly
framed by a theologically elaborated concept and combined with
other kinds of traditions.
Luke probably knew a collection of stories about Jesus that circulat-
ed outside the Christian liturgy, but he carefully selected only the Birth
Story together with its associated narratives and the story about the child
Jesus in the Temple.
Now we can understand at least some of the reasons for Paul’s re-
luctance to use the Jesus traditions and we can admire the Gospel writers
for obviously selecting the best of the available material, generally from
the older layers.
5.2 Fragmentary Testimonies of Jesus Traditions

outside of Mark
The other method of investigating the Jesus traditions before their in-
corporation into the Gospels is to read carefully the letters of Paul
(see §4 above), extra-canonical testimonies, and inconspicuous notes
about developing and organizing the tradition in the Gospel, and com-
bine our findings with what we have already described.
159 J. Lukeš, Raně křesťansk rtorika, 349 f. (Early Christian Rhetorics; with an
English summary).
5.2 Fragmentary Testimonies of Jesus Traditions outside of Mark 91
5.2.1 The Synoptic tradition in the Apostolic Fathers

and in the Gospel of Thomas160
The emphasis on the authority of Jesus as the Lord (kyrios) has its coun-
terpart in the use of the term euangelion in the Apostolic Fathers. The
Easter experience was considered the reason for his elevation to the
rank of Kyrios – the representative of God (YHWH), the heavenly
Lord. This was how the tetragrammaton was pronounced out loud
(Hebr. ’ādōn). The argument in Scripture for this was Ps 110:1 “The
Lord said to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand…’” Without this scriptural
background, in which God as Lord installed the Messiah as the Lord
representing him on earth, using the title Lord for Jesus would have
been sheer blasphemy to Jewish ears. This new post-Easter use soon pe-
netrated into the Jesus traditions (Luke 6:46 [Q]). It was not seen as a
polite form of address only (a Greek version of the Hebrew rabbi –
my lord, as it was understood in Jesus’ time), but as a messianic title.
The oral traditions of Jesus’ sayings received their authority as direct
commandments and promises of the living Lord. In this they differed
from the narrative traditions. The traditions “about” Jesus could not
have the same authority as the sayings did. The oral transmission did
not disappear after the Gospels were written and it survived almost
until the end of the second century.161 The Apostolic Fathers already
knew the Synoptic tradition, but they quoted it freely since they also
knew the Jesus traditions from oral teaching, including the Gospel of
Thomas or some of the traditions included in it (see 2 Clem. 12:2 and
cf. Gos. Thom. log. 22).
The main reason for the preference for the sayings of Jesus in the
Apostolic Fathers was the fact that the sayings were the Risen Lord’s di-
rect address, as was already the case with the apostle Paul. In the First
160 See a general survey in H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 49 ff. We shall
concentrate only on examples of sayings that explicitly claimed the authority
of the voice of the risen Lord and help us to learn better the material which
Mark collected in connection with the gospel of Jesus. Recently the appearance
of the study by S. E. Young, Jesus Tradition in Apostolic Fathers, has been an-
nounced. According to the abstracts, he has concentrated on the influence of
the oral tradition. Unfortunately this work was not yet available when the pres-
ent monograph was being written.
161 This is the general conclusion of the monograph by H. Köster, Synoptische Uber-
lieferung bei den apostolischen Vtern, see especially 258: the Apostolic Fathers find
themselves in the living flow of tradition.
Letter of Clement, explicit references to the “Sayings of the (Lord)

Jesus” prevail over anonymous allusions.162 In 1 Clem. 13:1c-2 such a
reference introduces a mixture of logia included in the Sermon on the
Mount by Matthew (Matt 5:7; 6:12, 14 f.; Luke 6:31, 37a, 38a);163 in
1 Clem 46:7c-8 (“recall the words of the Lord” – mnēsthēte tōn logōn
Iēsou) it introduces sayings known to us from Mark 14:21; 9:42 and
Matt 26:24.164
Didache 1:3 – 6 introduces a cluster of sayings known to us from the
Sermon on the Mount/on the Plain as “The teaching of these words”
(1:3) i. e. “of the Lord” (1:1), but all of them are slightly adapted or in-
terpreted through additions.165 The exhortation of Jesus that we know
from Luke 6:27 “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you”
is shortened in Did. 1:3: “Love those who hate you” and supplemented:
“and you will have no enemy”. The unconditional commandment was
transformed into a piece of pragmatic wisdom. The Roman authorities
persecuted only those Christians who were denounced by a concrete
person (not anonymously),166 and so good relations with pagan neigh-
bours might have saved lives. On the other hand, the commandment
to love one’s neighbour may have been stressed by a parallel addition,
in order that the group identity of the Christians might be strengthened:
“You shall love the neighbour more than yourself (hyper tēn psychēn
sou)” (Barn. 19:5) or “Love your brother as your soul (psychē), keep
him as the apple of your eye” (Gos. Thom. log. 25).
2 Clem. 9:11 quoted (“The Lord said”) the saying that we know
from Matt 7:21 (about doing the will of God).
All these texts may be dated to the period between 122 – 132 C.E.
The saying in Did. 1:3 looks like an addition of the editor, who linked
together the opening (originally non-Christian) teaching about Two
Ways of Life (Did. 1 – 6) with the other three Christian parts which
go to make up the Didache. This finding illustrates the surviving role
of the oral tradition at a time when the Gospels were already quite
widely used in Christianity, and it helps us to understand the far-reach-
ing achievement of Mark in composing his biography of Jesus.
162 Ibidem, part II.

163 For a detailed survey and evaluation of this and the next cluster of sayings from
1 Clem 46 see H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 66 – 70.
164 See H. C. Lona, Der erste Clemensbrief, 496 f.
165 See H. Koester, Synoptische berlieferung bei den apostolischen Vtern, 238 ff.
166 See Pliny the Younger Ep. 96 and 97.
The Gospel of Thomas, which we just mentioned, included some

sayings (all introduced by “Jesus said”) that are probably not derived
from the Synoptic Gospels but originate in the oral tradition: Jesus
struggling (sayings 35, 47, 58, 82), sayings from the social ethics of
Jesus (25 and 39) and especially the sayings about the kingdom of
God as the eschatological future (log. 54, 57, 63, 64, 76) 167 – valuable
evidence about the importance and persistence of the tradition about
Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God. – From the texts in
the Nag Hammadi collection we can also add another phrase that speaks
about the followers of Jesus as the “generation without a king” (Orig.
World NHC II/5; 125:2, 6; 127:10 – 15; cf. Hippolytus Haer. 5:8:2) –
a valuable testimony to the persistence of the tradition relating how
Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God (“kingless realm” (Orig. World
– NHC II/5; 127:13). It was an old tradition that survived in the Jew-
ish-Christian setting in a radically spiritualized form.
In all these cases the living Lord was the guarantee of the authentic-
ity of the Jesus tradition. However, in Early Christianity such sayings
did not represent the purpose of the Jesus tradition in all cases. We
have already mentioned that the Christian prophets may have substan-
tially transformed them, and so their authority was often controversial.
The members of the Christian communities may have asked whether a
person speaking in the name of Jesus was really speaking with his au-
thority. The instructions to test the prophets in Did. 11 – 13 reveal the
problems associated with the living oral traditions. This is the reason
why the position of the Gospels gradually became stronger. This ten-
dency became visible in the writings of Justin Martyr in the mid-second
century and it culminated at the end of the second century.168 Irenaeus
of Lyon was still stressing the oral tradition (Haer. 3:4:1 – 2) as late as the
eighties of the second century, although in the Christian Church of his
time most of the writings of the New Testament that were later to be
canonised were considered scripture with equal authority to those of
the Law and Prophets.
The first conclusion from our observations is that the material that
Mark collected and transformed into a biography of Jesus and which
he wrote with a clear idea about the close relationship between the gos-
167 The sayings about the kingdom of God that are interpreted in the sense of ful-
filled eschatology are: log. 3, 81, 82, 96 – 98 (here: the “Kingdom of the Fa-
ther”.)
168 See § 8 below
pel of Jesus and the gospel as an Easter proclamation was in many cases
(a) preserved in small clusters of sayings of Jesus, (b) claiming the au-
thority of the Risen Lord, and (c) the traditions were adapted, translated
and sometimes interpreted in a prophetic way during the process.
5.2.2 Only a few traces of the narratives of Jesus in the Apostolic

Fathers
The examination of the Apostolic Fathers confirmed in many respects

the results of the form-critical examination of the Synoptic tradition be-
fore Mark.169 The only difference is that in the Apostolic Fathers we
find the sayings of Jesus more often introduced as the living voice of
the Lord (kyrios). As for the narrative traditions about Jesus, allusions
to them are just as scarce as in Paul.170 The few exceptions are:
– A short note on the signs (sēmeia) and wonders (terata) done by Jesus
directly linked with the figurative allusion to the commissioning of
the apostles to proclaim the gospel (euangelion) in the Epistle of Bar-
nabas 5:8 – 9.
– Allusions to the Passion Story in the same epistle (tractate) in 7:3 – 6.
– An allusion to the story of the Anointing in Bethany (Mark 14:3) in
Ign. Eph. 17:1.
– An expanded confession (Lat. regula fidei) including the birth of Jesus
into the family of David (cf. Rom 1:3), his baptism by John, his
death under Pontius Pilate and resurrection in Ign. Smyrn. 1:1.
– A report on the encounter with the Risen Christ in Ignat.
Smyrn. 3:1 – 3, and instructions obviously relating to the Institution
of the Lord’s Supper in Did. 9:1 – 5.
– Uncertain allusions.
In addition to this the Apostolic Fathers quote several sayings or verses
from the Scripture that come from a story of Jesus in the Gospels (e. g.
Zech 13:7, which was included in the Passion Story in Matt 26:31).
This may reveal their knowledge of the related stories. Obviously a
scriptural quotation was more valid than a written story about Jesus.
Nevertheless, the absence of practically any use of stories about Jesus
in teaching, discussion or exhortation is surprising. None of the possible
169 Cf. H. Koester, Synoptische berlieferung bei den apostolischen Vtern, 261ff .
170 Cf. ibidem 266.
explanations is fully satisfactory, but together they still help us to go a

step forward:
1) The Gospels had not yet become liturgical readings.
2) The model of the Pauline letters that concentrated on the Easter
gospel was still effective. It was not only a matter of genre, as it is
commonly understood. As we have demonstrated, for Paul it was,
first of all, a matter of theology: without the Easter gospel, the
Jesus traditions would be ineffective.
3) The most important reason behind all these partial explanations is
the discrepancy between the needs of the emerging Church and
the proclamation of Jesus: in the Church the acceptance of sinners
was linked with the ritual of repentance (the famous Parable of the
Prodigal Son, where the Father welcomes the son before he is able
to confess his sins, is not mentioned), caring for the sick was rooted
in the Love Commandment rather than in the model of Jesus’ mi-
raculous healings (which were typical for the apocryphal non-litur-
gical Gospels and Acts), and the itinerant disciples of Jesus were not
an appropriate model for the settled urban Christian communities.171
Christian communities did not live from the support of their settled
sympathizers as Jesus and his disciples did (see Luke 8:1 – 3); rather,
they tried to support the others themselves. This tension could be
overcome only after a certain time and by reflection about the
meaning and intention of Jesus’ sayings and deeds.
Our attempts at explaining the lack of Jesus narratives in the Apostolic
Fathers helped us to understand the problem. However, at that time, a
wide acceptance of the narrative traditions about Jesus was based on the
premise that the Gospel according to Mark and the other Synoptic Gos-
pels already existed. In the time of the Apostolic Fathers these texts were
available, but most of the Christian leaders – bishops, presbyters and
teachers – did not recognise their validity yet. It took several decades
until the impressive theological achievement of the author of the Gospel
according to Mark spread over a wide area of Early Christianity,
through its liturgy and teaching.
171 G. Theissen, Soziologie der Jesusbewegung, 23 – 26.

5.2.3 The Passion Story
Martin Kähler wrote that the Gospels were, in fact, a “Passion Story
with a detailed introduction.”172 This applies especially to the Gospel ac-
cording to Mark. It cannot be understood as an expression of the theo-
logical intention of the Gospel writer but rather as a description of the
structure of the Gospel of Mark.
The Passion Story is a large subunit of the Gospel of Mark.173 Here
the pace of the narrative slows down, counted by hours – unlike in the
other parts of the Gospel of Mark. If we suppose that Jesus’ public ac-
tivity lasted one year only, three quarters of the text of Mark deal with
363 days and one quarter with his last two days.
The problem of the search for older materials that Mark had at his
disposal is that we do not know the form and extent of the Passion Story
before Mark. Some scholars doubt the existence of a pre-Pauline Passion
Story. According to Burton L. Mack the first (Markan) Passion Story
was created from smaller units of tradition and shaped according to
the soteriology of Paul, i. e. it presents the death of Jesus as the substi-
tute death of an innocent.174 Even Raymond E. Brown in his impressive
commentary on the Passion Story of the four Gospels and Ulrich Luz in
his commentary on Matthew doubt that it is possible to reconstruct the
pre-Markan Passion Story, even though they both suppose that such a
short, fixed text did exist.175 In 1 Cor 11:23 – 35 we have the oldest
written record of what is known as the Institution of the Lord’s Supper
172 M. Kähler, Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus ,
60, note 1 on page 59.
173 An important role in the modern research into the Passion Story is played by
the article of M. Dibelius, Das historische Problem der Leidensgeschichte,
see especially 249, 251 and 256.
174 B. L. Mack. The Myth of Innocence, 262ff; a similar opinion is expressed in most
of the articles in the volume The Passion in Mark, ed. by W. H. Kelber, espe-
cially J. R. Donahue, From Passion Traditions to Passion Narrative, 1 – 20, es-
pecially 20.
175 R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 48ff; for a report on the discussion see
ibidem as an attachment (1492 – 1524) written by M. L. Soards.; U. Luz, Das
Evangelium nach Matthus (Matth 26 – 28); 13. For the social background of
the pre-Pauline Passion Story see G. Theissen, The Gospels in Context, 166 ff.
The many hypotheses about a pre-Markan form of the Gospel cannot be sub-
stantiated because of the absence of positive evidence; current traces of Markan
editing on the one hand and the signs of oral transmission on the other hand are
arguments against such a possibility.
– a piece of the Passion Story (cf. Mark 14 – 15parr.; John 19 – 20) as a

part of the Gospel. At the beginning we read that Jesus pronounced
these words “on the night when he was betrayed” (verse 23). This
means that Paul must have also known the story of the Betrayal of
Jesus by Judas and, most probably, at least the pre-Markan core of the
Passion Story. It is not likely that he would have known the story
about Judas’ betrayal and not known the report about Jesus’ trial and
his execution.
The indirect evidence for a pre-Markan Passion Story is the super-
fluous information about Judas Iscariot as one of the Twelve (Mark
14:10), which the reader would have known about from Mark 3:19,
or the role of the verb paradidōmi (to hand over, betray) in the report
about what happened to Jesus between his arrest and his crucifixion
(Mark 14:10 f., 18, 21, 41 f., 44; 15:1, 10, 15). If we abstract the peri-
copes in which paradidōmi does not appear, even if it would have been
easy to add it, we may have the skeleton of the Passion Story that was at
Mark’s disposal. What Mark may have added are the opening verses in
14:1 – 2 (the Plot to Kill Jesus), the Anointing at Bethany (14:3 – 9), the
Prediction of Peter’s Denial (14:26 – 31), the Young Man who Fled
(14:51 – 52), Jesus before the Council (14:53 – 65), Peter’s Denial
(14:66 – 72), the Soldiers Mock Jesus (15:16 – 20) and the Burial of
Jesus (15:42 – 47). This is only a working hypothesis that illustrates
the plurality of the traditions related to the Passion of Jesus and the es-
tablished plot that existed before Mark. It does not mean that the sec-
tions added by Mark are less valuable or a later layer. It only means
that they were passed on as isolated units or that they were re-told by
the Gospel writer. Traces of Markan redaction are visible throughout
the Passion Story and so is his theological intention: the opening of
the Passion Story in 14:1 – 2 is redactional, and a substantial interpreta-
tion of the received tradition is visible in Mark 15:21 – 32 – the pericope
about the crucifixion of Jesus (see § 6 below). As a whole, the Passion
Story bears many traces of post-Easter confessions, and includes the vin-
dication of Jesus.176 It is no wonder that it became the pillar of the Gos-
pel of Mark.
The pivotal argument for a pre-Markan Passion Story is the differ-
ence between Markan Christology and the traces of another concept of
the trial and suffering of Jesus in Mark 14 – 15. Some features of the nar-
rative are modelled on the paradigm of the suffering of the righteous
176 A. Y. Collins, From Noble Death to Crucified Messiah, 492 f.

(passio iusti): godless people despise Jesus and mock him as in Ps 22:7 – 9
or Wis 2:12 – 20. The biblical paradigms helped the followers of Jesus
cope with the suffering and helplessness of Jesus. Jesus’ words “I am
deeply grieved, even to death” (Mark 14:34) were prefigured in the
fate of the psalmist in Ps 42:6, 11; 43:5; Jesus at the trial expects his vin-
dication by the Son of Man (Mark 14:62). Originally “Son of Man”
was not a pseudonymous “I” used by Jesus, but an apocalyptic heavenly
being – a real man in the image of God, different from the rulers whose
substance was that of beasts, as in Daniel 7. It was the same expectation
of the Son of Man as attested in Luke 12:8 (Mark 8:38). The apocalyp-
tic concept of the Passion Story, which aims at the eschatological vin-
dication of Jesus, is also visible in the motif of darkness (Mark 15:33;
cf. Joel 3:15) and the loud cry similar to the roaring voice of the
Lord from Zion that will announce the justice of the Age to Come
(Mark 15:37; cf. Joel 3:16) and signify the coming end of this aeon.
All of this is different from the Markan soteriological concept of the
death of Jesus as a sacrifice for the sake of sinful humankind, as we
shall demonstrate below. Mark integrated both the different interpreta-
tions of the Passion Story in a theologically brilliant way. Matthew
added further episodes (e. g. Matt 27:19).
An interesting saying commenting indirectly on the way the various
pieces of Jesus tradition are collected together, supported by the Easter
gospel, is the pericope of the Anointing in Bethany (Mark 14:3 – 9par.),
which we mentioned in § 5.1. The statement that the woman anointed
Jesus for burial is followed by another sentence (verse 9) declaring that
“whenever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has
done will be told in remembrance (eis mnēmosynon) of her.” This is
most likely a Markan formulation, since it was he who introduced the
term euangelion as the key word into the Christian literary narratives.
In terms of the form (a saying of Jesus), it is the gospel of Jesus,
while in terms of the content (relation to a world-wide mission), it is
the Easter gospel of the early Church of the time of Mark. Euangelion
became, as we shall see, the overarching structure keeping the whole
book of the Gospel according to Mark together. If the story about
the Anointing in Bethany had to be narrated together with the procla-
mation of the (oral) Easter gospel, it means that according to Mark the
proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection should also be accompanied by sto-
ries from his life. It is possible that the Anointing Story was linked with
the Passion Story by Mark, but the approach whereby the proclamation
is accompanied by stories from Jesus’ life obviously reflects the practice
in early Christian worship of that time. The Anointing in Bethany con-

firms the special role of the Passion Story, which could include various
additions and bridge the gap between the Easter gospel and the Jesus tra-
ditions. This may have been one of the inspirations for Mark when he
extended the Passion Story into a special kind of biography of Jesus.
Some scholars assumed that fragments of an old layer of the Passion
Story are preserved in the Gospel of Peter. At the end of the 19th cen-
tury the Passion and Resurrection Story from this writing was discov-
ered in a Coptic translation in Egypt. The hypothesis that this is an in-
dependent witness of the Passion Story was considered by John
Dominic Crossan in his book “Four Other Gospels” (1985) and also
in his monograph “The Cross That Spoke” (1988). However, Ray-
mond Brown demonstrated the presence of a number of elements (de-
tails of the narrative, a description of Jesus’ resurrection) that are typical
for popular secondary developments.177 This does not mean that the
Gospel of Peter is a secondary combination of Synoptic narratives.
Rather, it is a later written reproduction of older testimonies in the
style of epiphany stories. For example Jesus’ cry of despair on the
cross is reproduced as “My power, O power, you have forsaken me!”
(Gos. Pet. 19).178
5.2.4 Mark and source Q179
The collection of the sayings of Jesus called Q (the Germans refer to it

as Quelle – source) may be the oldest accessible Christian piece of liter-
ature, the roots of which may go back to the time of Jesus. Mark may
have known it at least in an early written version that had already been
composed in Greek. Only the roots of individual sayings go back pos-
sibly to the Aramaic layer of the oral tradition. It is accessible to us only
through reconstruction. Roughly expressed, it is the double (parallel)
177 R. E. Brown, The Gospel of Peter and Canonical Gospel Priority, especially
340 – 343.
178 For a translation based on the edition of R. M. James see J. J. Elliott, The Apoc-
ryphal New Testament, 155 ff.; for more about the Gospel of Peter, which evi-
dently supposes the existence of the other Gospels and tries to overshadow
them by the authority of Peter, see: Th. K. Heckel, Vom Evangelium des Markus
zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, 287 – 300.
179 For general information see J. S. Kloppenborg, Q – the Earliest Gospel or J.
Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte. For discussion, see M. Labahn – A. Schmidt,
Jesus, Mark and Q, 70 – 80.
tradition within the Synoptic Gospels. “Double” means that it is pre-

served by Matthew and Luke only and not included in Mark. The
long Synoptic segments of such parallel texts suggest that they must de-
pend upon a common source as the triple tradition depended on the
Gospel of Mark. With a few exceptions Q consists of sayings of
Jesus: promises, beatitudes, exhortations, parables, allegories, forensic
sentences of the divine Law (Q 12:8 – 10), apophthegms180 and, excep-
tionally, dialogues in a narrative frame like The Temptation (Q 4:1 – 13)
and The Centurion of Capernaum (Q 7:1 – 9).
(We assume that Matthew and Luke depended on Mark and Q. The
other explanations of the similarities between the Synoptic Gospels
raise more problems than they solve.)
In some cases of the triple tradition, where there are striking internal
agreements between Matthew and Luke as compared with Mark, we
may suppose that the text was included in Mark as well as in Q and
that the other Gospel writers combined the overlapping texts or prefer-
red that of Q, e. g. in the Beelzebub Controversy both Matthew and
Luke have an opening passage depicting the situation (Luke 11:14)
and both of them omit the words “How can Satan cast out Satan?”
from the Markan text. The extent of Q is difficult to determine. The
majority of the double tradition must have belonged to it, but what
about the sayings and parables that in Matthew and Luke differ even
in their intention as is the case with the Parable of the Great Supper
(Q 14:15 – 24), where the Matthean version has a second climax?
One theoretical solution is to see Q as consisting only of the textual
units that correspond word for word.181 But such a conclusion would
ignore the influence of the oral tradition and the possibility that Q cir-
culated in various versions and was mainly conceived as a help for mem-
orizing and quoting Jesus’ sayings, the authoritative form of which was
the oral transmission as verbal interventions of Jesus as the living Lord.
In its structure (the sequence of the sayings) Q seems to have several
features in common with Mark: John the Baptist – the temptations of
Jesus – the core of the Sermon on the Mount/level place – the Beelze-
bub Controversy – the apocalyptic sayings. However, this may have
been caused by the approach used by Luke and Matthew, who associ-
ated some of the sayings from Q with the appropriate text units within
180 For a classified survey of the forms used in Q see G. Theissen, Die Entstehung des
Neuen Testaments als literaturgeschichtliches Problem, 69.
181 S Th. Bergemann, Q auf dem Prfstand, 62 ff.; 229 ff.
the skeleton of the Markan text. The most striking difference is that, in
addition to the absence of the narrative framework, the Passion Story
(and indeed any notion about the suffering and death of Jesus) is also
missing, as is the Easter message. The title Messiah (Christ) does not ap-
pear either. Jesus is the coming Son of Man (e. g. Q 17:24) 182 and the
powerful messenger of the kingdom of God – his words are the truth
of God (Q 7:35; 11:31). The ethic taught by Jesus is not based on
moral appeals, but rather on a pragmatic appraisal of a situation in the
face of the eschatological victory of God’s good will. This also applies
to the commandment to love one’s enemies (Q 6:27 – 36).
In terms of literary genre, the source Q resembles the sapiential lit-
erature (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Sirach, Wisdom, Jewish (Greek) Senten-
ces of Pseudo-Phocylides, 1Clement, Didache etc.), but the Japanese
scholar Migaku Sato considers the prophetic books of Scripture as a
closer parallel.183 This is not a substantial problem, since in Q 11:49 –
51 (cf. Sir 24:33 – 34) we read about sending the prophets by the wis-
dom of God and in Q 11:31 – 32 the wisdom of Jesus is praised as
the divine proclamation that will be vindicated at the Last Judgment.
The literary shape of Q and its theology are interdependent. Most of
the sayings were proclaimed by itinerant radical followers of Jesus in
Galilee in their preserved form.184 Jesus’ parables of the kingdom of
God in their openness towards the future expressed the kingdom of
God in its full presence. The eschatological judgment and the expecta-
tion of the Son of Man reveal that the validity of all the wisdom sayings
depends on the apocalyptic fulfilment. The apocalyptic dimension can-
not be ascribed to the secondary layers only.185 For the compilers of Q,
the words of Jesus possessed such an authority that the prospect of the
coming kingdom of God was reliable and trustworthy, even if the full
182 Q is here quoted according to the chapters and verses in the Gospel according
to Luke. Q 17:24 denotes the text of Q as recorded in Luke 17:24 + the Mat-
thean parallel.
183 M. Sato, Q und Prophetie, 409 – 411. By contrast, the wisdom character of Q is
demonstrated by J. S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 317 – 328.
184 G. Theissen, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament, 34 ff. For the sociology of
Jesus’ movement see idem, Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums – collected
contributions on the theme.
185 B. L. Mack, Q and the Gospel of Mark, 15 – 27, supposes that apocalypses were
part of the later layer of Q. But in view of the character of Q as a collection of
clusters of sayings, any stratification of Q is problematic, see e. g. Ch. M. Tuck-
ett, On the stratification of Q, 215 ff.
presence of the kingdom was delayed. The absolute use of the expres-
sion “faith” (pistis) in the mouth of Jesus (see Luke 7:9; 17:6 or Luke
17:19 and cf. Mark 2:5; 4:40; 5:34; 10:32) expresses this confidence
in Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God. In Q the Easter experi-
ence is identical with the (new) inner rootedness of trust in the gospel.
On the other hand, Q did not accept the soteriology of the dualistic
groups as expressed in the later collections of sayings and dialogues
with the Saviour, such as the Gospel of Thomas (NHC II/2), the Dia-
logue of the Saviour (NHC III/5), the Book of Thomas the Contender
(NHC II/7), the Apocryphon of John, which must have been a text
popular in some scattered Christian groups, attested three times in the
NHC codices II/1, III/1 and IV/1, in Berlin Gnostic Papyrus
[8502,2], and in Irenaeus Haer. 1:29), or the Gospel of the Saviour.186
According to these writings, salvation consists in accepting the (secret)
teaching of Jesus as the living Lord, unlike in Q where the hope is di-
rected towards the prospect of the coming kingdom of God.187
It is important for us to know that at the time of Mark there was
already an extant written collection of Jesus’ sayings and – that Mark
did not incorporate it into his book. It is improbable that he did not
know Q, since a few years after his book was finished, two independent
Christian writers (“Matthew” and “Luke”) in two different places were
familiar with Q as well as the Gospel of Mark and integrated both of
these texts into their books.
Why Mark did not integrate Q into his book, about one third of
which also consisted of sayings of Jesus, is not clear. Some scholars sup-
posed that he was influenced by Q or that he used at least some say-
ings.188 Indeed, some parts of Mark overlap with the content of Q:
e. g. The Commissioning of the Disciples is to be found in Mark
6:6b-13 as well as Q 10:2 – 12. Luke used both versions, Matthew
only one. However, this only means that Mark and Q used (obviously
from short oral or written units of the tradition) the same stories or nar-
ratives. In some cases the “minor agreements” between Matthew and
186 Also known as The Unknown Berlin Gospel; text edition, translation and com-
mentary: Ch. Hedrick, Gospel of the Saviour, (later the text has been comple-
mented).
187 J. M. Robinson in the Critical Edition of Q, 174, interprets the Greek ēngiken
(has come near) in the mention of the kingdom of God in Q 10:9 (Luke
10:9) as “… the kingdom has reached you”, cf. idem, Jesus, 165.
188 B. Weiß, B. H. Streeter, J. Lambrecht, W. Schenk, Der Einfluß der Logien-
quelle auf das Markusevangelium,160 – 165.
Luke in the wording of a saying (e. g. the Parable of the Mustard Seed in
Luke 13:18 – 19 and Matt 13:31 – 32, as compared with Mark 4:30 – 32)
mean that Matthew and Luke took the parable from Q or that they
combined both versions. In this particular case, the main difference con-
sists in the fact that Mark concentrates on the contrast between the small
seed and the big plant with great branches, whereas in Luke and Mat-
thew the mysterious power of growth is the focus. It is only possible
to suppose an influence of Q on Mark if we assume that the Gospel
of Mark underwent several revisions.189 This is a hypothesis which can-
not replace the explanation assuming the influence of the oral tradition
on Matthew and Luke.190 It follows that any direct influence of Q on
Mark cannot be substantiated.
This means that Mark obviously avoided Q for theological reasons.
Being influenced by Pauline theology, as we shall demonstrate in the
next chapter, he did not trust the theological intention of the material
of Q nor the feasibility of some of the radical exhortations of Jesus
from the core of his Sermon on the Mount/Plain, including the exhor-
tation to love one’s enemies.
On the other hand, we do not find any traces of a polemic against Q
in the Gospel of Mark. He obviously did not consider it dangerous (he-
retical), and he intended to create a counterbalance to Q with his book,
in order that it might not be misunderstood in the sense of a continuing
revelation of God in the teaching of Jesus and his instructions that
might be, in a prophetic way, applied to new problems that appeared.
The Pauline theology based on the testimony of the attested death
and resurrection of Jesus was for him a firm basis for hope. That is
why he constructed his Gospel with the Passion Story and the message
of the resurrection of Jesus as its climax.
The fact that Q had an authority in the Christian communities of
that time and also a legitimacy as a liturgical text and a subject of pro-
phetic interpretations helped Mark to decide in this way. It is under-
standable that when introducing a new integrative literary genre into
the liturgy, he avoided any disruption of traditions or conflicts with
the given order, in order that his book might spread as quickly as pos-
189 Ibidem, 144 f.

190 See J. Schüling, Studien zum Verhltnis der Logienquelle und Markusevangelium,
167 – 187.
sible and become the heart of liturgy, to which all the other parts might
be related.191
5.2.5 Special Sources of Luke and Matthew
The material from the supposed special sources of Luke and Matthew is
not mentioned by Mark. Kim Paffenroth suggested that Luke probably
used a written source containing many parables of Jesus originating ear-
lier than Mark, about the same time as Q.192 The Infancy Narrative is
based on popular traditions. The hymnic parts (Magnificat, Benedictus
and Nunc Dimittis) are part of the psalmodic renaissance of that time;
they use various motifs and traditions from the Jewish milieu, but
their composition is probably the work of Luke. Matthew had at his dis-
posal Mark and Q and, in addition, he incorporated some parables
(20:1 – 16; 25:1 – 13; 25:31 – 46, etc.), a popular miracle story
(17:24 – 27), and sayings (e. g. 6:16 – 18), which were interpreted in
keeping with his concept of the Sermon on the Mount.
5.2.6 The written texts
We have already mentioned two written texts, the core of the Passion
Story and Q, in which some of the Jesus traditions were fixed before
the Gospel of Mark originated. A very popular text was the Gospel
of Thomas, partially depending on the canonical Gospels, but also
drawing on individual sayings from other traditions. We have already
mentioned it as a document of the surviving oral tradition as well as a
testimony to re-interpretations of that tradition, but it cannot be used
in our context. The same applies to the Gospel of Peter, which we
have discussed in the previous paragraph.
The most important of these written texts is the one found in Papy-
rus Egerton 2, first published by H. Idris Bell and T. C. Skeat in 1935. A
part has been identified in Germany (Papyrus Köln 255) and published
191 The assumptions according to which Mark and Q are one in their theology are
unconvincing harmonisations.
192 K. Paffenroth, The Story of Jesus according to L, 97, 146 – 158 /reconstruction
158 – 165/.
by Dieter Lührmann.193 Papyrus Egerton is comprised of three frag-

ments of papyrus containing four pericopes: a disputation with Jewish
representatives of that time (some sentences resemble John 5), a story
about cleansing a leper (cf. Mark 1:40 – 44parr.), a question about paying
taxes to kings ( Jesus refuses to answer, cf. Mark 12:13 – 15), and a mira-
cle story on the bank of Jordan without a parallel in the known mate-
rials.
The third fragment contains only a few isolated words.
Papyrus Egerton was at first considered to be a mixture of stories in-
spired by the canonical Gospels and intended to imitate them. The el-
ements of the text of the canonical Gospels speak in favour of this as-
sumption.194 However, the early date of the document (as old as the
most ancient testimonies to the text of the New Testament) points rath-
er towards a pre-Synoptic collection. Some of the sayings were later
used in the Synoptic Gospels, but because non-Synoptic narratives are
also included and because it is difficult to find a reason for a post-Syn-
optic composition of such a collection, a pre-Synoptic origin seems
more likely.195 It is a valuable document, demonstrating that the Jesus
tradition was not exclusively transmitted orally, as the form-critical
school supposed. Papyrus Egerton was a collection of sayings and
short stories without any common framework, but their collector may
have had higher aspirations than simply to assist the memory. He gath-
ered materials of different forms and from various Christian tendencies
and groups, in order that it might inspire their dialogue and possible in-
tegration.
Mark did not include it in his book, but a similar collection may
have inspired him to attempt an integrative writing on a higher level
– as a theologically elaborated biography of Jesus.
Other fragmentary texts including independent traditions about
Jesus are the Papyri from Oxynhyrchus Nr. 840 (about cultic chastity,
resembling Mark 7:1 – 23) and Nr. 1224 (about Jesus’ table fellowship
with sinners and his exhortation to pray for one’s enemies, cf. Mark
2:16 – 17 and Q 6:27 f), Papyrus Fajjum (Vindobonensis – sayings at
193 For edited versions see Bibliography: Sources. English translation: J. Keith El-
liott, The Apocryphal Gospels, 37 – 40; K. Erlemann, Papyrus Egerton 2, 32 – 34.
194 F. Neirynck, Papyrus Egerton and the Healing of the Leper, EThL 61
(1985):153 – 160; cf. Th. Heckel, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen
Evangelium, 308.
195 This is also the result of the lifework of G. Mayeda, Das Leben-Jesu-Fragment
Egerton 2, 73 ff. and passim; H. Koester, Einfhrung in das Neue Testament, 621.
the Last Supper – cf. Mark 14:27 – 30) and others, which, however, sub-
stantially reinterpreted the Jesus traditions ( Jewish-Christian apocryphal
Gospels).
By their forms, and irrespective of the dates of their origin, all of
these texts represent some individual elements of traditions that have
been included in the Markan concept. Their literary fixation was sup-
ported by various theological tendencies, but an overarching theological
reflection that would be able to maintain an extensive literary plot is not
yet recognisable.
6. The Gospel in the Gospel according to Mark
We mentioned at the beginning that the title of the Gospel according to

Mark (euangelion kata Markon) is secondary, originating roughly in the
first part of the second century. Since Mark is the oldest Gospel, this ap-
plies to all literary Gospels. Why did these books on Jesus become “Gos-
pels”? In order to answer this question we need to discuss the origin of
the Gospel of Mark and its theological presuppositions. Our intention
now is, first of all, to understand the inner logic and theology of such
a development. This is something we have to keep in mind during all
our investigations.
Chronologically, Mark is the first Gospel and its author is the found-
er of a special literary (sub)genre, characteristic for the Christian Bible.
We know the four canonical Gospels and fragments of three or four
other Gospels, probably of a similar kind, and a few other writings
which usurped the title Gospel (euangelion), because they claimed can-
onical authority.
6.1 A New Literary (Sub)Genre

The decision by Mark to fix Jesus traditions in a literary work corre-
sponds to the role of Scripture in Judaism.196 His work does not only
assist the memory, but it was written with the intention of creating a
new literary basis for the followers of Jesus, who saw in him the fulfil-
ment of Jewish eschatological expectations. The switch from an oral
tradition to a written text was in itself an important turning point in
early Christian history and theology. Some biblical scholars, like Werner
H. Kelber197, consider it a weakening of the original power of the
Christian message passed on in a living community. Their doubts are
based on the studies of Walter J. Ong198 and Eric A. Havelock,199
who analyse the “silence” of the written text that cannot answer the
196 B. D. Schildgen, Crisis and Continuity , 67 f.

197 W. H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel, 207
198 The Presence of the Word.
199 Preface to Plato.
108 6. The Gospel in the Gospel according to Mark
readers’ questions, and the fact that neither Socrates nor Jesus, the two
pivotal personalities of human culture, wrote anything at all. However,
we would not know about them without the writings of those who re-
ported about them and attested their impact.200 And the Christian com-
munities soon developed liturgical, catechetical and theological instru-
ments that provided substitutes for dialogue in the form of
meditation, discussion of the written texts, their application in sermons,
and their interpretation in commentaries.201
By writing his book about Jesus, Mark made an essential contribu-
tion to the proliferation of Christian communities.
6.1.1 Biography
A literary genre includes a set of properties (vocabulary, themes, literary

figures) and functions (education, entertainment, information, liturgy)
common to all its individual representatives, and helps readers (or hear-
ers of a public reading) to orient themselves in the text. Many 20th-cen-
tury scholars, especially the school of Form Criticism, refused to inter-
pret the Gospel of Mark in terms of literary genres, since it was
considered to belong to the category of popular oral traditions and
story-telling, lacking any overarching concept for its structure.202 How-
ever, in the last few decades investigations have demonstrated that it
does in fact have a profound literary and theological concept. This en-
titles us to discuss the genre of Mark, which is not easy, since this book
displays many specific features overlapping the definitions of several dif-
ferent genres. However, the specific features of each specific text can be
plausibly defined only against the background of a common genre.203 In
this sense the “Gospel” may be characterised as kerygmatic-historical lit-
erature,204 influenced by the Hebrew narrative traditions. Historically
and even theologically, this is its true background.
However, since the Gospels belonged to Greek literature from the
very beginning (we have no evidence about their older Aramaic layers),
200 For discussion see D. N. Peterson, The origins of Mark, 23 ff.

201 See P. Pokorný, Hermeneutics as a Theory of Understanding I, § 3.6 and 3.9.1.
202 M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, ch. I.
203 For the discussion on the genre of Mark see B. D. Schildgen, Crisis and Con-
tinuity, 44 ff. and especially D. Dormeyer, Das Markusevangelium, 166 – 185.
204 D. Dormeyer, Evangelium als literarische und theologische Gattung, 173 – 189.
6.1 A New Literary (Sub)Genre 109
their Hebrew heritage acted as a specific element within the framework

of the (Greek) genres of that time. This contributed to their attractive-
ness. From the literary point of view they may be considered a part of
the Late Hellenistic and Early Imperial (about second century B.C.E. –
second century C.E.) boom of interest in Ancient Eastern Cultures
(Babylonia, Egypt, Phoenicia, etc.). That period produced several im-
portant writings that assumed that the East was not spiritually disrupted
by Western civilisation. Nevertheless, these texts are still written in
Greek and interpreted the Eastern traditions from the perspective of
the Greek culture (interpretatio Graeca). The Gospels succeeded in inter-
preting the specific character of the experience with Jesus of Nazareth
for Greek-speaking neophytes, but, unlike the earlier literary fixed parts
of the Jesus tradition (especially the source Q), they are already part of
Greek literature. In Mark the influence of the Semitic narrative is still
palpable and the reader feels that the biographical framework is being
used to present a unique message. Matthew and Luke adapted the Mar-
kan framework so that it fitted in more with the classical scheme of bi-
ographies (see § 7), but they stressed the significance of Jesus even more
by means of a special combination of Hebrew and Greek categories.
Luke defined the genre of his book about Jesus (later called a Gos-
pel) in general terms as a written narrative (diēgēsis – Luke 1:1). It was
different from the older fragmentary traditions used in catechesis and
the liturgy, and it was not a myth, since it was closely bound together
with history. Narrative and account were indeed apt common denom-
inators for both the “books” (Gospel and Acts) in Luke’s literary work.
This is why the Gospels have been treated as a kind of historiography by
some scholars.205
Nevertheless, the Gospels would be a very strange historiography
and placing them in this category would rather complicate our under-
standing of them. The concentration on a short period of the last few
months (not more than two years) of the life of a personality does not
fit the model of a description of history, and the message of the resur-
rection would make such a story into a classical tragedy ending with a
crisis and a divine intervention (theos ek mēchanēs; Lat. deus ex machina).
This is why the Gospel of Mark and the other canonical Gospels are
classified as biographies instead. An exception may be the Lukan writ-
ings (the Gospel and Acts). They have a common preface in Luke
205 H. Cancik, Die Gattung Evangelium, 92 ff., 110; J. Moles, Luke’s Preface,
462,480 f.
1:1 – 4, and the book of Acts belongs more to the genre of historiogra-
phy. Nevertheless, it is strictly limited to the apostolic period and its in-
tention is to demonstrate the initial and ideal impact of the gospel in his-
tory. For this reason, the Lukan Work can be considered a text of a
specific kind. Nevertheless, comparing it with the genres of biography
and historiography can be helpful for its exegesis.
The term biographia originated in the fifth century C.E., but writing
about the lives (bioi) of important historical or semi-mythical personal-
ities had been common since antiquity,206 and it flourished in the Hel-
lenistic and Early Imperial period. The Gospels could be considered
ideal biographies, like the biographies of ideal rulers or other extraordi-
nary personalities. In this case, another parallel to the Gospels would be
the Life of Moses by Philo of Alexandria (died between 45 and 50
C.E.). In this text, Moses is depicted as a king, even though he never
claimed such a title. The same applies to Jesus in the Gospel of Mark
and his proclamation as the Son of God, as we shall see. Other examples
of such glorious personalities might be philosophers like Pythagoras of
Samos (sixth century B.C.E.), whose life story was written by the Neo-
platonic philosopher Porphyrius in the third century C.E., or even the
magician Apollonius, whose life was recounted by Philostratus Flavius at
the beginning of the third century B.C.E. Moses Hadas and Morton
Smith named these and other similar texts “aretalogies”207 (as an exam-
ple they also give the Gospel according to Luke). The introduction of a
new genre of this kind was not accepted, but what is important for us is
that Hadas and Smith collected texts that were comparable to the Gos-
pels in this respect from the non-biblical world. Their typical features
and the striking characteristics of this kind of biography are: the extra-
ordinary character of the literary hero, his divine paternity, confronta-
tion with worldly potentates who consider him subversive, and a divine
vindication at the end of their lives. To this group we may also add the
Parallel Lives of Greek and Roman personalities written by Plutarch (46
206 For the problem of the genre of biography as related to the Gospel of Mark see
A. Y. Collins, Is Mark’s Gospel a Life of Jesus?, especially 11 ff.; cf. A. Dihle, Die
Evangelien und die griechische Biographie, 383 – 411, and R. A. Burridge.
What are the Gospels? 55 ff.
207 For the characteristics of this genre see M. Hadas – M. Smith, Heroes and Gods,
17 f., 72.
– after 120 C.E.) or the Lives of Philosophers [Bioi] by Diogenes Laer-

tius (third century C.E.).208
Another related genre is the Greek novel, which mostly has a histor-
ical setting, but the heroes (lovers or warriors) are ideal personalities.
The religious background is, in most cases, a dominant motif (see Apu-
leius’ Metamorphoses from the second century, chap. XI).209 However,
the strange combination in the novel of the intention to amuse and
the religious dimension does not allow us to consider the genre of
the book written by Mark as belonging to this category.
A Gospel as bios Iēsou is linked with the genre of biography by con-
centration on a single important person depicted principally on the basis
of memories. This does not mean that these are historically exact mem-
ories; it does mean, however, that the narrative relates to history. This is
the difference between writing a biography and telling a myth. The
Gospel of Mark also has its specific features. It was written for a clearly
defined religious group, and yet it was not considered a secret book,
since all guests at Christian services were allowed to hear it. The cult
of Jesus influenced the intention of the Gospels but the genre remained
easily recognisable.210
Other specific features of the Gospel of Mark as a biography are its
intertextual connections with the Jewish Bible (in the Greek translation
of the Septuagint), its themes, attitudes and forms. These features in-
creased the work’s likelihood of becoming a liturgical and canonised
reading.
Furthermore, it is the influence of the oral traditions211 that makes
the Gospel a special subgenre of biography ( Justin Martyr called the
208 For further information see D. E. Aune, Graeco-Roman Biography, 108 – 110
and especially R. A. Burridge, What are the Gospels?, especially 66, 111, 152.
209 B. E. Perry in his pivotal monograph The Ancient Romances underestimated this
dimension (31 ff.), whereas R. F. Hock, The Greek Novel, had stressed it.
210 For the position of Mark within the genre of biography see R. T. Francis, The
Gospel of Mark: “His book represents something distinctive within the field of
biographical writing in terms of subject, its origin, and the use for which it was
intended” (p. 6). According to G. Bornkamm the uniqueness of the Gospels
depends on the uniqueness of the Christian kerygma, see idem Evangelien,
750; E. Lohse, Vom einen Evangelium zu den vier Evangelien, 69. For the dis-
cussion of the genre of Mark as biography see the excellent survey in A. Y.
Collins, Mark 19 – 33; cf. 33 – 52 (the influence of other genres).
211 J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 333, 336, stressed the dependence of the Gos-
pel writers on the oral tradition. We would prefer to stress their critical selection
of transmitted texts.
Gospels “Memories of the Apostles,” see § 6.3 and 8 below) – a feature

that we shall evaluate in the following paragraphs. There was a short
span of time between the death of the hero and the time the biography
was written.
Another specific feature of the Gospel of Mark within the genre of
bios is the concentration on the end of the life of the person described,
and so it is not a biography in the modern sense. The other Synoptic
Gospels included the birth story of Jesus, but the major part of Jesus’
life was absent. In spite of this fact, we shall speak about the biographies
of Jesus instead of the Gospels, when it is necessary to make the reader
aware of the fact that for the first thirty years of their existence the can-
onical Gospels were not called euangelion.
Together with the simple style in which the Gospels were written
(see below § 6.5), this made the Gospels a special kind of biography ac-
cessible to a broad range of society, including the illiterate majority that
heard the Gospel being read in worship. And the fact that all the canon-
ical Gospels share these specific characteristics reveals how far-reaching
an achievement it was when Mark wrote his biography of Jesus. That is
why some scholars have considered classifying the Gospels as a genre of
their own. The problem is that a genre can include various themes and
stories (plots), which is not the case in the Gospels. They all deal with
the life of Jesus. That is why we speak about the Gospel as a subgenre of
biography.212
6.1.2 Material and structuring: Editor or author?
We discussed the material that Mark had at his disposal in the previous
chapter. Now we will simply add a few short remarks concerning
Mark’s literary techniques213 and the structure of his Gospel. From
the available material, he selected those units of the Jesus tradition
that were used in teaching or liturgy and that he considered character-
istic of Jesus. He was quite strict in his selection. He intended to create
an integrated whole, bridging the gap between the Easter gospel as in-
terpreted in Paul’s letters and the Jesus traditions – an ambitious plan. At
the same time, he did not accept Q as a collection of sayings; he con-
212 See A. Dihle, Die Evangelien und die griechische Biographie, passim.
213 In our context we shall not discuss the language of Mark. For this theme see P.
Dschulnigg, Sprache, Redaktion und Intention des Markus-Evangeliums, 258 – 352.
sidered it a literary genre susceptible to various misinterpretations since

it was not bound together with the life and attitudes of Jesus.214 He in-
cluded in his work only shorter collections of sayings of Jesus, like the
parables in chapter 4215 and the apocalyptic composition in chapter 13,
which in the context of the Gospel had a new function.
He intended to prepare a book which would enable the readers/
hearers to orient themselves in the various Christian traditions – ranging
from the individual sayings through Q to the popular narratives of Jesus
(the material of the later apocryphal Gospels) which circulated among
Christians. For some reason he did not include the Lord’s Prayer, al-
though it was already an established part of all kinds of liturgy in various
Christian congregations including the Pauline ones (see Gal 4:6; Rom
8:15 – 16).
He accepted the Passion Story since it fitted into his scheme as a
whole, and he hoped that the biography of Jesus would replace the rec-
itation of the Passion Story during Passion Week, in addition to individ-
ual parts of it being read at weekly services.
The elementary editorial procedure he used was to create a sequence
of the individual narratives, sayings, short tales and apothegms along a
time axis. Mark did this in a simple way. He took material from the
oral tradition, added a simple “and” (kai), sometimes extending it by
an indication of the sequence of time (“Then he…”, “On the other
day”) or space (“Jesus came from….to”). The frequent use of the
Greek euthus ( just as, immediately, used in Mark 1:10, 12 until
15:1) 216 stresses the interrelation of the events by marking key points
of the narrative. The linear flow of time (chronos) is interrupted by in-
dicating the special occasion (kairos) of an event influencing a large
“space” of linear time.217 He created larger units by framing one story
by another one (known as the “sandwich compositions”), the purpose
of which was for each of the stories to influence the interpretation of
the other one.218 This is not only a literary technique. It is also used
by Mark to express his theological intentions. For example, the story
about the miraculous healing of the woman with a haemorrhage is
214 M. E. Boring, The Continuing Voice of Jesus, 271 f.

215 See H.-W. Kuhn, ltere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium, discussed above, in
chap. 4.
216 Cf. E. J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Markan Gospel, 87
217 See B. Schildgen, Crisis and continuity, ch. 2.
218 See Paul J. Achtemeier, Mark as Interpreter of Jesus Traditions, 342 – 346.
framed by the story about the raising (re-animation) of Jairus’ daughter

(Mark 5:21 – 43). Mark narrates the story intentionally in the language
of the Easter message, using interchangeable Greek verbs for resurrec-
tion (egeirō, anistēmi) together with their Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent
q-w -m. On the other hand, the anointing of Jesus at Bethany is framed
by accounts of hostility towards him and the threat of death (Mark
14:1 – 11).219
The whole of Mark, in spite of all his editorial interventions, dis-
plays the highest respect towards the traditional units that he used and
so the literary “seams” are clearly visible in many places. In addition,
the rhythm of the oral narration is preserved and even developed (see
e. g. Mark 1:1 – 8 or 4:35 – 41).220 In fact, this indirectly confirms one
important part of the report of Papias, according to which Mark set
down the memories of Peter in sections, as Peter taught them on var-
ious occasions. This is not reliable historical information; however, it
confirms that most of the text originates in the older oral tradition,
but Mark himself is responsible for the sequence and structuring.
Yet, in spite of his respect for the individual traditional text units, he
acted not only as an editor but also as an author: he created a special
text-world “in its own space and time, in its own ideological system.”221
He narrates in a simple way, in the third person, inspired by the tradi-
tions he used, and he includes comments that help to bridge the gap be-
tween the world of the text and that of the readers/hearers (5:41;
15:22). He appears as the omniscient narrator, knowing what Jesus
did when he was alone (1:10 – 11; 6:46 – 48; 7:33 – 35; 14:35 – 36),
and even informing the reader about the thoughts of the protagonists
(their inner world), e. g. 2:6 – 8; 3:5; 6:19 – 20. His “point of view”
as a narrator is a complex one – he placed himself simultaneously in dif-
ferent positions.222The reader is told who Jesus was from God’s point of
view (Son of God; Mark 1:11; 9:7), who he was in the eyes of his op-
ponents (14:61 – false Messiah), and also who he was from the point of
view of a pagan centurion (15:39 – Son of God = model of the later
219 See J. R. Edwards, Markan Sandwiches, especially 157 f.

220 See esp. J. Dewey, Oral Methods of Structuring Narrative in Mark, 37 f., or G.
Lüderitz, Rhetorik, Poetik, Kompositionstechnik im Markusevangelium, 168 –
176; D. Rhoads – J. Dewey – D. Michie, Mark as Story, 39, 73.
221 Boris Uspenskij, A Poetic of Composition (1973), quoted after N. R. Petersen,
Point of View, 97.
222 R. Rhoads – J. Dewey – D. Michie, Mark as Storyi, 41.
Christian confession).223 In spite of this, Mark the author is also an edi-

tor. The inclusion of the Jesus traditions in his book was a part of his
intention as an author. Through a transparent re-telling of some of
the stories of Jesus, he gave the readers or hearers hints on how to un-
derstand them in their own situation.
The allusions to the Scripture are not understood as predictions, but
rather as comments pointing towards the divine necessity as expressed
by the Greek dei. In the Passion Story, the allusions predominantly to
the Prophets and the Psalms make the reader aware of its relationship
to the eschatological dimension of history: see Ps 42:6, 11; 43:5 for
Mark 14:34 or Dan 7:13; Ps 110:1 for Mark 14:62.224 Here, however,
the allusions and quotations may have been introduced during the litur-
gical use of the Passion Story before Mark. In most instances the Scrip-
tural allusions relate to the story in a very general sense only, and so the
Passion Story was not built on the basis of the biblical predictions, ex-
cept for some details based on Psalm 22. If at the beginning of Jesus’
movement the biblical quotations legitimized the expectations of
Jesus in the eyes of their Jewish brothers and sisters, later, the biblical
quotations illustrating Jesus’ story were intended rather to legitimize
the Jewish Bible in the eyes of the followers of Jesus who were not
linked to the synagogue.
6.1.3 The literary structure
The reconstruction of the structure of ancient literary texts whose chap-

ters and verses were added centuries later is quite difficult. The first
problem is a literary one: the boundaries between the individual parts
are mostly not clearcut. There are transitory passages between them.
In the Gospel of Mark the confession of Peter is clearly a turning
point where the story of Jesus starts to develop in a tragic way and
Jesus has to cope with imminent danger. The dividing section, however,
includes the passage in Mark from 8:27 to 9:13. The other important
places in the narrative are the beginning of the Galilean ministry of
Jesus in Mark 1:14, the death of John the Baptist (6:14 – 29, already
223 N. Petersen, Point of View, 108 – 118.

224 K. S. O’Brien, The Use of Scripture in the Markan Passion, especially 68 f.; J. Mar-
cus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel
of Mark.
mentioned in 1:14), the Entry into Jerusalem (11:1), the beginning of

the Passion Story (14:1) and the beginning of the epilogue (16:1).
6.1.4 The problem of the ending
The Gospel of Mark ends with 16:8. 16:9 – 20 is known as the Ariston
ending (these verses are ascribed to a certain Ariston in an Armenian
manuscript), and is found in the manuscripts A, C, D, W and others.
The two most ancient codices Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus),
and several other Greek, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, end
with 16:8, as well as the quotations from the ending of Mark in Clem-
ent of Alexandria, Origen, and other Fathers. The most convincing ar-
gument for the secondary character of the Ariston ending is the fact that
it consists of elements resembling the concluding verses of the other
canonical Gospels. – Another addition is known as the Freer-Logion,
which is included in the Ariston ending in codex W between Mark
16:14 and 15. A short, third alternative extension following Mark
16:8 is preserved in manuscripts dating from the fifth century. In
many manuscripts the additions are often combined or introduced in
brackets. This all supports the conclusion that the original intention
was for the book of Mark to end with 16:8. The only complication
seems to be the fact that at 16:8 the Gospel would have ended with
the conjunction gar = for, so then. Nevertheless, there are several places
where a book, or at least one paragraph, ends with gar. 225
The fact that the Gospel ends with 16:8 cannot be explained by the
loss of some letters from the original. The author or his students would
not have allowed such a defective copy to circulate. And if it had hap-
pened later, some copies of the original version would surely have been
preserved. The conclusion is that the original Mark is Mark 1:1 –
16:8.226 This will play an important role in characterising the theological
intention of this book.
225 P. W. van der Horst, Can a book end with CAP? His argument is based espe-
cially on Plotinus, Enneads V:5 and the end of the pericope in Mark 11:18.
226 The fact that the Gospel ends with 16:8 has been accepted by the majority of
scholars. It is not accepted in the commentaries by R. H. Gundry (250) and C.
Evans (599). They quote C. A. B. Cranfield, who supposed that a narrative
about the appearances of the Risen One was necessary. This opinion is, how-
ever, influenced by the model of the other three canonical Gospels.
An open ending is a suggestive literary technique because as soon as

it is obvious that something has not been said, the un-said is present as a
challenge to the reader and the text is protected against ideological mis-
interpretation.227 This seems to be a modern element, anachronistic in
the first century. However, the book of the prophet Jonah, the canon-
ical book of the Acts of the Apostles, and smaller text units, such as the
parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15,228 have a similar open ending.
The rough structure of the Gospel can be expressed by the literary
technique of anagnōrisis – recognition – frequent in Greek tragedies (e. g.
Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris) and in Greek novels (including the Chris-
tian Pseudo-Clementines /Recognitions). In this technique, the readers/
hearers are invited to follow the story from the perspective of various
protagonists in the narrative, and to search for the true identity of the
hero. This strategy can be seen in Mark 1:27: “They were all amazed,
and they kept on asking one another: ‘What is this?’” From this
point on the readers know that the other people appearing in the Mar-
kan narrative are not competent to answer the crucial question. The
readers learn the answer from the “other side”, from “the voice from
heaven” at the baptism of Jesus and his transfiguration (Mark 1:11;
9:7): Jesus is the Son of God. The narrator (the mysterious literary wit-
ness who has all the necessary information) supplies the readers gradually
with further information which goes beyond what the protagonists,
who live “inside” the narrative, could have known, and which they
come to realise only at the end (Mark 15:39): “Truly this man was
the Son of God.” Furthermore, the readers learn more than the fact
that Jesus is the Son of God. They learn who this Jesus is, what the
true character of the Son of God is, and how he differs from the
“false messiahs” (pseudochristoi – Mark 13:22). And since the son was
at that time entitled to represent the father, the readers/hearers come
to know the character of God himself. They were privileged to learn
the full identity of Jesus right at the beginning, they know its source
(“the voice from heaven”), and they gradually come to recognise the
content and the value of this testimony, the authenticity of which is
confirmed in the Easter proclamation in Mark 16:6 – 7. The mysterious
fear of the women at the grave of Jesus (16:8) confirms that they expe-
rienced the presence of God and the message came from him.
227 See J. L. Magness, Sense and Absence, ch. II.

228 For the open ending see J. Dewey, Oral Methods of Structuring Narrative in
Mark, 43 f.
Jesus asked his disciples for their opinion of his identity several times
(Mark 8:27 – 29 – the answers were John the Baptist, Elijah, one of the
prophets, or the Messiah). Other people also express their opinion about
Jesus’ identity several times: 3:21 – 22 (a mad person, one possessed by
Evil); 6:14 – 16 ( John the Baptist re-animated, Elijah, the prophet). In
14:61 – 62 the high priest asked: “Are you the Messiah, the Son of
the Blessed One?” The first human voice that confirms the double di-
vine revelation of Jesus as the Son of God, as in the formula of the gos-
pel in Rom 1:3 – 4 or 1 Thess 1:9, is the Roman centurion in Mark
15:39 beneath the cross of Jesus. Here we enter an explicit theological
area: the literary form cannot be defined without revealing Mark’s theo-
logical plot. The best literary structure is one that is connected with the
principal idea behind the text; in our case it is the theology of the book
about the “beginning of the gospel” (Mark 1:1) written by Mark.
In Mark the recognition is closely bound together with the so-called
“Messianic Secret”. But this is the theme of another important chapter
of Markan exegesis (see below § 6:3).
6.2 The Gospel (euangelion) as the Overarching Concept

which Structures the Gospel of Mark
6.2.1 Pauline influence229
Before examining the theme of this sub-chapter, we have to mention

one presupposition that (rightly) plays the role of a “positive prejudice”
in Markan exegesis. This is the conviction that Mark was influenced by
Pauline theology. The first scholar to introduce this theme in a mono-
graph (1923) was Martin Werner.230 According to him Paul and Mark
(see Mark 10:45) made the death of Jesus on the cross the basis for
human salvation. Paul discussed this problem clearly in 2 Cor 5:14 –
21 and Rom 5:8 – 11. In both these passages the verb katallassō and
229 For this problem see especially J. Marcus, Mark – Interpreter of Paul, passim;
cf. M. Bouttier, Commencement, force et fin de l’Évangile, especially 476.
They both realised that the Pauline proclamation of Jesus’ cross was the theo-
logical precondition for integrating the proclaimed gospel with the Jesus tradi-
tions.
230 M. Werner, Der Einfluß paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium, for evaluation
see J. Marcus, Mark – Interpreter of Paul, 473 f. 484ff,
6.2 The Gospel (euangelion) as the Overarching Concept 119
the noun katallagē express reconciliation as an offer by one side to live with
the other person or group in friendship – an offer conveyed by a mes-
senger or mediator.231 God’s decisive step in reconciliation is that he sent
Jesus as his ambassador and representative who demonstrated the au-
thenticity of the reconciliation that was offered through his life and dis-
mantled the very character of the powers that humankind serves. The
wage paid by sin is paradoxically death (Rom 6:23). Once Jesus, as
the representative of God, identified with humans to the point of
dying, and was then raised from the dead through God’s power,
death lost its fatal influence and the human situation fundamentally
changed. Human beings were able to understand that they are not
fated to serve sin and they may accept God’s offer of reconciliation,
which means freedom and life. This is an important feature of Pauline
theology.
Another image used for expressing the positive meaning of Jesus’
death is the sacrifice of atonement (hilastērion – Rom 3:25), which for hu-
mankind opened up the possibility to approach God and pray to him in
the Temple. This Pauline theme was later developed in the Letter to the
Hebrews. The last concept we have to mention in this context is to be
found in the image of redemption – paying a price for liberating others
from slavery or prison. In Rom 3:24 it appears in close proximity to
the image of the sacrifice of atonement. In the redemption concept,
Jesus’ death is the ransom paid for the liberation of humankind. Accord-
ing to Rom 8:23 it is liberation from the alienating domination of sin,
which affects the whole of creation. Paul used different, and in some re-
spects contradictory, images in order that the higher idea of the positive
meaning of the death of Jesus might be expressed.
It is necessary to mention the Pauline concepts of the death of Jesus
on the cross. Otherwise we would not be able to recognise their traces
in Mark.
These include the popular “Son of Man came” saying in Mark
10:45: “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to
give his life as a ransom (lytron) for many.”
In this context we can look at a related saying in Luke, which ends:
“For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves?
Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as the one who
serves” (Luke 22:27). This is a version unaffected by the soteriology
of sacrificial or substiutionary death. This is connected with the endeav-
231 C. Breytenbach. Versçhnung, 69 – 81, 223 f.

our to avoid bloody rituals in religions in late Hellenism and the early
Roman period, which the author of the third Gospel supported. This
does not mean that he invented the text replacing Mark 10:45. He
could simply have left that verse out. It seems more likely that he
found a saying that represented a pre-Markan form of the same or a sim-
ilar saying in his special source or in the oral tradition. In this case Mark
10:45 would be the Markan interpretation influenced by a saying from a
Pauline tradition (cf. 1 Tim 2:5 – 6 – antilytron). This is an example of
Mark introducing Pauline elements into the memories of Jesus. The
ransom-saying was one of the alternative ways of expressing justification
by the grace of God (Rom 3:24). This will be confirmed by our further
investigation of Markan theology.
Another striking similarity with Pauline theology is the statement in
Mark 7:19 according to which Jesus relativized all the dietary regula-
tions of the Jewish tradition: “Thus he declared all foods clean.” This
resembles the Pauline proclamation “Everything is indeed clean” in
Rom 14:20 (cf. “Nothing is unclean in itself” – Rom 14:14). The per-
icope in Mark originates from an old Jesus tradition and the argument is
understandable without this summary. The fact that Matthew left it out
may be an indirect argument for the secondary character of this saying,
but it is more likely to be an example of the Matthean polemic against
the Pauline tradition (see Matt 5:17 – 20 “not one letter, not one stroke
of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished”). Luke did
not include this pericope in his book on Jesus, since Christians of
non-Jewish origin obviously prevailed in his area and the issue of cultic
defilement was therefore not important.
The last trace of Pauline influence that we will mention is to be
found in the pericope next to the one about cultic defilement: the
story of the Syrophoenician woman. This account is undoubtedly
part of the oldest layer of Jesus traditions (Mark 7:24 – 30), and for
Mark the woman represents the Christians of non-Jewish origin, who
are included in the community of the Messianic people through their
faith. The woman asks to receive the bread of life from the children’s
table. She is ready to accept an alternative, which still means life. She
is a model of faith and, at the end Jesus fulfils her demand and expels
the demon from her daughter. This seems to be an illustration of
Paul’s opinion that the gospel (euangelion) is the “power of God that
brings salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first, and also to
the Greek” (Rom 1:16).232
The main argument for Pauline influence is the conclusion of the
dialogue of Jesus with the Syrophoenician woman: She answered
“Lord (kyrie – vocative), even the dogs…” Then he said to her, “For
saying that, you may go – the demon has left your daughter” (Mark
7:28 – 29). The pre-Markan tradition understood kyrie as a polite form
of address like rabbi or Sir. But in a specific theological reinterpretation,
where a piece of tradition is used to help resolve the problem of the
common Table of the Lord for Christians of Jewish origin and Christi-
ans of non-Jewish origin (an issue that threatened the unity of the Jesus
movement in Antioch – Gal 2:11 – 21), this polite form of address is
transformed into a confession of faith that, after Easter, dares to ap-
proach Jesus in prayer as the Living One and leads to salvation: “If
you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9).233
These are some of the Pauline elements, in various forms, that are
understandable as such without any consideration of the overarching
theological and literary structure of the Gospel of Mark. This means
we can also take seriously other traces of Pauline influence.
6.2.2 The beginning and the ending of the Gospel
The opening verse of the Gospel according to Mark, mentioned already

at the beginning of this study, speaks of the gospel (euangelion) in pro-
grammatic terms: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” We
have already (§ 1) said that euangelion did not mean a book (literary
genre) before the first third of the second century (see § 8 below).
“The beginning of the gospel” could be related to the proclamation
of the gospel by Jesus and relate to Mark 1:2 – 13, 1:2 – 15 or 1:2 – 20.
In that case the euangelion would be the content of Jesus’ proclama-
tion.234 Several writers of ancient Greek, Hellenistic, or Latin literature
232 J. Marcus, Mark – Interpreter of Paul, 487.

233 P. Pokorný, From a Puppy to the Child, especially 82 – 85.
234 This is the position of M. Hengel, The Four Gospels, 92 – 96, as well as J. A. Kel-
hoffer, EYACCEKION as a Reference to ‘Gospel’ Materials, 33. This is a serious
alternative to our solution. However, it underestimates the prevailing meaning
of euangelion as Easter gospel, especially in Pauline and Markan settings.
open their works by mentioning the theme with which their narrative
will begin.235
However, this analogy does not fit our case for the following rea-
sons:
The form of Mark 1:1 is not like the majority of such opening sen-
tences (“Hereby begins…” or “I intend to start with…” etc.).
The use of Euangelion to mean the summary of the Jesus traditions
was not common at that time. Jesus’ preaching and teaching was in
Greek expressed by the verb euangelizomai (see § 3 above).
Before Mark, euangelion was, under the influence of the imperial
propaganda (as an anti-euangelion), used for the Easter gospel only (see
§ 2.5).236
Mark never called the earthly Jesus “Jesus Christ”.237
In this manner we come to the conclusion that the meaning of eu-
angelion in Mark 1:1 is, first of all, the oral proclamation of the Easter
gospel as it was documented by Paul, whose theology influenced (in-
spired) the Gospel writer. Further exegesis will confirm this. The
book (formally a biography) is related to the Easter Gospel and, obvi-
ously, is part of it; it is linked to it as a commentary or an introduction.
The Gospel of Mark thus intends to make clear that the Easter Gos-
pel is (should be) inseparably linked with Jesus in his earthly life.238 And
since Jesus’ proclamation of the gospel about the kingdom of God is also
part of his life story, the euangelion in Mark 1:1 is a term integrating both
meanings. The Easter gospel is, however, the main meaning. In all in-
stances where euangelion appears in Mark, except 1:14 – 15, it is the Eas-
ter gospel that Mark is talking about. He interpreted various sayings of
Jesus by relating them to the post-Easter situation and linking them to-
gether with the noun euangelion, and so the gospel of Jesus became a
prediction of the Easter gospel: leaving home, family and possessions
for Jesus’ sake and for the sake of the gospel will be rewarded on
earth as well as in the Age to Come (Mark 10:29); losing one’s life
for Jesus’ sake and for the sake of the gospel means saving it (Mark
8:35 – in both these cases the word gospel was obviously added by
235 G. Arnold, Mk 1,1 und Eröffnungswendungen in griechischen und lateinischen

Schriften, passim.
236 G. Theissen, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments, 88.
237 R. Schnackenburg, “’Das Evangelium‘ im Verständnis des ältesten Evangelis-
ten,” 322.
238 Among the authors of prominent textbooks this view is supported by U.
Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 169 – 171.
Mark); the gospel has to be proclaimed to all nations (Mark 13:10 –

mission is predicted); and the story of the anointing in Bethany will
be told together with the proclamation of the gospel (Mark 14:9 –
the Easter proclamation accompanied by stories about Jesus). This
means that the narratives are not a direct part of the Gospel, but they
are inseparably bound with it as its “beginning.”
The “beginning of the gospel” therefore means the story of Jesus
that culminated in the gospel, i. e. the Passion and Easter. The book
as a whole narrates the beginning of the Easter Gospel that is echoed
at the end of the book. As we have mentioned above, in the most im-
portant ancient manuscripts the book ends with 16:8. In 16:6 – 7 we
hear the Easter Gospel from 1 Cor 15:3b-5 re-told in a narrative way:
1 Cor 15:3b-5 Mark 16:6 – 7

Christ died was crucified
was buried they laid him
was raised (egēgertai) has been raised (ēgerthē)
appeared (ōfthē) you will see him (auton opsesthe) 8
to Cephas + to the twelve his disciples + Peter
The analogy, right down to the first (original) group of witnesses is

striking. The rules of a narrative demanded only a few changes in se-
quence and in the tense (marked by 8) of the last part of the formula.
Since the women meet the messenger dressed in a white robe after
the crucifixion, the burial and the resurrection, but before the first ap-
pearance of the Risen One, the appearance is announced in the future
tense (opsesthe). The shock (“terror and amazement” – tromos + extasis)
of the women confirms that what they heard was a direct message from
God, evoking the fear of God (efobounto gar). Unlike in 1 Cor 15:3b-5,
the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus is mentioned before the
comment on his burial, since his grave was already empty. However,
the empty grave does not appear as an argument for the (miraculous)
resurrection,239 it is rather its illustration.240
The ending is the key to the beginning: the gospel (euangelion) in the
opening verse is, indeed and first of all, the Easter gospel, which is thus
the overarching concept which structures the Gospel as a literary text. It
is a very appropriate way of keeping all the text units together, since the
239 For interpreting the resurrection see § 2.2 above – Interpreting the resurrection II.
240 See A. Lindemann, Die Osterbotschaft des Markus, 305.
Easter gospel is at the same time the theological point of view from
which the story is narrated. The presence of Jesus as the living Lord
in the Christian community is the reason why we take an interest in
Jesus in his earthly life and remember him. The earthly story of Jesus
has its end and fulfilment in the Easter Gospel.241
These observations about the interrelation between the beginning
and the ending of the Gospel of Mark are a valid argument in favour
of our thesis about the Gospel of Mark as an intentional introduction
to the Easter gospel: the “beginning of the gospel” may relate to the
book as a whole.
This thesis is a far-reaching one; therefore it has to be supported by
other observations that can support or modify it as additional cumulative
arguments.
At the beginning of Acts (1:1) we read that the first book dedicated
to Theophilus (the Gospel according to Luke) deals with “all that Jesus
began to do and to teach” (NIV). This means that in this context the
earthly life of Jesus is understood as the beginning of his present activity
in the power of the Holy Spirit, as it began after Easter and is described
in the book of Acts. Luke must have deduced this concept from the lit-
erary Gospel of Mark, which he excerpted,242 even though, for reasons
of his own, he does not use the term euangelion (see § 9).
Still more important is the outline of Jesus’ story in Acts 10:37 – 41.
Charles H. Dodd considered it a skeleton transmitted by tradition and
used as the structure of the Gospel.243 In so doing, he opposed the thesis
of Karl L. Schmidt, according to which the framework of the Gospels as
books is derived from the Easter gospel and then developed. Dodd’s
theses soon gave rise to polemics.244 In fact, Acts 10:37 – 41 is a skeleton
of the Gospel of Luke, the first volume of Luke’s work dedicated to
Theophilus, a skeleton derived from the Gospel of Mark:245 In
10:37 – 39a we read about the beginning (arxamenos) of Jesus’ preaching
and healing after being baptised by John. The crucifixion, resurrection,
241 Th. K. Heckel, Von Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltiugen Evangelium, 32 ff.,
51.
242 See P. Pokorný, Die Theologie der lukanischen Schriften, 30 f.
243 C. H. Dodd, The Framework of the Gospel Narrative, passim; repeatedly ad-
vocated by idem, The Apostolic Preaching and its developments, 48 – 49.
244 D. E. Nineham, The Order of Events in St. Mark Gospel, 230 – 31.
245 In connection with the whole problem of the Gospel genre, this issue is dis-
cussed by R. Guelich, The Gospel Genre, 212 – 218. However, he relates the
archē in Mark 1:1 to the opening verses only.
and appearances to witnesses (martyres) are reported in 10:39b-41. The

whole is reported as the gospel (euangelizomai) of Peter.246 It follows that
Acts 10:37 – 41 is essentially an abstract of the first volume (The Gospel
of Luke) of the two books dedicated to Theophilus. It is also an indirect
witness to the influence of the Markan composition of Jesus’ biography
as the beginning of the gospel. Robert Guelich considered Acts 10:37 –
41 to be the link between the structure of the Gospel of Mark and that
of John.247
The Gospel according to John obviously developed the program-
matic structure of Mark. The opening paragraph ( John 1:1 – 18), in-
cluding the term “beginning” (archē) and sounding like Genesis 1:1
(en archē), is an expanded re-interpretation of Mark 1:1. It includes
not only the pre-existence of Jesus and his coming into the world as
light, but also his rejection by his own people. This means that he un-
derstood Mark 1:1 as a summary of the whole book. The witness of
John the Baptist ( John 1:19 – 23) is placed after this expanded summary,
as an analogy to Mark 1:2 – 8.
The end of the “Beginning” is not indicated. Was it the combined
prophecy as quoted in verses 2 and 3? Or is it the proclamation of John
the Baptist, who is, in fact, not proclaiming the gospel, but whose pro-
clamation would have been a pre-history rather than the beginning of
the gospel? Verse 9 does not seem to indicate the gospel itself, since it
introduces the baptism of Jesus and the temptation of Jesus follows im-
mediately (verse 12). It is supposed that there is a time span between
Mark 1:13 and 14, but in 1:14 – 15 the proclamation of Jesus’ gospel
simply begins and another item in the narrative, namely the death of
John, is by no means the end of the beginning.
Since the designation “gospel” is used without any attribute, the in-
tended (as well as the first real) readers, who most probably knew some
of Paul’s letters and his religious language, would have understood eu-
angelion as the Easter Gospel about the resurrection of Jesus. However,
for the people from the second and third Christian generations, and es-
pecially for the non-Jews, it was necessary to supplement the Easter
Gospel with information about the man who was raised from the
dead and is adored as the Son of God. The idea of introducing various
246 This is probably an echo of the tradition about the origin of the Gospel of Mark
in the Petrine tradition.
247 R. Guelich, The Gospel Genre, 215 ff.; cf. § 7.
pieces of information about him as a kind of preface to the Easter Gospel

fully fits the needs of the Church of that time.
The argument against Mark 1:1 as the title of the book can be called
into question. We have already mentioned that the openings of various
books introduced as analogies are formulated in full sentences, whereas
Archē tou euangeliou Iēsou Christou 248 may be considered the title of the
book, especially as there is no other title available.
If “The Beginning of the Gospel” was a kind of title of the book,
the “As it is written” would, admittedly, be an unusual opening for
the text proper. Normally “as” (Gr. kathōs) follows after a preceding
statement.249 But the combination of a Scripture quotation + an indica-
tion of what it should be applied to, as is the case in Mark 1:2 – 4, is not
an uncommon narrative structure. In Mark 7:6 – 9 the application of the
word of the Scripture follows a quotation as well (cf. 2 Cor 6:2). A quo-
tation from the Prophets may open the book, because Mark tried to
place it in the context of the liturgical books in the synagogue. Also
the Synopsis by Kurt Aland supposes that verse 2 is the beginning of
a new paragraph.250
The author of the first Gospel in the canonical sequence, whom we
call Matthew, understood the “beginning” at the beginning of the Gos-
pel of Mark as a parallel to the Hebrew designation of the book of Gen-
esis (Hebr. berēšı̄t; Greek: en archē) and opened his own book in analogy
to its Greek title Biblos geneseōs – The Book of Genesis or Genealogy.
John also claimed the authority of the Law for his version of the Gospel
and opened it in the same way as we find in the Greek translation (Sep-
tuagint) of Genesis: En archē… Did Mark intend the same thing? It is
difficult to prove this, since “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus
Christ” is a title rather than an opening (Lat. incipit), which would
later serve as a designation because it was in the Hebrew tradition.
The main intention was to link the Jesus traditions with the Easter Gos-
pel and give them a position of priority on the time axis and, at the same
248 The “Son of God” is missing in some of the ancient manuscripts (Sinatiticus,
Coridethi) and some quotations in Patristic literature.
249 J. K. Elliott seriously considered the possibility of Mark 1:1 – 3 being a secon-
dary addition: Mark 1.1 – 3 – A Later Addition to the Gospel? 586 ff. The bal-
anced interrelation between the beginning and the ending speaks against this
hypothesis.
250 Among recent English commentaries on the Gospel of Mark, Mark 1:1 is con-
sidered as a title by J. Marcus (p. 145), R. T. France (p.49) and M. E. Boring (p.
29), while R. H. Stein (p. 39) opposes this idea.
time, maintain the central position of the Easter Gospel in the theolog-
ical discourse. However, we also have to acknowledge that Mark did
intend to place his work on the level of the Law and the Prophets.
Not only because he depicted Jesus as the one who was entitled to de-
cide about the authentic interpretation of the Law (Mark 7:3,8,13) and
to present the messianic interpretation of the Ten Commandments (the
Decalogue) (Mark 12:28 – 34), but because he dared to write it as a
book, obviously intended for liturgical reading and not only as an aid
to memory. In contemporary Judaism the interpretation of the Law cir-
culated only in the oral tradition until Jehuda ha Nasi, at the beginning
of the third century, initiated the literary fixation of the teaching of the
tannaim (teachers, tellers = rabbis of the first generations), which was
called the Mishnah (repeated teaching).
Mark’s decision to produce a literary text for the Christian liturgy
was an important step that was an indirect foreshadowing of the idea
of the Christian canon that originated before the mid-second century
(see § 8 below).251 The literary fixation of an important tradition stresses
its authority and is itself a presupposition for its canonization (littera scrip-
ta manet). At the same time the framing of the Jesus traditions by the
proclaimed Easter gospel linked the words and deeds of Jesus with
the present time of the readers. The narrative of the Gospel was not
only a memory that evoked the past of Jesus’ earthly life, but it was in-
tended as its living re-presentation.252 The re-presentation mostly takes
place though re-telling, meditation or interpretation, but the text itself
invites the reader/hearer to understand it as an address and proclama-
tion.
In movements based on a new experience and attested by many
people from the first generation, the production of written texts starts
in the second wave, when the direct oral testimony is not accessible
any more. Since in the case of the Christian Bible the decisive religious
experience was evoked by an event in history (the story of Jesus), the
literary form had a referential function relating it to history. It was pos-
sible to acquire an authentic orientation on the way towards the future
251 The impression that Mark was composed as an oral traditioun arises because
Mark worked with individual pieces of oral tradition, but the overarching lit-
erary strategy is unthinkable without a literary concept (contrary to Ch. Bryan,
A Preface to Mark, 152 ff.).
252 J. Schröter, Nicht nur eine Erinnerung… described the representation of the
story and sayings of Jesus in the Gospels; our observations may support his the-
sis.
only through following this route. This is the approach to religious ex-
perience common to the Christian and Hebrew traditions.
In this section we have sketched the far-reaching importance of the
Gospel according to Mark. It linked the Easter proclamation, which was
deeply rooted in the Easter experience of the present impact of the cru-
cified Jesus and was open towards the future fulfilment of God’s will in
history and human lives, with a view into the past, to the time of Jesus
of Nazareth, as the determining element for all responsible activity by
his followers. We may call this function of Jesus in the Christian procla-
mation “feedback”, in the sense that he is not the immediate cause of
the (Easter) faith, which is the “resurrection”, but rather its regulator
or point of orientation. The proclamation in all its consequences must
not disagree with or contradict what we know about the Jesus of histo-
ry. In the Gospel of Mark this is expressed by including Jesus traditions
within the framework of the Easter Gospel. We maintain that the term
euangelion in the opening verse and the narrated paraphrase of the euan-
gelion according to 1 Cor 15:3b-5 at the end of the Gospel (16:6 – 7) ex-
pressed this theological and literary backbone of the Gospel. We consid-
er it very probable that Mark 1:1 served as the title of the whole book,253
and we think that Mark may have written a biography of Jesus as a text
that would be a counterpart to the books of Law. However, within a
few years his book had a similar position in the Christian communities
as did the scrolls of the Law and the Prophets in the synagogue.
What we have just demonstrated excludes the concept of the Gospel
of Mark as a text that is open towards the coming parousia of Jesus soon
and the establishment of the kingdom of God, as was supposed by Ernst
253 So P. Pokorný, “Anfang des Evangeliums”, 241 f.; H. Baarlink, Anfngliches

Evangelium, 60 ff., 291 ff.; G. Rau, “Markus-Evangelium”, 2046; L. Schenke,
Das Markusevangelium, 148 – 153; J. D. Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark’s
Gospel, 69; D. Dormeyer, Das Neue Testament im Rahmen der antiken Literatur-
geschichte, 199 ff.; B. M. F. Van Iersel, Mark, 90 , and especially Th. K. Heckel,
Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, 51 – 53; within a dif-
ferent interpretation of the theological framework of Mark this was also main-
tained by E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus, 10, and Pesch, Markusevan-
gelium I, 62; cf. H. Weder, ‘Evangelium Jesu Christi’ (Mk 1,1) und ‘Evangelium
Gottes’ (Mk 1,14), 400. – R. H. Gundry, “EYACCEK.ION: How Soon a
Book?, 321, does not consider it to be the title, but relates it to an orally pro-
claimed gospel which is the content of the book. This would be a striking new
development of the Pauline term gospel that concentrated on Jesus’ resurrec-
tion.
6.3 Christological Titles and the Messianic Secret 129
Lohmeyer,254 Norman Perrin,255 Willi Marxsen or Werner Kelber on

the basis of Mark 14:62 (the coming of the Son of Man) and 16:7
(the risen Jesus going ahead to Galilee – the place of parousia). In this
view, the Gospel of Mark was a preparation for the coming of the king-
dom of God on earth and Jesus’ resurrection was the real beginning of
the general resurrection as the beginning of the new age that would start
in Galilee. In our view, the book written by Mark was intended to pre-
pare the coming of the kingdom of God in Galilee, since the promise to
see the risen Jesus in Galilee was fulfilled after Easter and the Gospel of
Mark does not express an imminent expectation, but tells the history of
events mentioned in the Easter gospel. According to Mark, the apoca-
lyptic events have started on earth, as expressed in the “doubled escha-
tology” of the Easter gospel. This was not a spiritual transformation of
the eschatological expectations, since the community of disciples was a
real social phenomenon consciously acting in history.
6.3 Christological Titles and the Messianic Secret

The titles of Jesus expressing his dignity in the eyes of the Christian faith
are part of the gospel, but may appear paradoxical. They are substanti-
ated only by the confession of believers. They are intended as short ver-
sions of basic testimonies of faith, as were, for example, “God the Lord,”
“God of Abraham” or “Lord of Hosts.”
In terms of the inner structure of the Christological titles of Jesus,
“the Messiah” (the Anointed One) expresses the dignity of Jesus
through his relationship to God (a privileged direct relationship and au-
thorisation), “the Lord” (kyrios) through his relationship to humans
(sovereignty), and “the Son of Man” through his prominence among
humans (his real human quality in relation to sinful humankind and
in relation to the inhuman “bestial” rulers in Dan 7). The differences
arise from the various historical situations in which they were used.
254 E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus, 356.

255 N. Perrin, New Testament. An Introduction, 148; idem. The High Priest’s Ques-
tion and Jesus’ Answer, especially 95.
6.3.1 The Son of God and other titles
In the opening verse of Mark, some manuscripts add the title Son of
God. We mentioned in § 6.1 that it is probably a secondary addition,
since Mark, as the narrator, never mentions a messianic title himself.
It is only the protagonists in the plot of a narrative who mention it as
witnesses or opponents. In spite of this, the “Son of God” in the incipit,
even if added by a later scribe, is a useful hint announcing the content of
the book. Son of God, as the title of Jesus, represents the second over-
arching technique for structuring the book of Mark. It is also a part of
two formulae of the Easter gospel, which we mentioned at the begin-
ning: 1 Thess 1:9b-10 and Rom 1:3 – 4. In Rom 1:3 – 4, where the for-
mula is more easily recognisable, Jesus is confessed as the Son of David
(the Jewish Davidic Messiah) who was, according to the Spirit of Holi-
ness, enthroned in power as the Son of God by resurrection from the
dead. It can be demonstrated by Psalm 2:7 that this sonship was not un-
derstood in the sense of a physical or metaphysical descent from God. It
is rather a consequence of a legal act according to which the Son was
entitled to represent God in the world.
As we have already mentioned, the whole of the Gospel of Mark
describes the ways followed by humankind, oscillating between enmity,
sympathy combined with doubts, devotion to the true faith, and confes-
sion without understanding.
The first time we come across the title Son of God in the book of
Mark is at the very beginning, in 1:11. It is the culminating point of
the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. When Jesus came out of the
water, the heavens were torn apart, the Spirit descended on him like
a dove, and “a voice came from heaven” (from God) said: “You are
my beloved Son, with you I am pleased”. What the voice proclaims
is a combination of several testimonies related to the Servant of the
Lord in Isa 42:1, to Israel in Isa 44:2, to Isaac in Gen 22:2 and, especial-
ly, to the king of Israel as in Ps 2:7.
Since in verse 10 we hear that it was (only) Jesus who saw the heav-
ens torn apart, it was only he himself who heard the voice from heaven.
So in this moment Jesus’ sonship is known only to God, to Jesus, to the
omniscient narrator who is not part of the narrative but expresses his re-
lationship to Jesus by narrating the story, and to the reader/hearer who
is invited to enter the world of the narrative. In the narrative strategy of
Mark, Jesus’ divine designation as the Son of God is similar to the
anointing of David by Samuel in 1 Sam 16, long before he was openly

anointed the king over Judah by his people in 2 Sam 2.
Meanwhile the Son of God started his apocalyptical struggle with
Satan (Mark 1:12 – 13) and “unclean spirits” who possessed supernatural
knowledge about his unique relationship to God (The Holy One of
God – hagios tou theou – Mark 1:24 – 25). But this kind of knowledge
does not lead to faith and confidence. The opposing powers uttered
his title with the intention of gaining power over him by knowing
his true “name”. The name represented the person and a number of
magical practices consisted in doing something with the names of oppo-
nents, such as writing, invoking, or cursing them. Mark tells his readers
that Satan, the strong one (Mark 3:27), should be tied up. And the
stronger one whom John the Baptist announced (Mark 1:7) should ob-
viously, according to Mark, be Jesus himself. The reader/hearer learns
that the apocalyptic conflict, which the apocalypses expect at the end
of this age, is in fact concentrated in Jesus’ story, and even though
the struggle continues, it is clear who will have the upper hand in the
future.
The second time we come across this title is in the exact centre of the
Gospel. It is in the story of the transfiguration, where a voice from a
cloud pronounces virtually the same phrase as was uttered at Jesus’ bap-
tism, and three of Jesus’ disciples are present as witnesses. They are,
however, asked by Jesus not to tell anybody until the “Son of Man”
(in this early Christian meaning Jesus himself) has risen from the dead
(9:9). In this case the voice of God is the true answer to the question
about his identity that Jesus had asked his disciples in Mark 8:29,
when what other people had said about him (8:27 – 28) was not correct.
Peter identified him with the Messiah. For Jesus it was an ambiguous an-
swer. It expressed the importance of his mission, but since the Messiah
was generally expected as a warrior who would restore the Davidic Em-
pire, it did not correspond to its character. However, Mark considered
the title Messiah (Christ) the appropriate title pertaining to Jesus, as ex-
pressed in the title of the book in Mark 1:1. But he was aware of the fact
that the role of the Messiah has to be explained. Therefore he immedi-
ately linked it with a warning against a false understanding and the first
foretelling of his death (Mark 8:31 – 9:1).
The problematic character of the messianic expectations of Jesus’
disciples can be deduced from Jesus’ saying in which he called Peter
Satan: “Get behind me, Satan!” (Mark 8:33). In the Markan context
it is a reaction to Peter’s attempt to persuade Jesus not to act according
to the scenario of the Easter gospel as expressed in 1 Cor 15:3b-5. In the

three Markan predictions of Jesus’ suffering (8:31; 9:31; 10:33 – 34), the
first of which follows after the messianic confession of Peter, the pas-
sion, death and the resurrection of Jesus are predicted in a kind of vat-
icinium ex eventu – an ante-dated prophecy which is constructed accord-
ing to the real course of events. In this way Mark makes his readers
aware of the fact that the life story of Jesus is part of the gospel that
is proclaimed in the Church and that it does not end with the crucifix-
ion. It is very probable that Mark inserted the predictions of Jesus’ suf-
fering and resurrection into the Jesus traditions in the places where Jesus
talked about how he had to face the enmity of some of the representa-
tives of Israel of that time and the danger he was in. Nevertheless, the
wording is Markan and it represents a consistent attempt to correct the
messianic ideas of that time. In this respect the predictions of suffering
reflect the fact that Jesus distanced himself from the messianic expecta-
tions of many of his contemporaries, and when he addresses Peter as
Satan (obviously authentic, and emphatic as all Jesus’ language was), it
is a reaction to Peter’s false understanding of Jesus’ Messiahship. Jesus
also rejected the request of the sons of Zebedee to sit at his side in
glory, and the dialogue in Mark 10:35 – 45 concludes with: “The Son
of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ran-
som for many.”256
Jesus clearly distanced himself from the political idea of a Messiah by
his answer to the question of the Pharisees and Herodians about paying
taxes in Mark 12:13 – 17par. Levying taxes was a demonstration of the
imperial power, which concerned all inhabitants of the Roman Empire
and was the cause of political protest, riots and upheavals. Jesus’ answer
– “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God
the things that are God’s” – does not mean a declaration of full loyalty
to the emperor, but it definitely rejects any violent resistance, i. e. the
attitude of a contra-culture. Jesus’ followers, and later Christians, built
up a counter-culture not by violently opposing the central values of
the majority, but by creating an alternative social space.257 In the plan
of Jesus this corresponds to the proclamation of the kingdom of God,
which is coming in the power of God and is not built up by human
256 W. R. Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, 45.

257 These categories (counter-culture and contra-culture) are defined by Keith A.
Roberts and applied to Early Christianity, by V. K. Robbins, The Tapestry of
Early Christian Discourse, especially 169 – 174 (incl. bibliographical data).
power; in Markan theology this meant a rejection of the political Mes-

siahship of Jesus. Neither for Jesus nor for Mark did it mean that the
kingdom of God was not successful in the world. Its power was visible
in Jesus’ exorcisms and in creating a new community of his followers
that survived the world empires. However, the difference in strategies
is striking. Jesus’ answer (though often misunderstood) characterised
the specific direction followed by the Church in history and became in-
fluential. It is quoted in all the Synoptic Gospels, in Papyrus Egerton
(fragment 2r. – Jesus refuses to answer at all) and in the Gospel of Tho-
mas log. 100. It was important for Mark, since he must have been aware
of the political context of euangelion and archē as documented in the in-
scription from Priene (see § 2.3 above), and yet he mentioned it at the
very beginning of his book.258
As in Mark 8:27 and 29, and also in Mark 12:35 – 37, Jesus asks a
question and so introduces a definition of his mission which compares
it to that of the Davidic Messiah. Through his exegesis of the royal mes-
sianic Psalm 110 he proves that his mission is not identical with that of
the Son of David: in Ps 110 David calls the Messiah his Lord (kyrios),
which was one of the messianic titles of Jesus after Easter. The state-
ment that the messianic Lord is representing God as the supreme
Lord and cannot be judged according to the expectations of a Davidic
Messiah is included. This hierarchy of competencies (God – Messiah
– Davidic king) is deduced from the sentence in Ps 110:1 ascribed to
David: “The Lord said to my lord”. This is a Christian exegesis that re-
flects the disputations in Jesus’ time about his mission and its historical
shape is difficult to reconstruct. Mark included it since it illustrates the
gospel in Rom 1:3 – 4, according to which the Son of God is higher
than the Davidic Messiah.259
The title Son of God appears (indirectly) in the interrogation of
Jesus when the High Priest asks Jesus whether he is the Messiah, the
Son of the Blessed One (Mark 14:61). It seems to be a combination
of two titles, the second one (the Son of God) being higher than the
(Davidic) Messiah. The Markan meaning, however, is that the Son of
God is the specification of Jesus’ Messiahship: “Are you the Messiah-
258 See M. Ebner, Evangelium contra Evangelium, 32 f.

259 See S. H. Smith, “The Function of the Son of David Tradition in Mark’s Gos-
pel,” 539.
Son-of-God?”260 It was meant as an accusation, because the Son of God

in this context meant a being of divine rank, and to transgress the border
between the human and the divine was blasphemy. Jesus (only in Mark)
answers, “I am” (14:62), and in a combined Scripture quotation (Ps
110:1 and Dan 7:13) he refers to the coming revelation of the justice
of God: “You will see (opsesthe) the Son of Man…” It corresponds
to the “they will see (opsontai) the Son of Man” in Mark 13:26 and
“you will see” (opsesthe) the living Jesus of Nazareth at the very end
of the Gospel in 16:7. This means that “you will see” is used by
Mark with a double meaning: in Mark 14:62 it refers to the “global”
eschatological theophany (with the clouds of heaven), in which Jesus
will appear in the role of the Son of Man as a judge, witness or agent
of God who mediates God’s will. This is why Jesus was immediately ac-
cused of blasphemy (Mark 14: 53 – 64). In 16:7 seeing Jesus of Nazareth
refers to the future Easter appearance (see 1 Cor 15:5), albeit crucial for
the global future and attested as the “good news” during the time of
Mark.
The readers of the Gospel of Mark understood the reference to the
Son of Man as Jesus’ self-presentation as the representative of supreme
(divine) justice when he faced his judges, since previously (8:38 – 9:8
and 10:45) they (the readers/hearers) had learnt that Jesus was indeed
identical with the Son of Man.
The last time the title Son of God is to be found is after Jesus’ death,
when the Roman centurion (a pagan in Jewish eyes) comments on his
death in a sentence sounding like a confession: “Truly, this man was
God’s Son” (15:39). This statement is followed immediately by the cur-
tain of the temple being torn apart – an expression analogical to heaven
being “torn apart” at the moment of Jesus’ baptism (Mark 1:10) as an
introduction to the revelation of Jesus’ true identity. Here we hear
the title from a human mouth and in a positive (not ironical) 261 sense.
If we compare it with the other occurrences of the title Son of God
in Mark, it may have been understood by the Gospel writer as a confes-
sion representing the end of the human attempts to recognise (anagnōri-
sis) Jesus’ true identity. The past tense does not fit in with the form of a
260 This is the suggestion of J. Marcus (“Mark 14: 61”), which seems to me help-
ful; for Markan messianic titles see especially C. Breytenbach, Grundzüge mar-
kinischer Gottesssohn-Christologie, 173 f.
261 R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 306 f., mentioned the
analogies in the martyrological literature; cf. A. Y. Collins, Mark, 768 – 771.
confession, but since the centurion’s words are a reaction to the way
Jesus died, it is obvious that Mark has understood it positively
(“truly”, alēthōs) as a frank confession, underlined by the fact that a rep-
resentative of political violence in the name of the emperor attests the
imperial authority of a man who was sentenced at the emperor’s com-
mand. We cannot answer the historical question as to whether it was
really said and how it was meant. However, it is undoubtedly the first
human confession of Jesus as the Son of God in the Markan context,
representing the faith of Christians of non-Jewish origin.262
The struggle of his disciples with the opposing powers to acknowl-
edge Jesus’ identity and Jesus’ struggle is depicted as the decisive part of
the apocalyptic struggle occurring not in heaven, but in human history.
Both exorcism and disputations are part of the same struggle263 to fulfil
his mission in the last weeks of his life when he experienced enmity and
misunderstanding and he realised that his personal fate was to become a
part of what he proclaimed – this is all a dramatic documentation of
what is summarised in the formula of the gospel in Rom 1:3 – 4, accord-
ing to which Jesus, as the Son of David (his Davidic origin is assumed),
was elevated as the Son of God through his resurrection. His unsuccess-
ful attempt to reform Israel was not his failure but rather a step towards
fulfilling his (universal) mission.
The title the Son of God proved to be the backbone of Markan the-
ology, since Jesus is the Son of God in the eyes of God.
The title the Son of David was the most popular type used for the
Messiah. In Mark, it is used by people or disciples who intend to be
on Jesus’ side, but because of their “blindness” they have not yet under-
stood the true core of his mission.
The “Son of Man” expressed in Jesus’ view of himself his inner func-
tional identification with the one who reveals (proclaims) God’s will.264
The Son of Man never appears as a messianic title in the full sense. We
never find anyone confessing “Jesus is the Son of Man”, or “You are
the Son of Man;” not even a self-predication of Jesus “I am the Son
of Man.” The messianic self-understanding of Jesus developed against
262 See e g. R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium II, 500; D. Lührmann, Das Markuse-
vangelium, 264; J. R. Donahue – D. J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark, ad loc.
263 J. M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark, 45 – 46.
264 The Son of Man plays an important role in Mark’s Christology as well as in
source Q; see e. g. P. J. Achtemeier, He Taught Them Many Things, 481
and J. Schröter, Jesus und die Anfnge der Christologie, 140 ff.
the apocalyptic background, and for Mark, Jesus’ life story became the
decisive conflict between the divine and satanic powers, which decided
the outcome of the anticipated apocalyptic battle. That is why Mark,
who included an apocalyptic section in his book in chapter 13 (the “Lit-
tle Apocalypse”),265 also accepted the expectation of the victorious com-
ing of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven (13:26) – the Son of
Man who will gather the elect (those who accepted the proclamation
of the gospel, as previewed in 13:10) from the “four winds”. When
Jesus appeals to the Son of Man in Mark 14:62, the reader already
knows who this was and what it meant. The Son of Man is the back-
ground of Jesus’ appearance, as seen by Mark. Historically, the “Son
of Man” was the eschatological figure from whom Jesus expected his
vindication and tried to act accordingly. For Mark, the Son of Man
was identical with Jesus (see § 5.2 above), the son of God.266
Lord (kyrios) is mostly a polite form of address. Only in the story
about the Syrophoenician woman does it signify esteem for the head
of God’s people.
The titles of Jesus, as we have seen them in the formulae of the gos-
pel, indicated his position on the map of values, hopes, and expectations
of the contemporaneous world. The Markan narrative demonstrated
their function and, as we shall see, their openness towards new interpre-
tations.
6.3.2 The Messianic Secret
The “Messianic Secret” is a modern term invented by William Wrede

in his book that appeared in 1901 to refer to a set of specific literary
and theological features of the Gospel according to Mark.267 These fea-
tures include especially Jesus’ commands to keep silence about his mi-
raculous healings (Mark 1:44; 8:26) or about his Messiahship (Mark
8:30; 9:9), the incomprehension of his disciples in regard to his mes-
sianic mission, and the theory of his parables as a mystery in Mark 4:
265 Some exegetes assume that Mark 13 was additionally inserted into the Gospel of
Mark (R. Pesch, Markusevangelium, 264 ff.). It differs from the rest of the Gospel
because it belongs predominantly to the apocalyptic genre, but theologically it
fully fits into the Markan theological framework and it confirms the apocalyptic
connotations of the term euangelion in the post-Easter formulae.
266 J. D. Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel, 22 f.
267 Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, 66 ff.
9 – 10. Wrede discovered the secondary character of the three predic-

tions of Jesus’ suffering and resurrection, the problem of his specific
messianic self-understanding, the key role of the resurrection as it was
expressed in the Easter gospel,268 and the authorial role of Mark.269
Wrede was writing before the results of Form Criticism became
known. He did not assume there was a period of oral transmission of
the Jesus traditions between the time of Jesus and Mark, and therefore
he wondered why Jesus forbade people to speak about his miracles,
when the ban was not complied with (7:36). In fact, this motif was in-
tended to stress the miraculous character of his activity in popular oral
tradition:270 in spite of his forbidding people to speak about him, his
fame became widespread and could not be concealed. Similarly, Jesus’
attacks against unclean spirits and his silencing them (Mark 1:25.34;
3:12) were understood as part of a cosmic conflict271 with opposing
powers,272 as we have already mentioned. But on the whole, we are in-
debted to Wrede for his description of this phenomenon. His explana-
tion is historical: Mark did not know the real life of Jesus, but he only
knew the Easter gospel about the resurrection, which soon became
linked with messianic titles and miraculous stories about Jesus’ activity.
The fact is, according to Wrede, that Jesus’ life was not messianic and to
explain it, Mark had to interpret several phenomena in the Jesus tradi-
tions, including the admonitions to silence, as an explanation of the fact
that there are no memories about Jesus’ messianic signs, and the miracle
stories only originated after Easter.273
Having the results of Form Criticism at our disposal, we have to
state, first of all, that there was a literary reason for the motif of the mis-
understanding and the bans on speaking about the transfiguration and
about his messianic role. The reason was just the opposite of what
Wrede assumed: it was not the lack of messianic features in the pre-
Markan traditions, but their abundance that led the author (Mark) to
have Jesus command silence and postpone the full understanding of
his mission to the time after Easter. Before their inclusion in the
book of Mark, small units of tradition were used as illustrations in the
268 Ibidem 67, 114.

269 Ibidem 129.
270 This function was recognised by H.– J. Ebeling in 1939 (Das Messiasgeheimnis
und die Botschaft des Marcus-Evangelisten, 11).
271 J. M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark, 33.
272 E. S. Malbon, Mark’s Jesus, 46 ff.
273 W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, 229 – 235.
sermons about Jesus’ redemptive work and, in the course of passing

them on, most of them were enriched by motifs pointing to the Easter
experience. In Christian sermons this is still done with segments from
the Gospels (pericopes) till the present day. It was necessary to allude
to the climax of Jesus’ story in every sermon, so that the Easter gospel
would be visible under the surface of each text (see § 5.1 above). Con-
sequently, it was not possible to create a sequential narrative. The plot
would have remained split into small units and the climax would
have been missing. The commands to keep silent are, admittedly, always
unsuccessful from the viewpoint of the readers/hearers, since the latter
know what it was that should not have been disseminated, but they
need to be aware that without the Passion and the Easter Gospel
Jesus’ story cannot be understood in its true intention and mission.
The true recognition of his identity (anagnōrisis) comes at the very
end.274 The recognition of the true identity of the hero is the true lit-
erary intention of Mark. Jesus’ disciples, not comprehending the role
of Jesus, demonstrate how difficult it is to orient themselves, so several
marginal figures take on their roles at the end: Bartimaeus, an anony-
mous woman, Simon of Cyrene, a Roman centurion, or Joseph of Ari-
mathea.275
So the main intention hidden in the phenomena subsumed by
Wrede under the term the “Messianic Secret” (Mysterious Messiahship
of Jesus) is theological: without his suffering and death, Jesus’ powerful
impact on history would not be fully understandable.276 Mark deduced
this from his sacrificial understanding of the death of Jesus as expressed
in Mark 10:45. However, the roots of this view reach deeper. The qual-
ity of every philosophy of life is best tested at a time of imposed passiv-
ity. Jesus is not the model of a hero who survives by mobilising his ex-
traordinary abilities, but the Son who, in his suffering and crisis, remains
consciously dependent on God as the Father.
274 To interpret the elements of the “Messianic secret” as markers of the literary
strategy of anagnōrisis means to solve the problem of the “mystic” Christology
of Mark as it was sketched by C. Focant, Une christologie de type ‘mystique’
(Marc 1.1 – 16.8), 18 ff.
275 R. C. Tannehill, The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role,
404 – 405. Cf. E. Best, Mark, 83 ff.
276 W. R. Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, 40 f. Cf. E. K. Broadhead,
Naming Jesus, passim.
According to Theodore J. Weeden, Markan Christology represents a

reaction against the concept of Jesus as a miracle worker.277 He is right
insofar as Mark makes the reader aware of the fact that wonders do not
reveal the full truth about Jesus. In Mark 15:32 his opponents ask Jesus
to descend from the cross in order that they can believe in him. This
may be exactly the attitude that Mark may have seen as typical for
some of the opponents of the Church in his time. He developed this
piece of tradition into a fascinating image of the very intention of
faith. The problem with Weeden’s thesis is the historical reconstruction
of such Christology, which is an abstract idea formulated in the 20th
century.278 Making death a taboo and the tendency not to reflect on
the passivity imposed on a hero are general tendencies of an alienated
humanity.
So far as the Parable Theory in Mark 4:10 – 12 is concerned, the
mystery here is not so much an intellectually incomprehensible phe-
nomenon, but rather the “narrow gate” leading to the proclaimed king-
dom of God, which is too demanding a way of life and was therefore
rejected by many contemporaries of Jesus who “hardened” (Mark
3:5; cf. Rom 11:5 – 8).279 The additional allegorical interpretation of
the Parable of the Sower in Mark 4:13 – 20 reveals the true character
of the mysterious incomprehension. The readers are aware that the pub-
lic (parrēsia – Mark 8:31 – 32) proclamation of that mystery foretold
Jesus’ death and resurrection. For the readers, the Easter gospel is the
leitmotif of Jesus’ story. The disciples and other protagonists in the
story understood this only after Easter.
6.3.3 Life of the messianic people
The messianic secret of the Messiah, who has to suffer, may be misun-
derstood. This is the second possible distortion of the Christological
concept: only against the background of the resurrection as the vindi-
cation of Jesus and his mission was it possible to discover the importance
of his death. To say that Mark linked together the messianic hope of sal-
vation with the death of Jesus is a fallacy. The Passion Story is indeed
277 T. J. Weeden, The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospel, 145 ff.
278 B. Blackburn, Theios Anēr and the Markan Miracle Traditions, 263 f.
279 G. Haufe, Erwägungen zum Ursprung der sogenannten Parabeltheorie des
Markus 4,11 – 14, passim.
the decisive part of his book, but the ultimate attention is directed to-
wards the resurrection. For Mark, the death of Jesus was the last part of
the beginning of the gospel before the proper Gospel in 16:6 – 7. Oth-
erwise Jesus’ life would have been the tragedy of a noble hero. But his
death, whenever it is predicted, is always linked with the proclamation
of his resurrection. The saying about the suffering Son of Man in Mark
10:45 is understood as leading towards “being great” (10:43 f.). Even in
the Institution of the Lord’s Supper his coming death is proclaimed
against the background of the prospect of the kingdom of God (Mark
14:24 – 25).
And since this is all attested and narrated as part of an apocalyptic
movement involving all humankind, this story includes a basis for
hope for all human lives, as we shall see (§ 6.4 below). Its impact can
be interpreted by looking at the consequences for the social life of
the Markan community, as expressed by a saying of Jesus.
The special consequence is that the life of those who confess Jesus as
their Lord and try to follow him is a full life even now, in the present –
here on earth. The perspective of dualist Christian groups that has deep-
ly influenced the atmosphere of quite a broad section of Christianity
right down to the present – the perspective promising heavenly joy
after a life full of self-sacrifice and tears – is alien to the Markan view.
In Mark 10:17 – 31, Jesus warns his disciples against holding on to pos-
sessions and protecting their own lives, but, at the same time, he makes
it clear that a life in discipleship is not an unhappy human life: “Truly I
tell you, there is no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or
mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of
the good news (euangelion) who will not receive a hundredfold now
in this age – houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields
with persecutions – and in the Age to Come eternal life. But many of
the first will be last, and the last will be first” (Mark 10:29 – 31). Fathers
are not mentioned in the community of disciples, since they are all chil-
dren of one heavenly Father. The persecutions are not specified and we
do not know whether concrete persecutions are meant. What we can
deduce is that a full life, a committed life, is always accompanied by ef-
fort and sometimes by suffering and risk. A life concentrated on happi-
ness only is never really happy. Many Christians of the first century lived
in communities whose members faced mistrust, enmity, and in some
cases even persecution. However, they created a large community
and got the chance to live a fuller human life than those who did not
have the kingdom of God on their horizon. This is the model of life
6.4 Jesus as Determining Element of the Christian Proclamation 141
that was already omitted in the parallel pericope in the Gospel of Mat-
thew (19:29) and had to be rediscovered in the course of history.
It is often said that Jesus’ passion and death are the turning point of
the Gospel of Mark. They do unambiguously constitute its climax. But
the point of view that marks the position from which the whole story of
Jesus is narrated is his resurrection. That is why Mark was able to inter-
pret the soteriological power of Jesus’ story in a profound way, which
remains relevant today – indeed especially so today. We shall discuss this
in § 6.4.
6.4 Jesus as Determining Element of the Christian

Proclamation
Until now we tried to demonstrate that the framework or even the

backbone of the Gospel according to Mark is the oral gospel as the mes-
sage about Jesus’ death and resurrection. It seems that he intended to
subordinate the traditions about the “earthly” Jesus to this “word”. So
it was indeed. The term sōzō (save) appears 13 times in the Gospel of
Mark, and it hints at the fact that all Jesus’ activity may be understood
as a prefiguration or metaphor for salvation for eternal life. The first
scholar who applied Redaction Criticism to the Gospel of Mark, the
German Willi Marxsen, supposed that Mark wrote his book as a sermon
called gospel (Evangelium), in which the Risen Lord proclaims himself.
The fact that he also used traditions from the past does not play any
major role. His work is a proclamation like the Easter Gospel, not a re-
port about Jesus.280 This was the radical interpretation of Mark accord-
ing to the pattern of the Easter Gospel. Nevertheless, in fact, it was the
Easter Gospel, with the concept of “doubled” eschatology, that implied
turning back to the earthly life of Jesus, to the Jesus traditions, and to
the clear definition of Jesus of Nazareth as the point of orientation of
the Christian faith, its proclamation and Christian life.
280 W. Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus, 87.

6.4.1 Believe in the gospel
The term faith (pistis) denotes a specific phenomenon in the Hebrew-

Christian tradition that may help us to understand the difference and in-
terrelationship between the two pillars of Christianity: the Easter Gospel
and the Jesus traditions.
“Faith” in Mark, as in Paul, means trust in God281 – reliance on his
good will towards humankind and his promises, concretely, the faith
that he raised Jesus from the dead – that he is the God who raises the
dead (see § 2.4 above – Interpreting resurrection II). At the same time,
the Markan concept of faith interprets the sayings about the faith in
the Jesus traditions, where trust in God as the Creator is closely related
to belief in miracles. All the sayings where faith (pistis) is used in the ab-
solute sense imply concrete confidence in God – confidence that Jesus is
coming in his name. This applies especially to the miraculous healings:
the faith that God is stronger than fatality can bring about a fundamental
change in the human situation, as in Mark 5:36 ( Jairus’ daughter raised
from the dead); 9:23 – 24 (exorcism); 10:52 (healing a blind person);
11:24 (fulfilling prayers). Mark also took the extreme saying about
faith moving mountains from the Jesus tradition, which Jesus must
have meant metaphorically (Mark 11:22 – 23; see §4.2 above), but, on
the other hand, he (Mark 2:1 – 12) corrects the faith in healing that is
almost magical by means of one of his “sandwich compositions”: the
true answer to the faith in God’s power is that God (even) forgives
sins (Mark 2:5).
The reference to faith in the gospel in the introductory part of Mark
(1:15) also has to be understood as a positive change (metanoia – repent-
ance) in the human attitude to God and other people. “Believe in the
gospel (euangelion)” means: “Believe that God invites you to be in com-
munion with him.” The mysterious saying about the heavy punishment
(expressed in a metaphor again) for those who put a stumbling block be-
fore one of those “little ones believing” most probably did not relate to
a specific belief in miracles but rather to the openness towards the
“kingdom of God” proclaimed and anticipated by Jesus. Faith over-
comes fear of the super-individual powers, as is demonstrated in the
story about calming a storm in Mark 4:35 – 41, especially verse 40:
“Why are you afraid? Have you not faith?” Here it seems as if the mi-
281 J. Roloff, Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus, 152; cf. Th. Söding, Glaube bei Mar-
kus, 309.
raculous intervention of Jesus (a miracle affecting nature, but in fact an

exorcism, see verse 39) would not be necessary if the disciples had faith
in the profound sense of the word. (Another trace of Pauline influ-
ence?) 282
After reflecting on these findings we can try to interpret them. Faith
in this deeper meaning is trust in God as the transcendent reality, which
enables people to take into consideration God’s point of view and the
power of his absolute future (“the kingdom of God”), and to do new
things. It is clear that such faith cannot arise without a direct testimony
about the inspiring presence of Jesus (in religious language: mediated
through the Holy Spirit) as the risen representative of God (the Son
of God). However, faith is not a “leap in the dark”. It is always linked
with a good deal of information that enables believers to orient them-
selves in society and history. This information can be derived from
the Jesus traditions. This is what Mark intended to communicate to
his readers: Jesus in his time and in the Galilean region represents a
piece of human history that has been vindicated by the resurrection
and belongs to the eschatological future. The reader of Mark needs to
know what is viable for the future, what corresponds to the coming
kingdom, what Jesus as its proclaimer said, how he acted and how he
behaved even in moments when passivity was imposed on him. Mark
realised this when he came across different interpretations of Jesus’ say-
ings, his personality and his story. He realised the specific function of
the Jesus traditions. Even if Jesus as the living Lord evokes faith, it is
the Jesus of memories (of “history” in our sense) who is the determining
point of Christian life, the hermeneutic key to all Christology,283 and
the point of orientation in history. That is why Mark gathered and se-
lected those items that he considered to be specific for Jesus and his mis-
sion, and he brought them together in such a way that his readers had to
understand the voice of God “this is my Son, my beloved, listen to him”
(Mark 9:7) as an exhortation directed at them, and that they would take
seriously the invitation to follow Jesus as his disciples did: Mark 1:17 –
18; 2:14 – 15; 6:1; 8:34. The Risen Lord without any connection to the
Jesus of history would be a phantom whom nobody could follow.
Ernst Käsemann summed up the problem as follows: “The earthly
Jesus had to protect the proclaimed Christ from dissolution in the pro-
282 F. G. Lang, Sola gratia im Markusevangelium, passim.

283 G. Ebeling, Theology and Proclamation, 55.
jection of an ethical self-understanding and becoming the object of a re-

ligious ideology.”284
6.4.2 Turning back to the time of Jesus
It seems to be self-evident that after a time it proved necessary to put

down the traditions about Jesus in writing, in order that they might
not be forgotten. We already know from the form-critical analyses
that the traditions about Jesus played the role of illustrations of the in-
dividual sayings conceived as the voice of the Risen Lord in the present.
Here we are not speaking about the theology of the groups who did not
accept the Easter Gospel about the resurrection of Jesus. We are speak-
ing about the Pauline theological setting, in which the death of Jesus
was proclaimed as the first part of the Easter Gospel and the incarnation
of the Son of God was stressed as an act of God’s mercy. The time and
place of Jesus was not yet recognised as the reference point for all Chris-
tian preaching and teaching. The theological precondition for this was
provided by the formulae of the Easter Gospel, which differentiated be-
tween the pre- and post-Easter Jesus, but in the liturgical reading from
the Scripture the fixed past was the time and place of the patriarchs,
kings and prophets of the Israelite Law and the Prophets. This was
what was used for the texts of early sermons, as can be seen, for example,
in the Epistle of Hebrews, which is a set of Christian exhortative ser-
mons on texts from the Jewish Scripture (Ps 8 and 95, Jer 31, Ps 40).
The Pauline emphasis on the death of Jesus overshadowed any interest
in his life story.
Mark linked all the Christian proclamations and all the sayings of
Jesus with the story of his earthly life.285 New interpretations and addi-
tions to Jesus’ words could not contradict his deeds and attitudes, made
manifest in his life story. At the same time the material about Jesus was
reduced. It became clear that the Jesus traditions were not a bottomless
supply of instructions for individual situations and that it would be nec-
essary to solve new problems by reflecting on Jesus’ general attitudes and
counsels, by making analogies and obtaining new insights as to how
Christian communities should live. Jesus’ life became the text. It grad-
284 Sackgassen in Streit um den historischen Jesus, 69 (translation P.P.).

285 J. Marcus, Mark – Interpreter of Paul; 476 ff. This concept of Mark had already
been formulated in 1956 by J. M. Robinson, The problem of history in Mark, 82.
ually acquired the position of a text in the Jewish Bible, and in the
Christian canon it also overshadowed the letters of Paul. By alluding
to the “beginning” in Gen 1:1 Mark underlined this ambition. In meth-
odological terms, understanding the theological concept needs to come
before a diachronic analysis of the traditions that Mark used.286
Thus the Christian proclamation had a clear referential function. It
referred to the normative past of Jesus’ time and places of activity and
suffering. However, it was a turning back to the past in such a way
that, at the same time, there was an anticipation of the absolute future,
the kingdom of God/the Age to Come. It was the remembered past of
the Risen One.287 However, it was such a turn back to the normative
past, that in the same time anticipated the future, the absolute future.
We can express the general strategy of the Gospel of Mark as “memories of
the future”.
The resurrection divided the present from Jesus’ earthly life, which
occurred in Galilee and Jerusalem years before. Mark often depicted his-
tory in a transparent way, in order that the present impact might be visi-
ble, but the intention of his narrative strategy was unambiguous: It is not
the present experience of faith that serves a better understanding of the intention
of Jesus, but rather that the present effect of his resurrection evokes interest in his
past story. Jesus of Nazareth is the criterion for shaping the present
Christian community confessing him as the Risen Lord. Jesus of Naz-
areth is the one who has to be followed and obeyed.
For our interpretation of the origins of Christian literature this re-
orientation of faith has two consequences. One consequence is the
fact that together with the Jesus traditions the Church also saved pre-
cious information about history. The second is that history as such became
an important phenomenon of Christian thinking. “Memory” is the present di-
mension of history. And the later historical-critical investigation of the Jesus tra-
dition and the canonical books is a contemporary qualified tool of memory. This
is the theological justification for the historical-critical investigation of canonical
books through exegesis.
Jürgen Roloff in his pioneering article (1969) summed up the ach-
ievement of Mark as follows: The author of the Gospel of Mark sup-
poses “a thinking which differentiates between the past, present and fu-
286 C. Breytenbach, Das Markusevangelium als traditionsgebundene Erzählung,

83 f., 92. This does not mean that the diachronic analysis is not a necessary sec-
ond methodological step.
287 Cf. P. Bonnard, Anamnesis, 2 – 11.
ture of salvation and is aware of the relevance of a specific time and

space of the past for the present. Mark describes it as a past history
from the appearance of John the Baptist to the Easter morning. The un-
expected ending of the Gospel with 16:8 may be a consequence of this
concept: What followed on Easter morning cannot be reported in the
same way as the previous story was.”288 The remark about the women’s
silence was originally conceived of as a shock caused by theophany.
However, in the Markan intention the true recipient of the Easter Gos-
pel is the reader, who may feel responsible for what the women learned
on Easter morning and who knows that the gospel has to be proclaimed
to all nations (Mark 13:10).
The relevance of a specific time and place in the past (the incarna-
tion of Jesus Christ) was acknowledged in most of the Christian groups
and movements at the end of the first century. Even in the dualistic Jo-
hannine group it was expressed, not only in the prologue of the Gospel
of John (1:14, 18), but also in the maxim or rule laid down in 2 John 7:
“Many deceivers have come out into the world, those who do not con-
fess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the de-
ceiver and the antichrist!” In 1 John 4:1 – 3 the idea is even developed
like this: “Beloved…test the spirits to see whether they are from God:
every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from
God, and…” This was the definitive acceptance of turning towards the
Jesus of history and the fulfilment of the intention of the Easter Gospel
with its “doubled eschatology”. The faith evoked by the proclamation
of Jesus as the Risen Lord has its criterion in Jesus of Nazareth. The
Gospel as the literary euangelion included especially the past dimension
of the “doubled eschatology”289 – the memories of the apostles (see Pa-
pias in Euseb. Hist. eccl. 3, 39 15 [Peter hosa emnēmoneuse, akribōs egrap-
sen], and Justin, Dial 101:3 and 104:1 etc. [apomnēmoneumata]).290
Unlike in Judaism, as exemplified in the Law and the Prophets (the
Christian Old Testament), the narrative (haggadah) prevailed over the
commandments and wisdom (halakha).
288 J. Roloff, “Das Markusevangelium als Geschichtsdarstellung”, 92; C. Focant,

Marc, 357 f.
289 This was in a representative way demonstrated by the monumental work Jesus
Remembered by J. D. G. Dunn, see especially 881 ff.
290 For further evidence see § 8. For apomnēmoneumata in early Christian texts see
R. M. Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus, 119 f.
Here I would like to add an interpretative comment: This finding can

be interpreted in the sense that Jesus included in his story the concrete features and
values of the Kingdom of God as it impacts on history: his compassion for the
poor, exploited, sick, ritually unclean, those possessed by demons, helpless chil-
dren and women, and his contacts with strangers and foreigners (from Samaria,
the Decapolis, or Phoenicia). This cluster of his attitudes and activities rep-
resents an eschatological concept of a new world and a current in history that faith
recognises as the inconspicuous backbone of history. It indirectly influenced
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that most countries of
the world have accepted as their constituting document.
By preserving the inspiring expectation of the kingdom of God as
introduced by Jesus, the Gospel of Mark transformed the apocalyptic
myth into an inspiring vision of the fulfilment and meaning of history.
It was such a powerful vision that it was capable of overcoming all the
aberrations and distortions introduced by both heretics and orthodoxy.
Turning back to history does not mean that Mark was a historiog-
rapher in the modern sense or even in the sense of pragmatic historiog-
raphers of antiquity like Thucydides (460 – after 400 B.C.E.). His work
was a testimony about Jesus Christ’s central role in human salvation and
fulfilling the course of history. It was a reproduction of history in the
style of mimēsis – a narrative intending to reconstruct history in its
inner intention, in this case to display the divine power that leads the
story of this age towards its eschatological end. To succeed in this ap-
proach it is necessary to deal with history, gather the data about Jesus,
and make the reader aware of the fact that the decisive revelation of
the power transforming history occurred within history in the person
and story of Jesus. The resurrection says that this is indeed the victorious
power that is at work under the surface of history and that the eschato-
logical future belongs to it. The testimony is not a report or a verifiable
finding, but it is a personal statement by a witness whose objective char-
acter is recognisable only in its inner bias, in the witness’s confession ac-
cording to which he or she is influenced by a stimulus from outside (a
psychologist would be able to offer an alternative or parallel explana-
tion), and in its impact on history. The way towards fulfilment is
open, but the way of action is given by Jesus as a paradigm in an extreme
situation.291
Since the whole life of Jesus is conceived of as a journey towards the
cross, the image of Jesus oscillates between “having authority” (exousia),
291 M. E. Boring, The Christology of Mark, 142 f.

when he healed the sick and expelled the unclean spirits, and “defence-
less”, when he cried out on the cross: “My God, my God, why have
you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). These are the situations in human
life that Jesus coped with in a specific way and Mark decided to com-
ment on this from the perspective of the gospel about the resurrection.
We will need to give this phenomenon special consideration in the next
paragraph.
6.5 Interpreting the Normative Past

We have already demonstrated that turning back towards Jesus of Naz-
areth did not replace the proclamation of Jesus as the living One, but
was rather intended to protect the Easter Gospel from being applied
in incorrect ways or turned into a pious ideology. This fact also affected
the Markan way of interpreting the Jesus traditions for the Christian
communities of his time. Rather than transforming the sayings of
Jesus into direct instructions for the post-Easter requirements of Chris-
tian communities, he narrated the stories about Jesus in the past tense,
although in a transparent way. He did not ignore the time gap between
the time of Jesus and his present, but he was able to give the readers/
hearers a hint that it had a special impact on the present life of the com-
munity.
6.5.1 The “Good News” of the Passion Story
We discussed the pre-history of the Markan Passion Story in § 5.2 and

we also mentioned the fact that from its very beginning it had a structure
based on apocalyptic references. The most important of them was Jesus’
claim to be the Son of Man as the representative of the highest (divine)
tribunal during his interrogation by the high priest in Mark 14:61 – 62.
The readers would have known from the previous apocalyptic chapter
that the Son of Man in Jesus’ vision was the “heavenly” victorious
power in the apocalyptic struggle between God and the powers that
tried to attack his coming kingdom (Mark 13:24 – 26). For Mark,
Jesus was identical with the Son of Man. The readers can recognise
this in Mark 8:38, where Jesus claims to be the Son of Man coming
in glory and then again in Mark 9:1 – 8. Mark 9 is introduced by the
saying in verse 1 about “some standing here who will not taste death
until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” This
6.5 Interpreting the Normative Past 149
was originally an expression of the delayed coming of the kingdom of

God before all the present generation had died out. However, in the fol-
lowing story about the Transfiguration of Jesus (9:2 – 8), under Markan
direction Jesus plays the role of the Son of Man coming in the glory of
the Father, as it had been announced in Mark 8:38. He appears as a cel-
estial being and a voice from heaven declares him to be the Son of God,
Jesus. The Markan Jesus, who speaks about himself as the Son of Man, is
in the eyes of God his Son, his legal representative. So in the Markan
view Jesus, the Son of Man and the Son of God are all identical.
This was hinted at in the prophecy in Mark 8:38 about the Son of
Man coming in the glory of God.
When Jesus announced the coming of the Son of Man (Mark
14:62), he originally appealed to a higher (supreme) court than the
Council in Jerusalem.292 According to Mark he thus proclaimed his
messianic mission. He did so in a situation where it was evident that
he did not intend to play the role of a political Messiah and where
his Messiahship was defined as Messiah-the-Son-of-God.293 We may as-
sume that the Markan Passion Story is in fact identical with the decisive
battle of the apocalyptic expectation (see § 2.3 above – on the “dou-
bled” eschatology). This means that a special time and place in
human history are attested as a part of the eschatological revelation.
The reader may guess that it will be the fulfilment of the saying
about the Son of Man who came to give his life as a ransom for
many (Mark 10:45). But what does it mean to say that he ( Jesus) will
pay a price for liberating many (Gr. lytron) at the last judgment of
God? “Many” denotes here an unlimited number of other people. A
more general expression of the same event is provided by the formula
of the gospel in 1 Thess 1:10, according to which the Son of God
will rescue “us” from the coming wrath of God. The Last Judgment
was an understandable part of the apocalyptic expectation which most
Christians shared. Some of them may have understood it as a kind of
292 In his monograph about the Son of Man in Mark (Endgericht durch Menschen-
sohn?) M. Reichardt maintains that the Son of Man in Mark was not an escha-
tological judge (151 f.). However, he was a representative of God. He rightly
maintains that the Son of Man in Mark is (in most cases) identical with
Jesus, but he tends to deny the difference between Jesus and the Son of Man
in pre-Markan traditions (including Q /Luke/ 12: 8).
293 A suggestion of J. Marcus, Are You the Messiah-Son-of-God?, see above, § 6.2
(Son of God and other titles).
metaphor, but it was not easy to understand how Jesus’ suffering and
death could liberate sinful (alienated) people from God’s judgment.
Mark did not quote the Pauline formulation of a Jesus who bore
human sins and who – through his death on the cross – became cursed
for “us” (2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13). However, he does include the Institu-
tion of the Lord’s Supper, which he used together with the Passion
Story (cf. 1 Cor 11:23), and in which the death of Jesus, represented
by the cup of covenant, is “for many” (Mark 14:24). In 1 Cor 11:24
it is the bread that represents “the body for you”. This “sacrificial” in-
terpretation of Jesus’ death was not understood outside the Palestinian
Jewish setting, where the cult of YHWH was concentrated in the Tem-
ple. The pagan concept of sacrifice was different and Mark most prob-
ably wrote his work at a time when the Temple had been destroyed, i. e.
after 70 C.E. If the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome, as an old tra-
dition asserts294 and as is mostly assumed,295 the need for a new interpre-
tation would have been even more pressing.
That is why Mark wanted to offer a new interpretation of the Pau-
line theological heritage. The formulae about a Jesus who bore human
sins and the divine punishment are not the only Pauline expressions for
the experience of his faith that Jesus lived and died for other sinful peo-
ple. Another one is reconciliation (Rom 5:8 – 11), and yet another one
humiliation in obedience to God (Phil 2:6 – 11). These are the various
possible interpretations of the simple phrase about the death of Jesus
“for” (hyper, peri, anti) sinners, many, our sins, us, etc.
Mark concentrated on the image of the ransom that Jesus paid
(Mark 10:45). As a theme (not as the term lytron, lytrōsis or lytrousthai) 296
it appears in Rom 6:16 – 23. The themes of humiliation and obedience
(see Phil 2; expressed by the Greek dei – it is necessary – Mark 8:31;
9:11; 13:7, 10) are also present in the Markan Passion Story. However,
he was aware of the fact that the “For others” may still be interpreted in
various ways. He was bold enough to outline his own interpretation.
Together with the older pieces of the Passion Story he used the
Gethsemane pericope (Mark 14:32 – 42) about Jesus praying to God
294 Irenaeus Haer. 3,1,1; Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5,8,3.

295 B. M. F. van Iersel, Mark, 36 – 39; A. J. Collins, Mar. 8; similarly C. E. B. Cran-
field or H. C. Kee ; on the other hand, H. G. Kümmel and especially G. Theis-
sen presented arguments for a Syrian origin (Die Entstehung des Neuen Testa-
ments, 79; idem, The Gospels in Context, 239), as did J. Marcus (Mark 1 – 8 ,
36).
296 These terms appear only in Tit 2:14 and Heb 9:12.
and asking him to remove from him the cup (of suffering). Jesus must
have had an idea about avoiding the conflict without giving up his mis-
sion, which he experienced as given by God. He may have expected the
coming of the kingdom of God before he was sentenced or he may have
supposed that he could be taken up into heaven like Enoch or Elijah.
However, he realised that his personal fate had to become a part of
the eschatological process of salvation that he proclaimed. His personal
struggle, full of distress and the fear of death, was deeply human. God
did not answer his prayer and Jesus did not hear any voice from heaven,
as had been the case after his baptism (Mark 1:11) or in the transfigura-
tion (9:7), and his disciples fell asleep.297 The Gethsemane scene also im-
pressed the authors of other texts of early Christian literature, see John
12:27 and Heb 5:7. However, Luke omitted the phrase “I am deeply
grieved,” which he did not consider fitting for the Son of God. Accord-
ing to Celsus, the Gethsemane scene proves that Jesus was not a god
(Contra Celsum 2, 23 – 24).
Jesus’ crisis culminates on the cross, where in his distress he asked
God why he had forsaken him. This is also quoted in Aramaic, and it
is therefore one of the historically most reliable pieces of the Passion
Story. Here we can sense how all the visions of the kingdom of God
that Jesus proclaimed were collapsing. His fear of death and his disillu-
sionment are manifest. His messianic consciousness and his identifica-
tion with the Son of Man and the Son of God were at stake. There
was only a very thin link that still connected him with God: the fact
that he shared with him his anxiety and doubts – and avoided the sol-
ution which the wife of Job recommended to her husband: “Curse God
and die!” ( Job 2:9).
The attempts to tone down the image of Jesus’ personal crisis by ex-
plaining his prayer in Gethsemane as a quotation from Ps 55:2 – 6 or his
cry of dereliction on the cross as a reference to Ps 22 express a tendency
that is already to be found in the early Church, according to which the
suffering of the Messiah was acceptable as the suffering of the Just One
and as the suffering of Jewish and Christian martyrs, but doubts and fear
had no place in martyrdom. In Luke Jesus commends his spirit into the
hands of the Father (Luke 23:43).298 However, Mark was aware of the
fact that it was precisely here, in the most controversial scene, that the
297 For the whole of the pericope see R. Feldmeier, Die Krisis der Gottesssohnes,
esp. 246.
298 See G. Sterling, Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke, 393 ff.
essence of the suffering of the Saviour for others was to be found. He

instructed his readers how it should be understood.
When Jesus was hanging on the cross, shortly before his death, the
passers-by mocked him. They mentioned his saying about the destruc-
tion of the Temple and called on him to make use of his supposed su-
pernatural power and descend from the cross. The chief priests and
scribes likewise mocked Jesus. The priests were dignitaries of the Tem-
ple that had already been destroyed when the Christian community
heard this pericope being read, whereas the scribes were those who
maintained the continuity of faith through the following centuries.
They mocked Jesus, saying: “He saved others; he cannot save himself.
Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so
that we may see and believe” (Mark 15:31 – 32; cf. Wis 2:17 – 18: “Let
us … test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man
is God’s son, he will help him”). This is a deliberate insult: his death on
the cross calls into question all his previous activity.
And yet, in the Markan literary strategy, this is paradoxically a decisive and
positive message for the reader/hearer, a new interpretation of the “for us” or “for
the many” of the Easter gospel. His opponents unconsciously tell the truth about
Jesus. 299 From the biographical point of view the “He saved others” (allous esōs-
en – verse 31) is a summary of his public activity – his healings, exorcisms, and
his fellowship with ritually unclean people and sinners. From the perspective of
the Easter gospel this is a firm basis for hope and the “salvation” brought by
him. The words that follow immediately afterwards, “He cannot save himself.
Let the Messiah, the king of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that
we may see and believe”, cannot cancel out the previous statement about salva-
tion. Those who experience loneliness, disillusionment, pain and fear of death,
and vainly expect an answer to their prayers know well that a report about some-
one who miraculously got rid of his cross would be no consolation for them, as
they do not have such abilities or opportunities. It would only confirm their hope-
less position. Since Jesus stood on the side of mortal and sinful people, he could
not have come down from the cross. Only the resurrection of a crucified person in
the form of an action coming from the other side, from the “Father,” could form
the basis of the hope and faith in salvation in those who feel alone, are forced into
passivity, and face death. This is the Markan interpretation of Jesus’ death
for others, revealing the depth of his theology.
299 In the Gospel of John we find a similar strategy of telling the truth by uncon-
scious statements of Jesus’ opponents: The inscription on the cross says that
Jesus is the “King of the Jews” ( John 19:19 – 22).
It is only understandable if we ask whether this is not too bold and

anachronistic (modern) an interpretation, whether we are not interpreting
Mark through the eyes of our contemporaries, whether experiencing
one’s own fate in such an emotional and deeply-considered way
would not have been alien to people two thousand years ago, and
whether they would have been able to understand such a refined and
sophisticated literary strategy, expressing the substiutionary impact of
the Easter gospel.
In response we can say first of all that a feeling of suffering, an inner
crisis and the fear of death were not alien to the biblical people. This is
attested in many Psalms. The cry of dereliction in Mark 15:34 had al-
ready been adapted before Mark as a quotation from Psalm 22:1, a
psalm which expresses all the feelings and terror that we find in the Mar-
kan narrative about the last hours of Jesus’ life. Mark was fully aware of
this inner continuity when he decided to link the model of death “for
others” with Jesus. Jesus experienced a genuine crisis without knowing
how it would end. And it was only the Easter gospel that enabled Chris-
tians to confess the crucified Jesus as the Son of God. It is a story that
proclaims that nobody is ever, even in death, forsaken by God. This
was a theological achievement with far-reaching consequences. All
the other canonical Gospel writers recognised the inner affinity of Ps
22 and Wis 2 with the Passion Story, but only Matthew used the
main features of the Markan Passion Story, whereas Luke and John
opted for another interpretation, influenced by the model of a suffering
Stoic hero or a spiritual being in a human body respectively. It is gen-
erally accepted that the journey towards a more profound humanity is
inseparably bound up with sacrifices, and the elementary interpretation
of the substitutionary death of Jesus as the essential sacrifice is the vin-
dication of every sacrifice for others.
Since popular Christian piety was in early times (and also at the pres-
ent day) marked by a moderate monophysitism, which admitted that
Jesus was not omnipresent, but must have been omniscient, the Markan
interpretation of Jesus’ substitutionary suffering remained on the pe-
riphery of Christian theology. The only “non-heretical” way of inter-
preting the story of Jesus is, according to the later Christological defi-
nitions, to suppose that he was fully man (including his fallibility), and
fully God by his identification with the will of the heavenly Father.
This was consistent obedience in the sense of spiritual community
with God.
The other problem is whether the Markan way of expressing this in

the “second level” of the narrative was understandable to the readers/
hearers of the Gospel of Mark. Mark was convinced that the centurion
who stood at the cross did understand that “He saved others” was true
and it inspired him to confess Jesus as the Son of God (see § 6.2 – Son of
God). The main argument for the intentional presence of the “second
level,” as we have described it, was a similar “second level” in the
story of the Syrophoenician woman (see § 6.2 – the Pauline influence)
and the way Mark associates the sacraments with the life of Jesus, which
was done by means of a similar literary technique. This also applies to
Mark 8:14 – 21 (see below).
6.5.2 “Earthing” the sacraments in Mark
Narrating traditions about Jesus with a second level seems to contradict

our thesis about Mark consciously turning to the normative past of
Jesus’ life. However, the transparent retelling only confirms the fact
that the cause of Jesus Christ’s authority in the early Church was the
Easter message about his resurrection. This lay behind the return of
the Easter faith to Jesus from Nazareth as the norm and point of orien-
tation for the formation of social life.
When Jesus’ life story was updated, the emphasis lay, at least in
Mark, on the normative past of his earthly life. The transparent interpre-
tation tells the present reader/hearer how important the normative past
is for people of the present day and how important it will be for the fu-
ture. The memory of Jesus is the memory of the future – a memory of
what is in store in the future. Prophetic direct speech in the name of
Jesus Christ, the Lord, was not protected from voluntarism. Only a de-
tour via the earthly Jesus ( Jesus of Nazareth) offered a firm basis and
norm. The same applied to the interpretation of the ritual acts of the
Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist) and baptism and their accompanying
texts (legomena). Baptism was the entrance-rite for every Christian,
while the Eucharist was celebrated frequently, not just once a year as
the Jewish Pesah was. After the destruction of the Temple in 70
C.E., their authority increased even among the Christians of Jewish ori-
gin. Later (at the end of the second century) they were subsumed under
the general Latin term “sacraments” (sacramentum).
Baptism does not have a direct beginning in the life of Jesus, but
Matthew, who tended to base the rules and traditions of life in Christian
communities on the life of Jesus, placed the institution of baptism as a

Christian rite in the time after Easter. Mark saw in Jesus’ life turning
points that related to Jesus’ death and resurrection and were suitable
(see § 2.1 above) for interpretation as events expressing the dependence
of baptism on the Passion and resurrection of Jesus. In Mark 14:51 we
read about a young man who, dressed in a linen cloth, followed Jesus
when he was arrested and the disciples had deserted him and fled
(14:50). He was caught, left the linen cloth in the hands of the
armed people and “ran away naked.” The linen cloth saved him. A
young man dressed in a white robe appears in Jesus’ grave on Easter
morning, proclaiming (confessing) the resurrection of Jesus. We have
shown that the Christian baptism was linked with the gospel about
Jesus’ death and resurrection (1 Cor 15:3b-5) from the very beginning.
We do not know whether in the first century this formula of the gospel
was already part of the baptismal liturgy, but it certainly belonged to the
post-baptismal catechesis (1Pet 3:18 – 22).
If all this is true, both the white (linen) robes, stolē leukē in 16:5 and
sindōn in 14:51 – 52, could be understood as symbolising the white bap-
tismal robe of the Christian neophytes. The young man, who was near
Jesus in his Passion (and saved his life because of his baptismal robe,
whereas Jesus died) 300 and was near him at his resurrection and pro-
claimed him as the Risen One, could represent a Christian, who in
his baptism died with Jesus and would be raised with him as expressed
in Rom 6:1 – 11; cf. Col 2:12 – 15. The problem is that a white robe as a
baptismal garment in the 1st century C. E. is attested only indirectly
through the image of the multitude of the saved dressed in white in
Rev 7:9, 13 (cf. 3:4 – 5, 18 and 6:11; cf. Hermas Sim. VIII, 2, 3). How-
ever, since the semantic field of dressing (taking off old clothing, putting
on new clothing) is common in Paul and Paulinism in connection with
the Christian (new) life associated with baptism (Rom 13:12, 14; Col
3:9 – 12; Eph 4:24), it is still not impossible that Mark coded the mes-
sage about salvation through Jesus’ death and resurrection once again as
the second level of these narrative elements, as has been suggested by
some contemporary scholars.301 (Cf. the second level in the novel by
300 See a similar saying when Jesus faced his death in John 18:8 – 9. John may have
been influenced by Mark.
301 For this problem see R. Scroggs – K. I. Groff, Baptism in Mark, especially
537 ff. A. Y. Collins, Mark, 688 – 695, considers this interpretation to be less
probable.
Apuleius [died C.E. 123] Metam. 11:13 – 15, 21.) Unlike our former ar-
gument in favour of Mark’s theological and literary achievement this re-
mains a hypothesis. The motif of the flying disciple may be only an il-
lustration of the fulfilled saying of Jesus: “You will all become
deserters” (14:27).
As for the Eucharist, the institution of which we discussed in the pre-
vious section, Mark tried to sketch its meaning by his transparent telling
of other traditions from Jesus’ life, especially the Feeding of the Five
Thousand in 6:30 – 44, The Syrophoenician Woman’s Faith in 7:24 –
30, the Feeding of the Four Thousand in 8:1 – 10302 and the Yeast of
the Pharisees and Herod in 8:14 – 21. The transmission of the first
two was deeply interpretative, and so we are not able to determine
the way they related to history. That may have happened several
times, and they may have impressed the participants so deeply that
the memory of them was overshadowed by the attempts to express
their impact. Nonetheless, they are explicitly introduced as events
from Jesus’ life.
In Mark 6:30 Jesus’ disciples are called apostles, which marks the
post-Easter situation. In Mark 3:14 the term apostles is used by Jesus
himself (according to three ancient manuscripts – Sinaiticus, Vaticanus,
Coridethi – and the Coptic translations). In this way the mission of the
Christian apostles was characterised as an activity continuing the activity
of Jesus. At a deserted place, where Jesus intended to rest, he was sought
by many people who came to meet him. Here the reader realises how
the opportunity to be with Jesus was regarded as something precious.
What follows is characterised as an act of compassion towards people
in need (cf. Mark 6:34; 8:2; 9:22 and 1:41). In Mark 6:34 they are de-
scribed as “sheep without a shepherd.” Shepherd was a metaphor for
God (Isa 40:11; Ps 23:1) or for the Davidic king (1Sam 17:34) and in
Num 27:17 God appoints Joshua (in Greek Iēsous – Jesus) to lead his
people, in order that they may not be “like sheep without a shepherd”.
This was the position of Jesus according to Mark 6. His disciples inter-
rupted him and made him aware of the lack of food. He told them to
feed the large crowd of people themselves (cf. the story of Elisha feeding
one hundred men in 2 Kings 4, especially verse 43). The people sat
down in military formations: only the number of men, the potential sol-
diers, is indicated (cf. Ex 18:25; or the planned formation of the Qum-
302 For a commentary see especially K. P. Donfried, The Feeding Narratives and
the Marcan Community, especially 100 ff.
ran people for the eschatological struggle 1QM 4:3 f.). Indirectly, we
can deduce that historically the participants expected that Jesus would
free them from the foreign dominion through his liberating power
(see Jer. 23, where the Davidic Messiah will gather the scattered flock
and cf. § 6.2 – The Son of God). Such an expectation is expressly includ-
ed in John 6:15: “When …they were about … to make him king, he
withdrew again to the mountains by himself”.
The miraculous feeding of the crowds, whatever may have actually
occurred according to our criteria of historical authenticity, was opened
by Jesus’ prayer of thanksgiving as was the case at every Jewish meal. In
the early Christian texts the Eucharistic prayer was linked with the
Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:24; Mark 14:22 – 23parr.; cf. Luke 24:30).
The motif of Jesus breaking the loaves reveals unambiguously that
the reader/hearer has to think about the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist
according to later religious terminology); as the manna had represented
God’s care for the Israelites, so the community expected Jesus as the Son
of God to care for the Christians.
The miraculous feeding of the crowds culminates with a second cli-
max: They collected twelve baskets full of broken pieces of bread and
fish. Twelve was a number indicating fullness and also the number of
the tribes of Israel.
In 7:24 – 30 we read about the faith of the Syrophoenician woman
who because of her confession of Jesus as Lord had the privilege to eat
the crumbs (psichia) from the children’s table – an allusion to the com-
mon table of Christians of Jewish and pagan backgrounds, the problem
that Paul described in Gal 2:11 – 14 (see § 6.2 below – the Pauline in-
fluence).
We cannot decide about the historicity of the second story about
Jesus feeding a multitude in Mark 8:1 – 10. What we can say for certain
is that this doublet was edited or re-told in terms of Markan theology:303
the disciples did not understand anything and asked the same doubting
question again. The difference lay in the participating crowd, which, ac-
cording to Mark 7:31 must have been from the Decapolis on the other
side of the Sea of Galilee, from a pagan milieu. This is, however, the
result of Markan editing, since it can be deduced from Mark 8:3 that
it was in the wilderness again. The difference in the conclusion is inter-
303 See R. M. Fowler. Loaves and Fishes, 91 – 96; J. R. Donahue – D. J. Harring-

ton, The Gospel of Mark, ad. loc.; K. P. Donfried, The Feeding Narratives and
the Marcan Community, 101.
esting: this time seven baskets of left-over pieces (klasmata) were collect-
ed.
Seven may be an allusion to the concept of seventy nations existing
on earth (Gen 10; 1 Enoch 89:59 f.). Nonetheless it was also a number
representing fullness, as was the number twelve.
So far as the Eucharist is concerned, these stories tell the reader that
the Lord’s Table has its origin in the life of Jesus (it is celebrated in his
memory – anamnēsis; 1 Cor 11:25), that former pagans can also partic-
ipate,304 and that every celebration means receiving from the fullness of
the bread blessed by Jesus – the portions from the twelve or seven bas-
kets that were left over from his feeding of the multitude in Galilee.
This seems to be a sophisticated interpretation, but the story about
the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod in 8:14 – 21 confirms that Mark
wrote using a sophisticated theological strategy and that some of his
original readers/hearers were trained (catechetically educated) to under-
stand it. After the second story of Jesus feeding the multitude, and after
the disputation with the Pharisees about the sign from heaven that
would legitimate Jesus as an agent of God, Jesus decided to cross the
Sea of Galilee. “His disciples had forgotten to bring any bread; and
they had only one loaf with them in the boat” (verse14). Seemingly
out of context Jesus cautioned them: “Watch out – beware of the
yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod” and the disciples, out
of context, discuss the lack of bread. Deducing that the ignorance
that is in them because of their “hardened hearts” prevents them
from seeing and hearing – a quotation from Jer. 5:21 – which he had
also cited in Mark 4:12 (see § 6.2 – the Messianic Secret) – Jesus defined
the cause of this dispute and reminded his disciples of the feeding of the
multitude. They had to admit the number of baskets full of pieces of
bread that had been left over and to realise that Jesus is the true
bread.305 The story has an open ending with Jesus’ question: “Do you
not yet understand?”
From this pericope we can learn that Jesus is the true bread which,
in this context, means life in its fullness, even transcending the barrier of
death. The author of the Gospel of John developed this motif into the
allegorical self-revelations of Jesus: “I am the bread of life. Whoever
304 According to R. M. Fowler, Loaves and Fishes, 182, “the gospel (of Mark)
seems to be written almost as a writ of divorce between certain segments of Ju-
daism and Christianity”.
305 D. Juel, A Disquieting Silence, 226.
comes to me will never be hungry, and who believes in me will never

be thirsty.” ( John 6:35)
This is the Easter Gospel, which, from now on, is being trans-
formed. Its “beginning” in the life of Jesus of Nazareth becomes an in-
separable part of it and its hermeneutical key. That is why within a few
decades “the gospel” (euangelion) became a term logically denoting the
content of the formulae of the gospel and the beginning of the gospel,
Jesus’ life.
And the formulae of the resurrection became a solemn confession of
faith and confirmation of all that was remembered and attested about
Jesus. The open ending of the Gospel according to Mark exhorts the
reader to join the confessing community.
All the innovative interpretations of the sacraments are “earthed” by
their close connection with the life of Jesus of Nazareth and his com-
passion for the multitudes.
6.5.3 By-products of the Markan concept of the Gospel
The dying hero who promised the kingdom of God may be a tragic fig-
ure, but the power of the Easter experience – the power of the source of
life, as we interpreted it in § 2.2 (interpreting the resurrection IV) – was
so persuasive that the whole story of Jesus (including Easter) became the
“good news” and “revelation”.
Mark reflects this in the simple, but literary style of Greek literature.
We have already mentioned that the simple style306 of that time is not
the result of his lack of education. Mark’s education was better than
it appeared – note his theologically motivated narrative written in a so-
phisticated way. The simplicity of his style resulted rather from his in-
tention to address ordinary people.307 That means that he intentionally
used the common Hellenistic Greek (koinē), inspired by the Septuagint,
and thus he transmitted not only the Christian gospel and the Jesus tra-
ditions to the world of the Roman Empire, but also a substantial piece
of the Hebrew heritage with its stress on discovering God through
events in history.
306 From the literary point of view we call it sermo humilis, but this was not a rhet-
orical category of that time, see M. Reiser, Sprache und literarische Formen des
Neuen Testaments, 30.
307 Th. Söding, Der Evangelist in seiner Zeit, 25, 45.
Erich Auerbach, the German historian of literature, compared the

depiction of the ordinary lower class people from contemporary Latin
literature (Petronius, Tacitus) and the Gospel of Mark in his book called
“Mimesis” (1946). Whereas the lower class people are comic figures or
even amoral rebels in the Latin texts, the figure of Peter in Mark is a
figure of deep conflict: a follower of Jesus who follows him to the pal-
ace where he is being interrogated (only a wall divides them from each
other), and who fails and denies his master when a servant-girl discovers
his identity as a disciple of Jesus. This could be a comic scene, but Peter
is “A tragic figure of such a background, such a hero of such a weak-
ness… the nature of the scene of the conflict also falls entirely outside
the domain of classical antiquity… A scene like Peter’s denial fits into
no antique genre. It is too serious for comedy, too contemporary and
everyday for tragedy, politically too insignificant for history – and the
form which is given to it is one of such immediacy that its like does
not exist anywhere in antiquity.”308
What Mark narrated supported the attitude towards life and tradi-
tions that – together with the Enlightenment and the modern social
movement – inspired most of the renewal movements and reforms in
Europe and America and became typical of the Western literary tradi-
tion.
308 Translated from E. Auerbach, Mimesis, 37 and 40 (German original).

7. The other canonical Gospels309
It would be interesting to analyse the theology and literary structure of

the individual Gospels and other early Christian texts in order to find
out how much they were influenced by the oral Easter gospel and
how (or whether) they were influenced by the literary structure of
Mark. This could be a legitimate theme for further exegesis. Both the
longer Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John transformed the
short Markan last paragraph (16:1 – 8), which indicated the resurrection
in indirect ways (an empty tomb, the proclamation of the resurrection
gospel, the promise of meeting Jesus as the Risen One), into narratives
about encountering the Risen Lord. In this way the other three biogra-
phies of Jesus include: Jesus’ life culminating in his death on the cross
(= “the beginning of the gospel”) + the proclamation of the resurrec-
tion (parallels to Mark 16:6 – 7 = the gospel) + narratives about his ap-
pearances in a new “divine” position. The integrative tendency of Mark
developed into a new form: the Gospels according to Luke, Matthew
and John were intentionally written as special literary shaped accounts
including the life story of Jesus according to the Easter gospel as a
whole, not only as its beginning (archē), as had been done and program-
matically proclaimed by Mark.
Both the “longer” Synoptic Gospels, even if obviously intended for
the whole of the Christian church, originated in different local com-
munities where the Gospel of Mark was already used in the liturgy,
so that the Markan integration of Pauline theology and the Jesus tradi-
tions had already became a part of their language world. “Mark” was
surprisingly successful and different Christian groups took his theologi-
cal orientation as a model and inspiration for Christian teaching and
preaching. And these groups gradually came to form the mainstream
(“catholic”) Christianity, whereas the other Christian groups (Gnostic,
Judaeo-Christian), which were theologically less persuasive, became
marginal and were considered as heretical.
309 For Luke and Matthew see G. Strecker, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 355 –
361 and 384 – 438, for the Gospel of John ibidem 479 – 540.
162 7. The other canonical Gospels
The Easter Gospel in the form of 1 Cor 15:3b-5, as it was accepted

by the federation of various groups of Jesus followers (1 Cor
15:5 – 8,9,11), spread after the fall of Jerusalem, when the Pauline her-
itage was rediscovered, and became the confession of the emerging main
stream of Christianity. The designation “Gospel” for all the Christian
biographies of Jesus was the result of a logical development: the expres-
sion for the news about Jesus’ resurrection was extended to its pre-his-
tory or the beginning – to the life of Jesus. From the mid-second cen-
tury onward the “gospel” in Mark 1:1 was considered to be also a term
for a kind of book, not for the oral gospel only. This is a convincing
illustration of the post-Markan impact of the Easter message as gospel
(euangelion).
Nevertheless, a discussion of the literary structure and theology of
the other Gospels that later became canonised could divert our atten-
tion, since the theologies of the canonical Gospels, all influenced by
the structure of the Gospel of Mark and basing themselves on its theol-
ogy, also integrated other theological elements which helped constitute
their theology as well as their literary structure.
Firstly, Luke and Matthew, independently from each other, added
the stories about Jesus’ birth to the bulk of the Markan text. Thus
they adapted the Markan model to bring it closer to to classical biogra-
phy, but, at the same time, the scheme of their books, as inspired by the
Easter gospel, became less apparent.
Secondly, they added a Jewish (Abraham at the beginning of Jesus’
genealogy in Matt 1:2 – 17) or a universal human prehistory (Adam at
the beginning in Luke 3:23 – 38) for Jesus – a history that was fulfilled
in him. This is a prehistory that transcends the explicit content of the
Easter gospel. In the Gospel of John 1:1 – 18 the pre-history goes
back to the creation of the world, in order that the reader may be
sure that Jesus represents the sole and eternal intention of God, the Cre-
ator. The descent – ascent scheme, which is already attested in Paul (es-
pecially Phil 2:6 – 10) helped to enrich the biographies of Jesus by a
transcendent prehistory.
Thirdly, the integration of Q into both the “longer” Synoptic Gos-
pels increased the proportion of sayings at the expense of the narratives,
and helped to integrate several Judaeo-Christian groups into mainstream
(catholic) Christianity.
Fourthly, the relationship of Jesus’ story to the Law, the Prophets
and the Psalms was developed. It was not simply an example of inter-
textuality, but it influenced the whole structure of the Gospels accord-
7. The other canonical Gospels 163
ing to Luke and Matthew. In Luke, the first chapter (80 verses!) repre-
sents the Jewish prehistory of the Christian Church – the time of mes-
sianic expectation. In Matthew, Jesus’ story unfolds continually as a ful-
filment of the recollected prophetic promises (Matt 1:22 f.; 2:15, 17 f.,
23; 4:14 – 16; 8:17; 12:17 – 21; 13:35; 21:4 f. and 27:9; cf. 2:5; 3:3 and
13:14).
To sum up: The Gospels developed as a literary (sub)genre follow-
ing the inner tendencies of the genre of biography and according to the
needs of the Christian communities. The Easter gospel was preserved
and emphasised, but the innovations did not follow the literary scheme
of Mark. Instructions for the Christian life, wisdom, and a far-reaching
reflection on Jesus’ role in human salvation all made the formulae of the
Easter faith less noticeable in the text as a whole.
As a consequence it was necessary to preserve the formulae as a sep-
arate part of the liturgy and develop them into the early Christian con-
fessions or summaries of faith, as for example in Ignatius’ letter to the
church at Tralles 9:
“Be deaf when anyone speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ.
Who was of the stock of David,
Who was from Mary,
Who was truly born, ate and drank,
was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate,
was truly crucified and died
in the sight of beings heavenly, earthly and under the earth.
Who was also truly raised from death, His Father raised Him…”310
See also an expanded confession /regula fidei/ in Tertullian De praescr. 13,
and, later, in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan or the Apostolic Creed.311
They are all developed from the earliest formulae of the oral gospel (es-
pecially 1 Cor 15:3b-5 and Rom 1:3 – 4), except for the fact that the
witnesses are not listed as they are in 1 Cor 15. This item was incorpo-
rated into the narratives dealing with the post-Easter appearances in the
literary Gospels.
In spite of these observations, we can still sketch the developments
of the other canonical Gospels from the point of view of the Easter gos-
pel. They confirm that the Markan heritage was still alive, even though
their Gospels did not follow the Markan structure.
310 Translation quoted from J. B. Lightfoot, quoted by J. N. D. Kelly Early Chris-

tian Creeds, ch. III, 2.
311 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, from ch. III on.
7.1 The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles312
As has been mentioned, Luke expanded the Markan pattern and includ-
ed Jesus’ prehistory and birth on the one hand (the beginning) and the
appearances of the Risen Lord on the other (the end of the Gospel).
And not only that, but he also wrote a second book, the Acts of the
Apostles, dealing with the first and ideal answer (reaction) to the procla-
mation of the Christian message. This was experienced as Jesus’ work
through the Holy Spirit. Luke did not use the term euangelion, but
only the verb euangelizoma, most probably because he intended to
avoid political misunderstanding. At the same time, he stressed the con-
tinuity between Jesus and the Easter gospel by writing about the procla-
mation of the kingdom of God in the first Christian generation until the
end of the Book of Acts in 28:31.
Attaching the Acts was an important step in the development of the
Christian liturgical texts. The Easter gospel mentioned the resurrection
(of Jesus) as an event of the past, which created a precondition for the
development of a reflected theological view of history as a series of
events between Jesus’ resurrection and the Age to Come. This was a
clear refusal of the dualistic, a-cosmic understanding of the Christian
message as it was later developed by Gnosticism. At the end of the
19th century the German Franz Overbeck stressed the otherness of
Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God and of the early Christian
eschatology. According to him, the church adapted the gospel to the de-
mands of the world. But his concept of the biblical teaching as the eter-
nal truths (Urwahrheiten) was in fact close to the dualistic refusal of the
world, so that Luke’s decision to demonstrate the connection of the
“Word” of Christian proclamation with history (Luke 1:1 – 3) and to
add the Acts to the Gospel of Luke was for him “a scandal of world-
historical dimensions” (“Taktlosigkeit von welthistorischen Dimensio-
nen”) which failed totally.313 In fact he denied that the incarnation
was an integral part of the Easter message and his position (in spite of
some elements of authentic criticism) was quite close to the Gnostic
one. For Jesus as well as for Paul, faith with its eschatological horizon
was supposed to have an impact on history, to motivate decisions in
the present.
312 See P. Pokorný, Theologie der lukanischen Schriften, especially chapters 3 and 4.
313 F. Overbeck, Christentum und Kultur, 78.
7.1 The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles 165
Luke documented in narrative form how after Easter the emphasis

shifted from the future, from what is being expected, to the past, to
what is being attested. Jesus, who was supposed to bring to an end,
sooner or later, “this age” (human history) (Acts 3:21), moved to the
centre of the two-volume opus of Luke: the Easter gospel concludes
the Gospel of Luke and opens the Acts of the Apostles. Thus Jesus
moved into the centre of history. The later chronology post Christum
(A.D. introduced in the sixth century) and its analogical extension
into the period ante Christum (B.C. introduced in the 18th century)
was indirectly derived from this Lukan theological view of history. It
was Hans Conzelmann from Göttingen (Germany) who described this
theological shift in his monograph published originally in 1953 under
the title Die Mitte der Zeit (“The Centre of Time,” English translation
Theology of St. Luke). It was one of the first studies of the “Redaction
History” school that revealed the pioneering work of Luke.
The fact that the time of Jesus (from his birth until his death on the
cross) is the key period of history was stressed by the consistent use of
“today” or “this day” (sēmeron) in sayings related to the presence of
Jesus on earth: it relates to a “today” that belonged to the past in the
time of Luke, but it is the “today” of Jesus as the Risen Lord, the
“today” that impacts the present day of every reader of the Gospel,
the time segment that anticipates and includes the future: “I am bringing
you good news (euangelizomai) .. .to you is born today…a Saviour”
(Luke 2:10 – 11); “Today the scripture is fulfilled in your hearing”
(4:21); “Today salvation has come to this house” (19:9; cf. 19:5);
“today you will be with me in Paradise” (23:43). The unique today of
Jesus’ presence impacts later history on special occasions that in Luke
are marked by the word “daily” (kath’ hēmeran): “Daily…they broke
bread at home” (Act 2:46 – common meals, the Eucharist); “Daily
the Lord added to their number those who were being saved” (Acts
2:47; 16:5 – mission); problems of daily (kathēmerinos) food (Acts 6:1
– service); “daily examined the scriptures” (Acts 17:11);“(Paul) argued
in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons and also in
the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there” (Acts
17:17 – the proclamation of the gospel); the followers of Jesus have
to “take up their cross daily and follow him” (Luke 9:23 – self-denial);
and “give us daily (kath’ hēmeran) our daily (epoiusios) bread (Luke 11:3).
In the Matthean version of the Lord’s Prayer we read “today”, but since
the Lord’s Prayer is prayed repeatedly even after Jesus’ death, Luke pre-
ferred “daily” in order that “today” could be preserved for the time of
Jesus’ presence.
This is a small piece of evidence about Luke’s literary and theolog-
ical strategy, defining the specific role of Jesus’ earthly story as the de-
termining element of the Christian proclamation. It is a time that has to
be remembered, and still it is the time, the period of time anticipating
the future, which means the full presence of the kingdom of God, pro-
claimed and represented by Jesus, that impacts the everyday life of those
who take this prospect seriously. As for Jewish history, theologically
shaped in the Law and Prophets, it is, according to Luke, the pre-history
of the time of Jesus – the centre of history.314
Since “daily” relates to the life of Jesus’ people, i. e. the Church, we
can see that it is effective in social life. Until now it has applied mostly to
the ecclesiastical setting, but for Luke this is valid for the whole of soci-
ety. In Acts 17:28 Paul says that all of us are the family of the one God
“who will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has ap-
pointed and raised from the dead” (verses 29 – 31). Here the resurrection
confirms the global validity of Jesus’ life, his behaviour and teaching,
and becomes the key not only to individual hope but also to all the pres-
ent age – human history in its social dimension.
Luke quotes the sayings about the sacrificial death of Jesus used in
the liturgy. In the Lukan version of the institution of the Lord’s Supper
Jesus signals the sacrificial meaning of his death twice: “… (the bread) is
my body which is given for you … This cup that is poured out for you
is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:19 – 20); “… the church of
God … he obtained with the blood of his own Son” (Acts 20:28).
However, in most places Luke tried to interpret it: instead of the saying
in Mark 10:45, where we read about the Son of Man who “came not to
be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” we read
in Luke: “For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who
serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who
serves” (Luke 22:27). The metaphor of sacrifice is interpreted as the ex-
treme example of service. The saying “the Son of Man came”, corre-
sponding to Mark 10:45, has a different wording in Luke 19:10: “For
the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost.” Death and res-
urrection are not doubted, but the soteriological function is concentrat-
ed in Jesus’ life as a social pro-existence.
314 R. von Bendemann, Zwischen DONA und STAUPOS, 409 ff.

7.1 The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles 167
The gospel of death and resurrection was interpreted by Paul in

Rom 6 as the basis for a change in Jesus’ followers: “dying with”
Jesus Christ in baptism means “dying to sin” and living a new life. It
is a life with the prospect of being united with him in a resurrection
like his. Luke re-interpreted this version of the gospel in order that it
might be understandable to his Greek readers, who were not familiar
with the temple cult of Israel and suspected that the sacrificial images
promoted bloody rituals. The well-known parable of the Prodigal
Son (Luke 15:11 – 32) is a parable of Jesus that Luke extended and
adapted in order that it might express his re-interpretation of the Pauline
soteriology.
The younger son of a Jewish father, obviously a farmer, intends to
leave home and go to a distant country. This was considered his fault,
but, in the inner logic of the parable, it is still considered to be normal.
The Father gives the son a share of his property and the son collected it
(obviously in the form of money) and left the country. Since money is a
transportable way of representing value, he was able to live from the
gifts of his father even in a pagan and urban civilisation. Where he
erred was in irresponsibly squandering the property. Instead of increas-
ing the property (cf. Luke 19:11 – 27), he lost it because of his “dissolute
living” (i. e. living contrary to a life according to wisdom – Prov 29:3b).
This can be called the “alienation” of the son. The coming of a famine
represents a time of crisis as in many other instances in the Bible (e. g.
Gen 41:53 – 45:28; Acts 11:27 – 30). The prodigal son was humiliated,
since the only work he had was to feed the pigs (unclean animals for
a Jew) and the pigs were better off than he. An exaggerated story dem-
onstrating that the son sank below human standards. Death was his only
prospect: “I am dying of hunger” (15:17). He realised this at the mo-
ment when he remembered the different model of life in his father’s
house: even the least of the hired hands had enough bread there (an al-
lusion to the Lord’s Prayer). This was the moment when he overcame
his alienation (“When he came to himself” – verse 17a) and decided to
get up and go to his father. His intended confession “Father, I have sin-
ned against heaven and before you” connects the level of the parable as a
story and a real situation: in the parable the father plays the role of the
heavenly Father. As the son was on his way home, the situation
changed. He was still “far off” (Gr. makran) which in Luke always refers
to a pagan country, when the father came to meet him and, full of com-
passion, kissed him and accepted him as his son again. The forgiveness
came before the confession of sins. How is it possible that the father ap-
peared “far off”? It is possible because the one who has compassion on
his lost son is the heavenly Father, omniscient and omnipresent.
In the Gospel of Luke, the prodigal son, who in Jesus’ parable was
an alienated Jew, represents Christians who have a pagan origin and
have forgotten that they are sons of the heavenly Father, for whom
all human beings are his children (see Acts 17:28). By contrast, the
older son, who became angry and refused to come home, represents a
Jewish Christian who assumed that work in his father’s fields is the nec-
essary condition for belonging to the family. He did not realise what his
younger brother had experienced (“I am dying of hunger”). Yet the fa-
ther does not reject the older son; instead, he confirms the privileges he
has as a son, and reminds him that it is proper to celebrate and rejoice,
since his younger brother (his brother!) was dead and has come to life. This
sentence is repeated twice in the story, in verses 24 and 32. This means
that it plays an important role as the key to the whole parable. The say-
ing in Luke 19:10 about the Son of Man (as the representative of God)
who “came to seek out and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10) suggests that
the story is reminding the reader about the gospel of eternal, eschatolog-
ical salvation.
The Easter gospel about the (death and) resurrection of Jesus (first
level) was interpreted by Paul as an opportunity for all human beings,
who have death as their only prospect, to be raised in the power of
God (second level). They have to die in baptism, preceded by a confes-
sion of faith. In this way their sinful body is crucified (destroyed) togeth-
er with Christ so that they may also live with him, i. e. spend the rest of
their earthly life in communion with him (third level). This is roughly
the argument in Rom 6:1 – 11. And Luke decided to explain this com-
plex event by expanding a parable of Jesus. The problem seems to be
that in the Easter gospel it is Jesus who plays the decisive role, whereas
here it is God himself. In fact God, who raised Jesus from the dead, plays
the key role in the Easter gospel as well. And Jesus does not play a mar-
ginal role in the Lukan parable. He is the teller of the parable, the guar-
antor of the authenticity of the image of God that is presented. He gave
his life for this image of God. And by his resurrection he was decisively
vindicated by God the Father.
The Easter gospel was difficult to understand for the pagan readers
of the Lukan work and this parable made it understandable. Although
it was understandable, it was the Easter gospel – the proclamation of
Jesus as the Living One – that made this parable credible.
7.2 The Gospel of Matthew 169
However, Luke did not use the term euangelion. What he did by re-
telling the parable of the Prodigal Son was – strictly speaking – to pres-
ent his understanding of the Christian teaching of salvation, which was
still called the gospel by other authors. It is indeed a development of the
Easter gospel, and the term euangelion or euangelizomai became a cumu-
lative term integrating human hope. This was the case at the end of
New Testament times (2 Tm 2:8 – 11 or 1 Peter 1:12, 23 – 25) and in
the first part of the second century, before the early expressions of
the Christian faith (step by step more clearly Trinitarian) spread in
Christianity.
7.2 The Gospel of Matthew

The Gospel of Matthew most likely originated later than Luke. In Mat-
thew’s time the Pharisees also dominated the synagogues in the diaspora
and the development towards the key role of the rabbinic office had al-
ready started. The Christians were not allowed to gather in the synago-
gues, but the memory of the common past was still fresh. They consid-
ered themselves to be the true heirs of Israel’s piety, but the Jews
considered them a sect (mı̄nı̄m). To legitimate their claim to be authentic
(spiritual) descendants of Abraham, the Christians had to insist that the
commandments of the Law were consistently fulfilled, in a way that was
better than that of the Pharisees: “For truly I tell you, until heaven and
earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from
the law until all is accomplished” (Matt 5:18). The contradiction be-
tween the “woes” directed against the Pharisees in chapter 23 and the
emphasis on the consistent fulfilling of the Law can be understood as
a kind of rivalry between two concepts of a consistent obedience to
the Law.315 In Matt 22:34 – 40 we read about the Great Commandment,
the Love Commandment of God and love of one’s neighbour, as the
very heart of the Law and the Prophets.316 Instead of a casuistic expan-
sion of the Law to meet the needs of the modern urban civilisation, as
the Pharisees attempted, Jesus, according to the Gospel of Matthew,
proposes radically reducing it to its very core in the Love Command-
ment. This was the true fulfilment of all the commandments.
315 For the situation of the Matthean community see U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach
Matthus (Mt 1 – 7), 67 – 70.
316 G. Theissen, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament, 103 ff.
Matthew, like Luke, incorporated into his work about Jesus the
source of sayings of Jesus known as Q. This is an important fact.
From it we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, Q and Mark
were the most important literary texts used by early Christians, as evi-
denced by the fact that they were used in two different Christian com-
munities, and the authors of both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of
Matthew used them together with other specific local traditions, differ-
ent in each case (SMt and SLk, maybe SLuke1 and SLuke2). Secondly,
both Luke and Matthew felt that these were documents which differed
in their genre and theology, and that it would be good to integrate them
into one literary body for the further development of the Church.
Thirdly, both of them recognised that Mark had to serve as their frame-
work.
The Matthean Jesus does not proclaim the euangelion. Where Mark
wrote about the euangelion as synonymous with the proclamation of the
kingdom of God, as in Mark 1:14 – 15, Matthew speaks only about
Jesus’ exhortation to repentance and his announcement that the king-
dom of God is near (Matt 4:17). And where Mark wrote about Jesus
“proclaiming” in the synagogues (Mark 1:39), Matthew speaks about
him teaching in the synagogues, proclaiming “the gospel of the king-
dom” and curing every disease and every sickness among the people
(Matt 4:23). This is a summary, which also includes the sayings from
the source Q in the content of the gospel as the teaching of Jesus.
This is what the Gospel of Matthew is centred around. He understood
all the sayings about the gospel (euangelion, euangelizomai) as being relat-
ed to the proclamation of Jesus, as was the case in Q.
On the other hand, Peter’s declaration about Jesus, which was con-
sidered ambiguous by Jesus as well as by Mark, turned into a full Chris-
tian confession in the Matthean parallel: “You are the Messiah, the Son
of the Living God” (Matt 16:17).317 As in Luke, the time of Jesus is al-
ready the time of salvation. However, unlike in Luke, there is no major
interruption between the “today” of Jesus’ earthly presence and his ac-
tivity through the Holy Spirit after the resurrection. Just before his birth
Jesus is announced as Emmanuel – “God is with us” (Matt 1:23), and as
a representative of God he is present among two or three who are gath-
ered in his name (18:20), and after the resurrection, as the last sentence
of the book, we read the words of the Risen Lord: “And surely I am
with you always, to the end of the age” (28:20 NIV).
317 U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthus 8 – 17, 454.

7.2 The Gospel of Matthew 171
Matthew is firmly rooted in Greek-speaking Judaism. His analogy to

the “Beginning” from Mark 1:1, alluding to Genesis 1:1, is the Greek
title that the first book of the Bible received in the Greek milieu: Biblos
geneseōs (The Record of Genealogy). The genealogy goes from Abra-
ham to the end of this age and extends from Israel to the believing pa-
gans and all of humankind. Matthew follows the scheme of the “history
of salvation” (“Heilsgeschichte” in German), but the narrative strategy is
more complex: the earthly Jesus commissioned his disciples to proclaim
the kingdom of heaven in Israel (Matt 10:6). This is an old tradition
about Jesus, who was expected to prepare Israel for the pilgrimage of
nations to Zion (Isa 11:10; Mic 4:1; Zech 8:22 f.). However, in Mat-
thew the disciples are commissioned to make disciples of all nations
only after Jesus’ resurrection. They have to baptise them in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them
to obey everything that Jesus had commanded them (Matt 28: 19 –
20a). From the beginning to the end, Jesus and his disciples proclaim
the gospel of Jesus. All three instances where Matthew uses the term eu-
angelion relate to the proclamation of Jesus. It is the same with the com-
missioning of the disciples right at the end of the book: they should
teach Jesus’ commandments, obviously the content of the five speeches
by Jesus in chapters 5 – 7, 10, 13, 18 and 24 – 25.318 The Easter gospel is
not explicitly mentioned. It is represented by the last verse: “I am with
you.” Jesus as the Risen One, as he is portrayed in the Easter gospel,
appears in Matthew as the guarantor of the gospel of his earthly history.
The last step in the history of salvation is sketched in Matt 25:31 –
46, in the parable about the judgment of the nations. All the nations (in
fact the people of all the nations, see autous in verse 32, not auta as it
would be if the nations as a whole were meant) will be judged. The
judge will be the Son of Man (verse 31) who, however, is later called
king (verses 24 and 40). The image relates to the kingdom of God, in
Matthew the kingdom of heaven; it is an apocalyptic image. The Son
of Man will sit on the (heavenly) throne of his glory with all the angels
(verse 31) and will judge all the people according to the deeds of mercy
that they performed to the least of his brothers (adelfoi elachistoi – verse
40; cf. verse 45): “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the
kingdom … For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and
you gave me something to drink…I was naked and you gave me cloth-
318 The sixth speech in chap. 23 is not concluded by a formal sentence about Jesus
finishing his saying of these words.
ing…” (Matt 25:34 – 35). Matthew may have identified the “least” with
the apostles and Christian missionaries, but it is still surprising that the
salvation of all the people is not decided by their confession of (Chris-
tian) faith but by their deeds of mercy, i. e. caring for the hungry, the
homeless, the sick or the imprisoned. These merciful ones will be like
the sheep on the right hand, the others like the goats on the left hand.
This seems to be an ethical concept of soteriology, different from
the Pauline understanding of faith. Nevertheless, the Easter gospel is
present in a less apparent, but still in a very important way: Jesus, the
Risen One, gives a special strength to those who confess him and are
baptised (see Matt 28:20). The Law, which is rooted in God and ac-
cording to which human lives are judged, is nevertheless the Law of
love and social solidarity.
Matthew transposed the kingdom of God into heaven. But still the
end and the aim of human history, the “content” of heaven, are the
deeds, events and relations arising from the Great Commandment in
this world, deeds of true humanity (Hellenistic filanthrōpia) directed
against the opposing alienation.
This parable is an exhortative text. It does not aim to inform us
about an eschatological division of all people into two groups. The
two groups are two options, and the intention is to invite every reader
and hearer of this text to live like those who are in the end on the right
hand side.
The universal impact of this parable is apparent. Christian faith and
baptism are, according to the Gospel of Matthew, the power to live hu-
manly in the full sense of the word. The moral content is universally ac-
cessible. Faith makes Christians pioneers of this attitude toward history.
Salvation means being confronted with the truth, which became a real-
ity in Jesus’ resurrection, as we interpreted it above (§2.2). And what is
saved, what transcends any given time, is the network of relationships
between humans and between humans and God – all of them defined
by the double Love Commandment.
Matthean theology represents a rehabilitation and reinterpretation
of the gospel of Jesus (4:23; 9:35). In a polemic against Pauline theol-
ogy in its secondary, inferior shape, it develops the theology of source
Q: “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom
of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven”
(Matt 7:21 /Luke 6:46/). When compared with Rom 10:9, the polem-
ic character of Matt 7:21 is evident. In Romans we read: “…if you con-
fess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God
7.3 The Gospel of John 173
raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” The assumed polemic
function can be supported by the fact that a similar polemic is also char-
acteristic for the Letter of James: “If a brother or sister is naked and lacks
daily food, and one of you says to them ‘Go in peace; keep warm and
eat your fill,’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the
good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” ( James 2:15 –
17). This is, as we mentioned, polemic against a secondary and inferior
Paulinism or its misinterpretation. Paul was sure that “faith (is) working
through love” (Gal 5:6). He would say that faith without deeds is not
faith. But still, the impression of faith replacing deeds was the shadow
accompanying the teaching of some followers of Paul. Pauline polemic
against the false interpretation of his teaching about justification by the
grace of God and by faith can be found in Rom 6:1 ff. By contrast, 15 ff.
documents a reduced ability of his theology to resist such a misinterpre-
tation.
Matthew tried to develop the gospel of Jesus, but the term euange-
lion that he adopted from Mark was not so crucial for him. The liturgical
titles of Jesus and the narrative of his story culminating with his passion
and resurrection and the continuing tradition of his teaching represent
for Matthew the backbone of the Christian tradition, his Gospel. The
death and resurrection of Jesus represent one chapter, even though a
very important one, in the history of salvation culminating in eschato-
logical fulfilment.
7.3 The Gospel of John

In terms of its general pattern, the Gospel of John depends on the Syn-
optic model. Its literary disposition in the pivotal elements of its struc-
ture is similar to the Gospel of Mark and is derived from it directly or
indirectly (via another Synoptic Gospel):319 Archē at the beginning –
John the Baptist – calling the first disciples – analogies in structure be-
tween Mark 8:1 – 30 and John 6:5 – 70 (feeding of the crowd – Jesus on
the boat – demand for a sign – discussion about the bread – Peter’s con-
fession) – Passion Story.320 The theology of the Fourth Gospel is, how-
319 M. Lang, Johannes und die Synoptiker, 342 – 347.

320 The thesis, according to which the general framework of the Gospel according
to John was derived from an older tradition, independent of Mark, was sup-
ported in commentaries on the Gospel of John by e. g. C. K. Barrett (ch. 3)
and H. Thyen; cf. M. Hengel. Johanneische Frage, ch. IV, 5 and R. A. Burridge,
ever, quite similar to the spiritual and dualistic theology of those who
did not share the gospel according to 1 Cor 15:3b-5 and with whom
Paul took issue in 1 Cor 4:6 – 13. The connection between Jesus’
death and resurrection and the future hope of believers does not seem
to play a decisive role. We do not hear any explicit polemic against
the gospel as expressed in 1 Cor 15:3b-5 as we do in the Gospel of Phi-
lip (NHC II/3; 56,15 – 20, see here § 4.2 – The religious situation), but
still, the sequence of the inner structure of the Easter gospel is not con-
sistently preserved: “Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word
and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under
judgment, but has passed from death to life” ( John 5:24). This is similar
to the soteriology of the Gospel of Thomas (e. g. log. 1 and 3).321
The integration of the Gospel according to John into the Christian
liturgical reading was supported by some explicit anti-docetic statements
such as the sentence from the prologue (opening hymn) of the Gospel of
John 1:14a: “And the Word became flesh and lived among us,” and by a
maxim quoted in 1 John 4:2 (and 2 John 7): “By this you know the Spi-
rit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the
flesh is from God.” Furthermore, the motif of remembrance that sup-
poses incarnation in time and space is also present in the Gospel of
John ( John 16:14).
However, even this maxim could be interpreted in a dualistic way.
According to Ernst Käsemann, the incarnation of the Son of God can
also be understood in a Gnostic way, as a witness to the inability of
the material world to prevent the divine power from penetrating the
material world, reaching the divine parts of human beings and liberating
them from imprisonment within matter.322 The dualistic and spiritual
theology of the Johannine writings is balanced by insistent exhortations
to social solidarity (1 John 2:10; 4:20 – 21; John 13:34). The docetic
impression fades as soon as we include the reader (hearer) into the liter-
ary strategy of the Fourth Gospel. However the docetic teaching is not
accessible to those outside the Johannine group because it is concealed
from them, but because they are lacking the faith. The experience of the
anticipated Age to Come is, in fact, inspired by the faith (the verb pis-
What are the Gospels? 220 ff. An independent origin for the main structure of
the Gospel of John is also assumed in the commentary by R. Brown
(XLVIf., LXXXII).
321 P. Pokorný, A Commentary on the Gospel of Thomas, 31.
322 E. Käsemann, Jesu letzter Wille, 31 – 32, 37, 39 – 30.
7.3 The Gospel of John 175
teuō) in Jesus as the exalted Lord. In such a view Jesus’ death is already a
part of his exaltation, the first step on his way up to the heavenly Father:
“When you have lifted the Son of Man, then you will realise that I am
(he), and that I do nothing of my own, but I speak these things as the
Father instructed me” ( John 8:28; cf. 3:14; 12:32 – 34). Both versions
of the gospel presented here are transformed and integrated, accessible
in one single present view: the world as God’s creation has become
alienated from its destination – it did not know the Word through
which it was created ( John 1:10). The love of God for the world
means that he saves believers for eternal life or, better expressed: the
community of the children of God is the core of the new humankind.
The prologue is a spiritual comment on the Gospel as a whole.323
Some of these interpretative comments on narratives and sayings
had already been included in the Synoptic Gospels. For example, the
self-revelation of Jesus as the Bread from Heaven ( John 6:22 – 59) is
a developed version of Mark 8:14 – 21 (the one bread and the Yeast
of the Pharisees and of Herod), the view of Jesus as a revelation of
God’s glory has its basis in the pericope on the Transfiguration (Mark
9:2 – 8parr.), and his unique relation to the heavenly Father has its anal-
ogy in the Thanksgiving to the Father in Matt 11:25 – 27/ Luke
10:21:22 (Q). The level of spiritual commentary on Jesus’ story be-
comes the principal dimension in the Johannine writings, and Jesus’
earthly story is present only as its background. Instead of a human
birth we read about the incarnation; instead of the death on the
cross, we read about the first step up to heaven. And still, the reader
hears about Jesus’ birth from human parents ( John 6:41 – 42) in Galilee
( John 7:41 – 42). The Gospel writer does not disagree. Jesus’ only reac-
tion against those who only see his human birth (only!) is that such peo-
ple are not touched by the Spirit of God ( John 6:44). The reader also
reads about the cross as an elevation of the Son of Man, of the one who
revealed himself as the Son of God ( John 20:31), and is identical with
Jesus of Nazareth ( John 18:5 – 6.7 – 8: “I told you that I am [ Jesus of
Nazareth]”). This is the hermeneutic key to all “I am” speeches of
Jesus. The Messiah, the Shepherd, the Truth etc. is Jesus of Nazareth.
This means that “John” intended to offer a profound spiritual com-
mentary on the other biographies of Jesus – the commentary was valid
and had a canonical authority only in connection with them.
323 See J. Roskovec, Prolog Janova evangelia, 126 f., Engl. summary 140.
Historically the Gospel according to John is a document of the

“other” verbalisation of the Easter experience later represented by the
Gospel of Thomas. However, it is connected with the Markan fabula,
theologically transformed and explicitly placed in the context of the
other Gospels. In the canon it soon became framed by the two parts
of the Lukan work in order that it may be protected against a dualistic
interpretation. John obviously assumed his readers’ knowledge of the
Gospel of Mark.324
The noun euangelion and the verb euangelizomai do not appear in the
Gospel of John and in its specific comments on the other biographies of
Jesus the pattern of the Easter gospel is not recognisable. The narratives
about Jesus are predominantly conceived of as an allegory of the eternal
Word. Only when included in the series of other biographies of Jesus
used liturgically (the Synoptics), could the Gospel according to John
be recognised as a Gospel – a narrative form of the Easter gospel, includ-
ing its beginning in the life of Jesus.
324 I. D. Mackay, John’s Relationship with Mark, especially 296 ff.

8. Early Christian Literature and Canonization
8.1 The Gospel as a book
It was a Markan idea to use the Easter gospel interpreted by Paul to
structure the narrative of Jesus – a narrative based on collected and se-
lected Jesus traditions that, in the end, helped to create the basic texts for
the Christian canon. In the Church the Gospels overshadowed the Pau-
line epistles and even the Law and the Prophets which, at the beginning,
had served as texts for Christian preaching (see the Christian presenta-
tion of Jesus’ sermon in Luke 4:16 – 30). The Gospels supported the crea-
tion of the Christian canon, they became the basic part of that canon, and in-
spired the shape of the Christian liturgy. The Gospel, originally a living
proclamation, became a fixed literary text that has to be applied to the present
day by means of a meta-text: a paraphrase, a sermon, a commentary, a personal
witness or a reflective interpretation. The basis and starting point of all interpre-
tation was, however, the canonised text.
In the canonical books of the New Testament the term euangelion
never denotes a book, whereas in the mid-second century this meaning
is gaining ground. A few decades later, a book about Jesus would be the
first one that crossed people’s minds when they heard the word euange-
lion. It follows that the extension of the term euangelion from the Easter
gospel to a book about Jesus occurred in about three decades at the be-
ginning of the second century. The main stimulus for this development
was obviously the use of the term euangelion in Mark 1:1, and so the
Pauline use of the Easter gospel was the godfather of the worldwide des-
ignation of the biographies of Jesus. It is a paradoxical fact: texts be-
longing to the narrative genre received their name from a message
that concentrated only on Jesus’ (death and) resurrection.
Where do we find the first traces of the extended use of the term
euangelion?
178 8. Early Christian Literature and Canonization
8.2 The use of the term “euangelion” in the Apostolic Fathers
In the First Letter of Clement (90 – 100 A.D.) to the Corinthians (47:2)
we read a reference to the “beginning of the gospel” (archē tou euange-
liou), but it relates to 1 Cor 1:10 – 17 and is motivated by the Easter gos-
pel. Paul addressed the Corinthians as their spiritual father who gave
them birth through the gospel (1 Cor 4:15). The “beginning of the gos-
pel” indicates, as in Phil 4:15, the time when Paul came and started to
preach the gospel. When quoting the sayings of “the Lord” 1Clem 46 ff.
(the word euangelion does not occur there), Clement does not mention
whether they are from the Gospel of Mark or from the oral tradition.
In the Letter of Baranabas (130 – 132 C.E.) 8:3 the gospel is the pro-
clamation of the 12 apostles allegorically portrayed through the twelve
tribes of Israel.325 The sacrifices on the Day of Atonement relate to
Jesus’ death (Barn 8:1 – 2).
In Ignatius’ letter to the Philadelphians 5:1(Ignatius died as a martyr
at the beginning of the 2nd century C.E.), we read about the gospel that
is like the flesh of Jesus for the author. This obviously means that the
Easter gospel (euangelion) represents the authority of the real (incarnate
and crucified) Jesus. The gospel is mentioned in 5:2 twice as the gospel
of salvation and the common hope that had already been proclaimed by
the prophets. This may be the gospel of Jesus, but from the way it is
used in Ignatius we understand that it is practically identical with the
Easter gospel once more. The same applies to Philadelphians 8:2,
where the gospel is the living (not dependent on Scripture [archeia –
documents, records]) proclamation of Jesus’ cross, his death and resur-
rection, and the faith that it evoked. Also in Philadelphians 9:2, where,
in addition, the Lord’s coming (parousia) is mentioned, Ignatius takes
issue with those Christians who would like to have the gospel attested
in the Scripture. Euangelion has the same meaning of the oral proclama-
tion in Smyrn 5:1 and 7:2. For Ignatius the Easter gospel acquired a new
function: it authorised the selected Jesus traditions, and as a living tradi-
tion it acquired a higher position than the Scripture. This means that the
Easter experience and the Easter gospel overshadowed or at least framed
the gospel about the kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus. Scenes from
Jesus’ life could be mentioned as euangelion. This use is similar to (and
maybe inspired by) what we found in Mark, where the proclamation
of Jesus is seen through the eyes of the Easter gospel (Mark 13:10)
325 F. R. Prostmeier, Der Barnabasbrief, 248 note 1.

and the Easter gospel is inseparably bound together with Jesus traditions
(Mark 14:9).
In Didache 8:2, a collection of Christian instructions from the be-
ginning of the second century (probably 120 – 130) 326, we find the
Lord’s Prayer in a version that is very similar to (but not identical
with) the text in Matthew and it is introduced as what “Jesus command-
ed in his gospel.” In Did 11:3 we read instructions for Jesus’ disciples
similar to those in Matt 10:40 – 42, but they are extended and applied
to communication with the early Christian apostles and prophets.
They are introduced as the “instruction of the gospel” (dogma tou euan-
geliou). And, finally, in Did 15:3 and 4 we find concrete ethical instruc-
tions probably inspired by Matt 5:22 – 26 and 18:15 – 35. In both cases
the readers are exhorted to do “as you have /it/ in the gospel” (kata to
dogma tou euangeliou poiēsate). The author of Didache did know the Gos-
pel of Matthew or some of the traditions used by its author327 and his
use of the term euangelion revealed that for him the connection of
Jesus traditions with the Easter gospel was already self-evident. The sin-
gular does not mean that he is quoting from an individual Gospel, but
rather that he is quoting a tradition related to only one source which is
Jesus, his life, his teaching, his death and resurrection, and that this tra-
dition about Jesus may be conveyed to him by a Gospel or by oral tra-
dition.
Some of the Apostolic Fathers knew and quoted the traditions in-
cluded in the Gospels. Under the influence of the Gospel according
to Mark (see “The beginning of the gospel” in Mark 1:1) all the tradi-
tions incorporated into the literary Gospels were subsumed under the
term euangelion. The Easter gospel was extended to take in the whole
life of Jesus. To put it another way, Christians started to use the term
euangelion for Jesus traditions not because it was originally used for the
proclamation of Jesus, but because Mark programmatically linked the
sayings and narratives of the earthly Jesus with the Easter gospel as its
presupposition and “beginning”. This means that the first pillar of the bridge
between the Easter gospel and the Gospel as a book was built at the moment
when Christians understood Mark’s intention and they realised that in order
326 K Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 79.

327 J. A. Kelhoffer, EYACCEKION as a Reference to ‘Gospel’ Materials, 17; for the
use of apocalyptic Jesus traditions used independently by Matthew and by Did-
ache see J. S. Kloppenborg, Didache 16:6 – 8 and Special Matthean Tradition,
especially 67.
to understand the gospel about Jesus’ resurrection we also need to know about
Jesus of Nazareth and his story. It was not built at the moment when they mis-
understood the opening verse of Mark and considered euangelion in Mark 1:1 to
be the name of the book. This is a later, important, but secondary meaning
of the term euangelion.
In the 2 Letter of Clement (a pseudepigraphon probably from about
130 – 150 C.E.) 328, the term euangelion appears only once in 8:5 “The
Lord says in the gospel” introducing a saying of Jesus – a saying similar
to Luke 16:10 and other sentences that we know as an addition to the
Parable of the Talents. The cumulative argument tells us that it obvious-
ly related to a book. Koester supposes that this may be a quotation from
a collection of Jesus’ sayings.329 In the ten instances in 2 Clem where the
sayings of Jesus are quoted (2:4; 4:2, 5; 5:2, 4; 6:1, 2; 9:11; 12:2 and
13:4), the gospel is not mentioned and in every cases the authority of
the sayings is derived from the Lord (kyrios). According to Karl Don-
fried, euangelion in 2 Clem 8:5 is the oral gospel in a broader sense;330
according to several other scholars, quoted by A. Lindemann,331 euange-
lion is an apocryphal literary Gospel. However, we have no concrete in-
formation about a non-canonical Gospel circulating in wide areas before
150 C.E. and, therefore, it is most probable that it is the Gospel of Luke
16:10 that is meant. In 2 Clem 2:4 we find a quotation of Mark
2:17parr. It is introduced as a word of the Scripture. The fact that ma-
terial attested in more than one Gospel is mentioned here would seem
to indicate the author’s knowledge of two or more books containing the
euangelion.
To sum up: in the Apostolic Fathers the gospel means not only the
Easter gospel, but, in some cases, it relates to the proclamation of Jesus
or a part of his life story narrated with regard to the Easter gospel ac-
cording to one or more (later canonised) biographies of Jesus – our
Gospels.
Justin Martyr, who composed his writings in about 150 to 160 C. E.
confirmed that euangelion denoted some of the books written by Mark,
Luke, Matthew, and John. He referred to the literary Gospels as to the
“Remembrances of the Apostles” (Apomnēmoeumata tōn apostolōn). He
was possibly inspired by the “Remembrances of Socrates” by Xeno-
328 The date is still being discussed.

329 H. Koester, From the Kerygma-Gospel to the Written Gospels, 372.
330 K. Donfried, The Setting of the Second Clement, 72.
331 A. Lindemann, Die Clemensbriefe, 224.
phon and the whole genre of memoirs. In fact, the Gospels should be
called “Remembrances on Jesus”, but because by the beginning of
the second century there were four of them, it is understandable that
they were called after their authors – apostles in the plural. According
to Luise Abramowski, Justin may have called the Gospels “remembran-
ces” or “memoirs” of the apostles in opposition to the Gnostics, who
doubted the historicity, full humanity and suffering of Jesus. In Dial
100 – 107 (100:1, 4; 101:3, 6, 8; 102:5; 103:6, 8; 104:1; 106:1, 4;
107:1; cf. Apol I: 66:3; 67:3) Justin mentioned the Remembrances of
the Apostles when commenting on Ps 22 (LXX 21), which describes
the suffering of the Righteous One (verses 12 – 19). In the Passion
Story of the Gospels – the Remembrances of the Apostles – this was ap-
plied to Jesus. In this way the Gospels provided arguments against the
Christian Gnostics.332 “Remembrances” means a conscious looking
back to the past which is graspable through memory and testimony.
Theologically it can serve as a point of orientation for the living Chris-
tian proclamation and the traditions about Jesus can serve as a frame-
work for the literary shaping of these remembrances.
We have already mentioned that memory cannot replace a personal
confession. However, it can be a means of checking on its authenticity
and help provide orientation in social life and history. This was of vital
importance for the early Church, since Jesus, his teaching, his deeds, his
attitudes or simply his life and death were the only norms for evaluating
what it meant that he was present in his Church (= what his resurrec-
tion meant). When we say that the memories of Jesus related to his
earthly existence, it does not mean that they were shaped according
to the rules of present-day historiography. The memories were recalled
through the eyes of those who also experienced his new spiritual pres-
ence after Easter with all its concrete and visible consequences. We
mentioned this in particular when discussing the influence of the Easter
gospel on the Fourth Gospel. The intentional remembering of Jesus was
motivated by the Easter experience and it helped Christians to over-
come crises and misinterpretations. According to Justin’s 1 Apology
67:3, the “Remembrances of the Apostles” were read (in Christian serv-
ices) together with the Prophets.
In our context, the most important fact is that Justin in Dial. 10:2;
100:1(quoting here Luke 10:22par /Q/ – Jesus’ saying) writes that Jesus
said it in the Gospel (euangelion). “Gospel” in the singular is related here
332 L. Abramowski, Die “Erinnerungen der Apostel” bei Justin, especially 344 ff.
to a narrative about Jesus including his saying(s). This means that all the
biographies of Jesus narrate various aspects of the one gospel. Only in 1
Apol. 66:3 does euangelion appear in the plural. There Justin explained
(in connection with the Institution of the Lord’s Supper) that the “Re-
membrances of the Apostles” were called the Gospels (euangelia kaleitai).
Even though the biographies of Jesus culminating with the message or
narrative about his resurrection relate in fact to one and the same gospel
(the Gospel according to Mark, according to Matthew etc.), as books
there was in fact more than one of them. (We do not know how
many Gospels were known to Justin.) This is the most ancient explicit
evidence about the Gospels as books. In the time of Justin, it was al-
ready a tradition going back several years if not decades (“are called”).
The Gospels in the plural are always books. Justin never used the
term euangelion for the oral Easter gospel of the apostles. This makes it
very probable that in 2 Clem and Did, too, some of the quotations
were derived from individual Gospels as books.
However, the term euangelion was not commonly used to denote
Jesus’ biography before the last third of the second century. Although
Melito of Sardis alluded several times to the Gospel of Matthew in
his book On Pascha (Peri Pascha) 72. 78 – 79, dating from about 170
C.E., he did not mention the term euangelion at all.
8.3 Early evidence for texts about Jesus in canonised additions

in the Gospels of John and Mark
Before we proceed to the problem of the unified titles of the individual

Gospels, we have to mention two pieces of possible indirect evidence
about the two or more Gospels as books that were used liturgically be-
fore the beginning of the 2nd century.
The first one is in John 21, the chapter that was added333 after the
original conclusion of the Gospel with 20:30 – 31. It obviously still
333 A Coptic manuscript in which chap 21 is missing (Copt. E 150 (P) Bodleian
Library Oxford) has recently been described by Gesa Schenke, Die Erscheinung
Jesu vor den Jüngern und der ungläubige Thomas. Joh 20,19 – 31, in: Coptica –
Gnostica – Manichaeica (FS W. P. Funk) ed. by L. Painchaud/ P.-H. Poirier,
(BCNH), Quebec – Louvain – Paris 2006, 893 – 904.
This may provide text-critical evidence for the widely accepted conclusion
that chapter 21 was added later, which had been based on an analysis of the lit-
erary structure and theology of the Gospel of John.
8.3 Early evidence for texts about Jesus in canonised additions 183
had its origin in the Johannine school, which means not more than one
generation after the Gospel according to John had been written. Since it
used the story of the Miraculous Draught of Fish, included in all the
Synoptics in its expanded form as we find it in Luke 5:1 – 11, it is
very probable that the author – obviously one of the last teachers of
the Johannine School – had the text of the Gospel of Luke at his dis-
posal or at least in his memory. The differences may be due to a free
quotation and the fact that a story from Jesus’ earthly life was rewritten
as a scene from the post-Easter appearances. Motifs and relations from
other Gospels cannot be evidenced and the term Gospel does not appear
there. On the other hand, it is not easy to explain the parallels with Luke
5 as having a common source.334 The assumption of Theo Heckel, ac-
cording to whom the author of John 21 introduced the unified titles of
the Gospels “The Gospel according to XY”335 is tempting, but it is prac-
tically impossible to substantiate it. Nonetheless, John 21 can be consid-
ered evidence for the Gospel of Luke being used together with the Gos-
pel of John at the beginning of the second century.
The second text of this kind is the longer addition to the Gospel of
Mark in 16:9 – 20. Its text is not attested in manuscripts before the 5th
century. A quotation from it is attested in the Latin translation of Ire-
naeus’ Haer. 3,10:6 (the end of the 2nd century). However, one phrase
from Mark 16:20a “went out and proclaimed (the gospel, see verse 15)
everywhere” is reproduced almost word for word in Justin, 1 Apol 45:5.
(Only the sequence of “everywhere” and “proclaimed” /pantachou ekēr-
yxan/ is different.) The phrase was formulated in the language of the
Christian mission and used in a different context, but an inspiration
from Mark 16:20a cannot be excluded. Since Mark 16:9 – 20 is a com-
position of motifs from other canonical Gospels (cf. Luke 24:13 – 43,
50 – 51 and John 20:14 – 29), this quotation in Justin could reflect the
liturgical use of three of the Gospels in one area where Christian com-
munities were found (the province of Asia?) before the mid-second
century.336
334 For a discussion of this problem see R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John,
1090 – 1092.
335 Th. Heckel, Von Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, 207 ff.
336 See Th. Heckel, Von Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium,
283 ff.; J. A. Kelhoffer, “EYACCEKION”, 10.
8.4 Written Gospels
The first explicit notion of the Gospels as books (concretely Matthew

and Mark) was preserved in a fragment from the book called “Exposi-
tion of the Sayings of the Lord” by bishop Papias from Hierapolis in
Phrygia, written perhaps as early as 130 – 140 and quoted by Eusebius
of Caesarea (ca. 260 – 339) in his Church History (Hist. eccl. 3, 39:
15 – 16). He reported that Mark, a spokesman or interpreter (herme-
neutēs) of Peter, wrote down what he remembered (of Peter’s preach-
ing), but without “recording in order (taxei) the things said or done
by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him…..he
did not make any arrangement (syntaxin) …Matthew compiled the say-
ings (logia) in the Hebrew dialect, but everybody interpreted (translated?
– hērmēneusen) them as he was able” (Hist. eccl. 3, 39:15 – 16).337 We do
not know to what extent Papias did know the text of the Gospels, but
he presented an insight which has been corroborated by contemporary
biblical scholarship, according to which the structure of the Gospels was
secondary (see §5). He was also aware of the fact that Jesus spoke Ara-
maic and he ascribed to Matthew the gathering of the sayings (logia) in
his mother language. Unfortunately, he discussed only the intention of
the authors (editors) and did not mention the term gospel as the title of
the books of Mark and Matthew. Martin Hengel supposes that in the
time of Papias the titles euangelion + the name of the editor must already
have been common.338 It is true that in Justin’s 1st Apology we read
about the “Remembrances of the Apostles” that are called euangelia
(plural). However, Justin’s Apology originated later than when Papias
wrote his book and even if the books of the individual authors/editors
were called Gospels, there is no proof that their titles were already “The
Gospel according to XY.”
Papias’ information had a more developed parallel later, in Irenaeus’
book “Against Heresies” written about 180 C.E., in which all four can-
onical Gospels (but not the titles “The Gospel according to XY”) were
mentioned and all were denoted as Gospels (Haer. 3,1:1). According to
Irenaeus, Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews in Hebrew (!), Mark
wrote what Peter taught, Luke the disciple of Paul wrote the gospel that
he (Paul) proclaimed, and later John, the disciple of the Lord himself,
337 Where the text is quoted directly, it is the translation by B. M. Metzger, The
Canon of the New Testament, 54 – 55.
338 M. Hengel, Evangelienberschriften, 17.
8.4 Written Gospels 185
wrote a Gospel. The information given here is a secondary popular tra-

dition, even though the later origin of the Gospel of John as a whole is a
reliable piece of information. The concept of the Gospels as including
both Jesus traditions and the Easter Gospel (here under the common de-
nominator of the “gospel of God”) corresponds to what we have al-
ready deduced. We know this part of “Against Heresies” in the Greek
original through a quotation by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 5, 8:2 – 4).
Papias stressed the authority of the oral tradition and his comment
seems to be contrary to the increasing popularity of the literary Gospels.
We do not know whether he also knew the Gospels of Luke and John
and whether he mentioned them in the lost part of his text. The portion
quoted by Eusebius gives the impression that he intended to support the
authority of Mark in relation to Matthew, who was identical with the
apostle of the same name. It was the same with the Gospel according
to John. The Gospels that proliferated under the names of the apostles
originated (in the preserved form) after the death of the alleged authors.
The names of the apostles served mostly as guarantees of their author-
ity.339 That is why Papias linked the Gospel according to Mark with the
authority of Peter to support its apostolic legitimacy. The fact that the
Gospels as Remembrances of the Apostles were not all written directly
by the apostles was also mentioned by Justin in his Dialog with Trypho
(103:8), where we read that the memoirs discussed there were “com-
piled by the apostles and those who were their immediate followers.”
C.-J. Thornton340 demonstrated that “the followers of the apostles”
were the authors of the Gospels of Mark and Luke. Whether the alleged
relationship to the apostles had historical roots cannot be proved. The
fragment from Papias confirms that the Gospels became widespread
soon, within several decades, but their authority was still not fixed.
Shortly before 150 C.E., Marcion, an excommunicated Roman
Christian who rejected the canon of the Jewish Bible (the Christian
Old Testament) and founded a church of his own, presented his
canon consisting of ten Pauline epistles and one Gospel (an adapted
Gospel according to Luke). The text of Marcion’s canon has been
lost, but it can be partially reconstructed from quotations, especially in
Tertullian. It is important for us that he called the one Gospel of his
canon euangelion and did not ascribe it to any author (Tert. adv.
339 See e. g. Th. K. Heckel, Von Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangel-
ium, 99.
340 C.-J. Thornton, Justin und das Markusevangelium passim.
Marc. 4:2:3).341 According to Hengel, Marcion deleted the name

Luke.342 According to Koester, this was the first case of calling a biog-
raphy of Jesus euangelion and a “revolutionary novelty” which influ-
enced the later Christian terminology.343 Indeed, we have not found
any explicit evidence of the titles of the Gospels as we know them,
namely “The Gospel according to Mark,” “The Gospel according to
Luke,” etc., before the mid-second century. We know, however, that
some authors refer to the apostolic narratives of Jesus as the gospel (eu-
angelion). Justin Martyr also mentioned that there were several books of
the gospel – the Gospels (euangelia). This could not have been a devel-
opment of Marcion’s canon, which was published at about the same
time as Justin wrote his apologies, and the Dialogue with Trypho or
2 Clement were composed (and after Didache had been written).344
We also know the traditional names of the authors of Jesus’ biographies;
two of them (Mark and Matthew) were discussed by Papias. – Never-
theless, we do not have any earlier direct evidence about the use of the
titles “The Gospel according to XY.” This is a problem to be discussed.
8.5 The titles of the Gospels345

In the preserved codices the Gospels are introduced almost without ex-
ception as “The Gospel according to (kata) + the name of the author
(editor)”. This was quite unusual, even though it was not unknown346.
In 2 Macc 2:13 we read about a book (source) called “Memoirs accord-
ing to Nehemiah” (Hypomnēmatismoi kata ton Neemian) – a lost text that
evidently narrated the same events that are attested in the books of
Kings. The reason for introducing this unusual title may be the fact
that the lost book was written in Hebrew and this was a free translation:
kata may be a paraphrase of ašer l- = šel. However, this Hebrew phrase
341 A. von Harnack, Marcion, 183*; B. M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testa-
ment, 92 f.
342 M. Hengel, Evangelienberschriften, 16.
343 H. Koester, From the Kerygma-Gospel to Written Gospels, 379 – 381.
344 The so-called Antimarcionite Prologues to the Gospels cannot help us in recon-
structing the intention of Marcion, since they are of much later origin (4th cen-
tury), as J. Regul, Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe, proved.
345 For further information see M. Hengel, Die Evangelienberschriften, passim.
346 The evidence, mostly from the Middle Ages, was gathered by M. Hengel,
Evangelienberschriften 9, note 8.
8.5 The titles of the Gospels 187
mostly expresses the authorship (see Neh 6:17 or Cant 1:1). So far as the
use of this term in the titles of the Gospels is concerned, we know al-
most for certain that it expressed the fact that the Gospel writers were
not direct authors and that there was only one gospel: the Easter gospel
together with its “beginning” – Jesus’ story and sayings. Therefore the
different Gospel writers are in fact not the authors, but rather the edi-
tors. According to Theodor Zahn, the unusual title cannot be interpret-
ed as “The Gospel (as a book written) by XY” but only as “The (only
one) gospel according to the presentation by XY.”347 The gospel (euan-
gelion) is the norm to which the Gospel writer has to adhere.348 That is
why some of the Apostolic Fathers, when quoting the sayings of Jesus
or alluding to his story, spoke only about the gospel (euangelion in the
singular), even if they got the information from one or other of the
Gospels as books.
“According to” (kata) does not affirm authorship, but rather stresses
the common content and conformity to a literary type (subgenre) of the
texts edited by the individual Gospel writers.349 The uniformity of the
titles supports the conclusion that they were added later and, at least
for the two earliest of them, at the same time.350 Something similar
was attested later in some of the manuscripts of the Greek Bible. The
Septuagint had the subtitle hē palaia diathēkē kata tous hebdomēkonta, as
opposed to the later translations (radically reworked editions) according
to (kata) Theodotion, Aquila or Symmachus.351 The preposition kata
was often used in this specific sense. The kata relates in this case to
the various translations of the same text, not to the various literary wit-
nesses about the same story as was the case with the Gospels. The claim
to direct authorship was expressed by a genitive construction (genitivus
auctoris: e. g. Sofia Solōmōnos) in the Septuagint or Apokalypsis Iōannou
in the New Testament.
347 Th. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthus, 6. His statement is supported by A. von
Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 681 f. and M. Hengel, Evangelien-
berschriften, 9.
348 Th. K. Heckel, Von Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, 313,
especially note 444.
349 Cf. R. Burridge, What are the Gospels, 192 f.
350 E. Lohse, Vom einen Evangelium zu den vier Evangelien, 71, note 50. Th.
Heckel, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, 208 f.; M.
Hengel, Evangelienberschriften, 47 ff., supposes that such titles were used from
the very beginning.
351 See M. Hengel, The Four Gospels, 49.
What we have said about the identical structure of the titles of the
four Gospels means that these titles must have originated when at least
two of the Gospels had already not only been written, but had also
spread in wide areas of early Christianity, and therefore it was necessary
to differentiate them from each other, especially on the bookshelves of
the Christian communities.352 They must have originated according to a
specific intention and in one place. The Gospels could earlier have been
referred to by the opening sentence (incipit), which was sometimes in-
tended as a title summarising the content: “The Beginning of the gos-
pel” – Mark 1:1; or as a title derived from the opening sentence “In the
Beginning was the Word” – John 1:1 or “The Book of Genesis of Jesus
the Messiah” – Matt 1:1; or by using a name derived from it (“The First
Book to Theophilus”) in the case of the Gospel of Luke. But a short
title was necessary for a quick orientation in the scrolls (or from the
very beginning in the codices?) when the same community used
more than one Gospel. It was similar with the books of the Jewish
Scriptures. For example, the book of “The Vision of Isaiah Son of
Amos” (Isa 1:1) was according to Luke 4:17 just called the scroll of
the “Prophet Isaiah” or simply “Isaiah.” As for the Gospels, they
were mostly distinguished according to the traditional names of the au-
thors. This is the way Papias referred to them (see § 8 above). Even
when speaking about the Gospels as Remembrances of the Apostles (hy-
pomnēmata), Eusebius of Caesarea (at the beginning of the 4th century)
distinguished them from each other according to the authors’ names
(Hist. eccl. 3, 24:5 – 8). He used the terms Gospel and Remembrances
interchangeably, but the names of the authors enabled the reader to un-
derstand which text was meant. When we read the fragment of Papias,
we can see that the names were a sufficient marker.
The names of the authors were not included in the text of the Gos-
pels but they were attested in the first third of the 2nd century (Papias), at
least for Matthew and Mark. Mark and Luke are probably the real names
of the authors (editors); their identification with the persons mentioned
in the Pauline and the Deutero-Pauline letters was the result of a secon-
dary tendency to legitimate them by connecting them with well-known
apostolic figures. These identifications (Mark as identical with the Mark
352 The possibility that any of the Gospels were already referred to as “The Gospel
according to…” from the time of their publication cannot be substantiated.
One reason for this title is the quick identification of copies of various individ-
ual Gospels.
8.5 The titles of the Gospels 189
from Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37, 39; Phil 24; Col 4:10; 2Tim 4:11; 1Peter
5:13; Luke as identical with Luke from Phil 24; Col 4:14 or 1Tim 4:11)
may be authentic, but they cannot be substantiated. We have already
mentioned that the identification of the Gospel writers with the apostles
was of later origin. The texts that brought ancient oral traditions into a
theologically motivated structure were, at least in the preserved form, a
product of the second Christian generation. At the same time, it was
possible to legitimate such texts, especially the Gospels, by giving
them the names of the apostles, whose authority increased after their
martyrdom. Eusebius mentioned in Hist. eccl. 3, 24:7 that John decided
to write down his testimony only after the other three Gospels had been
written and used in public. This means that the Gospel of John took the
Johannine tradition as it was understood in the in the second or third
generation and integrated it into the Markan structure, which was
based on the Easter gospel.
The first explicit evidence of the title “The Gospel according to
XY” is in Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 3:11:7 – 8,353 i. e. around 180 C. E. We
may suppose that the preserved documents were not the first occurrence
of this special kind of title. It may have originated in the first part of the
second century. On the other hand, the short title kata Markon, kata
Matthaion (according to…) was attested in the parchment codices
from the 4th and 5th centuries (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) which included
all the four Gospels in one volume, and so the short title is understand-
able. These are Martin Hengel’s354 arguments. Nevertheless, we know
that Eusebius still occasionally spoke about the Gospels as the Remem-
brances. We also know from Papias that at least two of the four books
about Jesus were liturgically used, and they were denoted by the names
of Matthew and Mark, but without the term euangelion being men-
tioned. It is only Eusebius, introducing his quotation from Papias,
who writes about Mark as a Gospel writer. The connection with the
names of the four Gospel writers was, therefore, attested earlier than
their explicit designation as euangelion. It is very probable that Justin,
when speaking about the Gospels in the plural (1Apol 66:3) did know
the names of some of the authors of the canonical Gospels. But the
title “The Gospel according to XY” is not explicitly attested at that
time. This led scholars writing before the discovery of the most ancient
353 Iren. Adv. Haer. 3:11:8 is also preserved in the Greek original (kata Loukan). In
Latin the title is in all four cases Evangelium secundum XY.
354 Evangelienberschriften, 50 f.
(around 200 C. E.) papyri 66 and 75 including the full title of the Gos-
pel of John and Luke respectively (euangelion kata iōannēn; euan-
gelion kata loukan) 355 to the conclusion that the full title “The Gos-
pel according to XY” may have been introduced additionally.356 This
means that the thesis that the short title came before the longer one can-
not be entirely excluded, but Hengel’s conclusion357 is still more con-
vincing.
Nevertheless, it was not Marcion who introduced the title Gospel
(euangelion) for Jesus’ biographies used liturgically. His attempt at a
canon of his own can be better understood as a reduction of the
canon including the four Gospels in order that the Gospel tradition
might be adapted according to his ideas.358 The roots of the Christian
canon go back as far as Mark (see § 6.2),359 and some of the Apostolic
Fathers offer the first very probable evidence for different Gospels as
books.
It is not common in religious history for a religion to have several
liturgical (“holy”) books about the same person (the founder), or
about the same teaching. However, in the Jewish Bible we have a sim-
ilar case, with the two books of Samuel and the two books of Kings on
the one hand, and the two books of Chronicles on the other, both nar-
rating the same period of Israel’s history. Underlying this biblical prac-
tice of retaining more than one testimony of the same event or set of
events was the idea of independent testimonies as a guarantee of authen-
ticity (see John 8:17; cf. Deut 17:6; 19:15). The survival of the four
Gospels was not self-evident.360 It did not follow from the theology
of the Synoptics.361 Luke explicitly (Luke 1:1 – 4) intended to replace
the earlier Christian liturgical texts and Matthew intended to do the
355 Further evidence in M. Hengel, Die Evangelienberschriften, 11.

356 This was already the opinion of Th. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthus, 6 f .
357 M. Hengel considers the shorter version to be secondary: Evangelienberschriften,
11 – 13.
358 See M. Hengel, The Four Gospels, 31, 108 ff., 118 f., and e. g. Kehlhoffer,
EYACCEKKION 5. 13, as against H. Koester’s conclusion in his article
“From the Kerygma-Gospel to written Gospels.”
359 Cf. R. A. Burridge, What are the Gospels? 192 – 195.
360 See e. g. G. N. Stanton, The Gospel and Jesus, 125-135.
361 Th. K. Heckel, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, 104.
Each of the Gospel writers intended to produce a liturgical book for all Chris-
tians, even though they did not expect that their book would spread so quickly:
M. M. Mitchell, “Patristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim that the Gospels
Were Written for All Christians,” 77.
8.6 Non-canonical Gospels 191
same. He included the text of Mark without mentioning the source, i. e.

he (obviously in good faith) intended to include all the traditions about
Jesus in one book. As we mentioned in § 7, the Gospel of John was
written (or edited) as a spiritual interpretation of one or more of the
other biographies of Jesus. The last attempt to integrate the traditions
of Jesus was made by Tatian’s Diatessaron (most probably around
170 – 180), which succeeded in Syria only and was used for several cen-
turies in some regions, but the new Syriac translation of the four Gospels
(Vetus Syra) in the 3rd century started to gain ground over the Diatessaron,
which was soon abolished even in Syria. Marcion also falls into this cat-
egory. His interpretation of the gospel abolishing the Jewish spiritual
heritage was rejected by the mainstream Church soon after his attempt
to create his own canon.
This meant the definitive victory of the concept of a four-fold Gos-
pel (euangelion tetramorfon). From the viewpoint of a historian, it was a
compromise between the use of various Gospel books in different
Christian regions (and a possible split in the Church) and the use of
one integrated Gospel.362 However, Irenaeus (Haer. 3,11:8) interpreted
the existence of four canonical Gospels as God’s providence. His argu-
ment was based on several analogies in the realm of God’s creation like
the four cardinal points or, in the biblical tradition, the four creatures on
each side of the throne of God (Rev 4:6 – 8; cf. Ezek 1:5 – 14).363
Since the Enlightenment the comparative research of the Gospels
has become the basis of critical Jesus research. As the basis of the
New Testament canon, the four Gospels are a potential weapon against
understanding faith as an ideology and are theologically important as a
witness to the complexity of truth as revealed in history.
8.6 Non-canonical Gospels

In § 5.2 we have already discussed the Papyrus Egerton which may rep-
resent a non-Synoptic collection of several pieces of Jesus traditions.
It is a valuable document demonstrating that the Jesus tradition was
not exclusively transmitted orally, as Form Criticism supposed. Howev-
er, it is not a Gospel, even if the collector may have intended to create a
liturgical text. Since the material originated from various Christian
362 A. v. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur II, 681.

363 See E. Lohse, Vom einen Evangelium zu den vier Evangelien, 75.
groupings, it might have been composed as inspiration for an inter-

Christian dialogue. Mark did not include it in his book and most prob-
ably did not know it at all, but a similar collection may have inspired
him to write an integrative text on a higher level – a theologically ela-
borated biography of Jesus.
An important part of the Passion Story of the Gospel of Peter was dis-
covered at the end of the 19th century and several other fragments were
published in 1972.364 According to Jürgen Denker and others, the Gos-
pel of Peter was independent of the Synoptic Gospels.365 But their in-
terpretation failed to establish itself. A critical historical stratification and
literary analysis discovered elements (the secondary development of tra-
dition, introducing un-prejudiced witnesses, picturesque miraculous el-
ements) that are typical of the later stages of tradition.366 This applies also
to the Crucifixion Story, which has been considered the most ancient
layer367 of the preserved text.368 The Gospel of Peter cannot be consid-
ered as an alternative type of Gospel, nor even as an independent wit-
ness to the passion narrative. This does not exclude the presence of a few
individual motifs and small pieces of tradition taken from traditions that
were not accessible to the Synoptics. The Gospel of Peter originated in
the middle of the second century.
We know only a few fragments from the Judaeo-Christian Gospels.
The Gospel according to the Hebrews, mentioned by Clement of Alex-
andria (Strom. 2, 45:5), originated in the mid-second century. It may
have described the baptism of Jesus and his teaching up until his
death and resurrection. Theologically it is influenced by the speculation
on wisdom, and some of the sayings have a parallel in the Gospel of
Thomas. It explicitly mentioned the Gospel of Luke (fragment III)
and it obviously did not represent a model of a literary Gospel inde-
pendent of Mark.
The Gospel of the Nazoreans and especially the Gospel of the
Ebionites (both from the first part of the second century), quote or al-
lude to the Synoptic Gospels and in our context we shall simply men-
364 For the editions see Bibliography.

365 J. Danker, Die theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Petrusevangeliums, 58 – 77; H.
Köster, Frühchristliche Evangelienliteratur, 1488.
366 R. E. Brown, The Gospel of Peter and Canonical Gospel Priority, 329 ff.
367 J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus, Appendix 7.
368 J. B. Green, The Gospel of Peter: Source for a Pre-Canonical Passion Narra-
tive? especially 298 ff.
8.6 Non-canonical Gospels 193
tion them as examples of secondary developments of the Synoptic type

of the Gospel.
The other writings that called themselves Gospels, such as the Gos-
pel according to Thomas (NHC II/2), the Gospel according to Philip
(NHC II/3) and the Gospel according to Mary (BG II), have the title
“The Gospel according to ….” in a postscript. However, they are not
Gospels in the sense of biographies of Jesus, culminating in the Passion
Story and Easter. They include only some motifs relating to the life of
Jesus along with other traditions; they “usurped” the title “Gospel” in
order to secure their authority among Christians. The title “The Gospel
according to Thomas” that the editor used for this collection of sayings
of Jesus (NHC II/2), cannot be interpreted as claiming inclusion in the
canon with the three Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John, but
rather as the basis of an alternative canon used by the Thomasine com-
munity.369
The title of the Gospel of Judas (Codex Tsachos) uses the genitive
relation and not the preposition kata in the title at the end of the text.
The Gospel of Truth (NHC I/3) – a tractate originating in the second
half of the second century – uses the same genitive relation (in Coptic
peuangelion intmēe) 370 in the opening sentence; “The Holy Book of the
Great Invisible Spirit” (NHC III/2 and IV/2) is called “The Gospel of
the Egyptians” in the last paragraph (69,6 – perhaps added later); other
texts, such as the Gospel of the Saviour (Papyrus Berolinensis 22220),
are called Gospels only by modern scholars. All of them are documents
of faith interpreted in isolation from history – in a rather a-cosmic sense.
They originated at the time when the biblical Gospels were already
used in the Christian liturgy. These four canonical Gospels acquired
their authority because they culminated in the Easter gospel on the
one hand and accepted the traditions about the earthly Jesus as the de-
termining element for Christian orientation in human life and history on
the other. These qualities of the emerging Christian canon were not al-
ways displayed and the Jesus traditions were often almost forgotten or
misinterpreted. However, it remained a possible source of new interpre-
tations of the gospel, reforms and reformations, and new forms of direct
or indirect impact on society as a whole.
369 See P. Pokorný, A Commentary on the Gospel of Thomas, 12 ff.

370 The texts from Nag Hammadi, Codex Tsachos and Papyrus Berolinensis 22220
are preserved in Coptic translation only; however, the Coptic took over the
preposition kata from the Greek.
To sum up: most of the non-canonical Gospels have only a marginal

significance for our investigation. And their analysis comes mainly under
the history of Christian piety.
9. Conclusions
9.1 The gospel in Jesus and Paul
As the conclusion of the whole of our study, we would like to present
an overview of the role of the term euangelion.
Jesus, inspired by Isa 61:1, most probably used the Hebrew verb b-ś-r
(Gr. euangelizomai) for the main content of his proclamation of the king-
dom of God.
The Apostle Paul used the term euangelion in another sense: – to de-
note the formulae proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection. The teaching of Jesus
and his earthly life, in particular, took a back seat because Paul did not
build up his moral admonitions upon the model of Jesus’ teaching and
life, but predominantly upon his cosmic role as the incarnate Son of
God who descended on earth to save humankind. In the Jewish apoc-
alyptic literature “resurrection” was mainly an event linked with the
Last Judgment and fulfilment of history. In the earliest Christian view
Easter, seen as the individual resurrection of Jesus and his entering
into the “glory” of God, anticipated the pivotal part of the apocalyptic
fulfilment so that its impact represents the backbone of human history
through to its consummation in the Last Judgment and the resurrection
of the dead. Thereby Jewish eschatology (including the eschatological
vision of the kingdom of God) split into two poles: the attested one
and the expected one, the one that has been revealed in history and
its eschatological fulfilment. Euangelion in the Pauline sense became a
term expressing the attested revelation of God in Jesus Christ – his res-
urrection which guarantees the eschatological fulfilment. This was a
major shift as compared with the traditions about Jesus. – Paul adopted
the term euangelion with this new meaning from the early Christian Eas-
ter proclamation, but it was through him that it entered Christian liter-
ature and became the key term of Christian teaching and preaching.
196 9. Conclusions
9.2 Mark
“Mark” – the author of the earliest Gospel – was at least indirectly in-
fluenced by Pauline theology. However, at the same time he was aware
of the dangerous gap between the proclamation of the Easter gospel and
the Jesus traditions which survived partly as an oral tradition, expanded
to some extent in a popular style, partly in collections of sayings (Q and
several smaller clusters), and exceptionally in the liturgy (the Lord’s
Prayer, the Institution of the Lord’s Table, portions of the Passion
Story). In the first Christian generation, when most of the Jesus tradi-
tions were still accessible, the problem of the mutual relationship be-
tween these two tendencies within the Christian tradition was not yet
so pressing. However, with the massive expansion of Christianity into
non-Jewish regions, and with various new interpretations of the Jesus
traditions, the problem of these two tendencies became more immedi-
ate. – In the Christian liturgy, too, problems appeared: the Law and the
Prophets (plus the Psalms as hymns) were the Sacred Text, the Scripture,
but the authority of the Jesus traditions was not clearly defined. The
Easter proclamation was included and reflected in Pauline letters that
circulated in a limited group of congregations and were read in church
services as an admonition. Mark decided to write a book which from
the Hellenistic point of view must have been understood as a special bi-
ography of Jesus and from the Jewish point of view it indirectly claimed
the authority of a canonical text, beginning with archē (Hebr. re’št) sim-
ilarly to the book of Genesis (1:1). I say “indirectly”, because the Gospel
of Mark was obviously never introduced into the synagogue and the
only form of canonization it underwent was its use as liturgical reading
in Christian worship, and also because the idea of a New Testament
canon originated much later. However, the Gospel of Mark helped in-
spire the emergence of a New Testament canon in the first part of the
second century.
Mark decided to use the term euangelion in the sense of the Easter
gospel as the key term on which the overarching structure of his
book was based. The book describes the decisive part of Jesus’ earthly
life, but continually relates this to his attested new post-Easter function,
in the way that euangelion is expressed in 1 Cor 15:3b-5. The readers
(hearers) of the book are able to understand who this Jesus Christ was
who was raised by God according to the orally proclaimed euangelion.
The opening verse (Mark 1:1) was intended as the title of the book.
The story of Jesus is the necessary beginning (pre-history) of the Easter
9.3 Other canonical Gospels and the beginnings of the Christian canon 197
gospel, which appears at the very end of the Gospel in Mark 16:6 – 7 as a
proclamation. This means that the gospel of Jesus (Mark 1:14 – 15) also
belongs to the Easter gospel as its “beginning”. The gospel of Jesus and
his behaviour represent WHAT belongs to the eschatological future be-
fore God’s face, and the Easter gospel belongs to the gospel of Jesus as a
validation of its fulfilment. It represents the guarantee THAT it belongs
to the future. Most of the instances where euangelion appears in Mark are
related to the Easter gospel as anticipated in a prophetic way by Jesus
himself. In this way Mark integrated important texts from both streams
of Christian tradition. They had co-existed in Christian communities
before, but their interrelationship had not been defined theologically
and was therefore fragile. Through his book Mark created a Christian
text that was able to become a counterpart of the Law and Prophets.
This became necessary since (a) in the second part of the first cen-
tury, when most of the Christians lived outside Palestine, and at least
two generations after the time of Jesus, is was not commonly known
who was the Jesus Christ proclaimed in the Christian mission. The pro-
clamation had to be accompanied by teaching. Secondly, (b) the adher-
ents of Jesus had been expelled from the synagogue, which did not ac-
cept him as the Messiah, and the emerging church had to establish its
own liturgy. And since in Mark the gospel of Jesus is inseparably
bound together with the Easter gospel, it is understandable that after a
few decades the opening sentence of Mark’s book came to be under-
stood as its title and the book started to be called Gospel, and, together
with the other canonical Gospels, it acquired (around the beginning of
the second century) a new unified title “The Gospel according to….”
9.3 Other canonical Gospels and the beginnings

of the Christian canon
The other Synoptic Gospels incorporated into the Markan material the
source “Q” – the sayings of Jesus – and enlarged the Markan scheme by
adding the birth narratives. From the literary point of view their struc-
ture became more similar to the genre of biography, but the addition of
the narratives about the appearances of Jesus as the Risen Lord at the
end changed the model theologically. Instead of the “Beginning of
the gospel”, the Gospels of Luke and Matthew are in fact the “Begin-
ning of the gospel” + the narrated gospel itself.
198 9. Conclusions
This applies to the Gospel of John as well. However, John has re-
narrated all the material in his own language and from his theological
viewpoint. In his time the gap between the Pauline letters and the
Jesus traditions (see above §4.2) had already been bridged by Mark
and the other Synoptics, the term euangelion had started to include or
at least suppose the tradition of Jesus as well, and in the Christian liturgy
the Gospels were used together with the Pauline letters. The autor of
the fourth Gospel intended to present a new spiritual interpretation of
the gospel and, like Mark or Matthew, he intended to write a new
book of Genesis – of the genesis of Christianity (see Mark 1:1; Matt
1:1; John 1:1 and cf. Luke 1:2).
Already before the mid-second century, the term euangelion was oc-
casionally related also to the Jesus tradition, too, and, also from the same
time, to the individual Gospels as well. At that time the idea of creating
a Christian canon was shared by many Christian groups. Later they ac-
cepted the common titles “The Gospel according to…” for all the lit-
erary Gospels and thereby stressed the uniqueness of the euangelion. At
the same time this meant rejecting all attempts to use only one book
of the Gospel in the liturgy and to exclude the others – a tendency pres-
ent in Matthew and Luke, who intended to replace Mark, and later in
Tatian’s Harmony and in the single Gospel of Marcion (a revised Luke).
Since that time euangelion has meant the oral proclamation of Jesus’
resurrection as well as the books which also included the life and teach-
ing of the Risen One. At that time the proclamation of the gospel and
the teaching about Jesus ceased to be a sermon on texts from the Law
and Prophets and the literary Gospels became the “text” of Christian
sermons. And Christian sermons gradually became a topical interpreta-
tion of the literary Gospels. In the mid-second century the Christian
canon became fixed at least in its basic structure of the canonical Gospels
and the Pauline letters.
The theology of the Easter gospel and the literary structure of the
Gospels profoundly influenced the European and American concept
of history, ethics, eschatology, and also art, as has been demonstrated
in the sections on Interpretation and § 6.5: By-products of the Markan
concept of the Gospel.
Bibliography
Sources in Critical Editions (chronological sequence)
Euripides I Cyclops – Alcestis – Medea, ed. and transl. by D. Kovacs (LCL).
Cambridge, MS – London, England: Harvard Univ. Press, 1994
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deut-
sche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984 (2nd ed.)
Septuaginta id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, (ed. Alfred
Rahlfs). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1989 (2nd print)
Isocratris orationes I-II (Bibliotheca Teubneriana), ed. by G. E. Benseler – F.
Blass. Leipzig: Teuner, 1913
The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations,
ed. J. H. Charlesworth, vol. I and II. Tübingen and Louisville: Mohr – Sie-
beck + Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. 1995
Beyer, Klaus, Die aramisdchen Texte von Toten Meer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1984
Publii Vergili Maronis Opera, ed. by O. Ribbeck. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1910
The Critical Edition of Q, (Robinson, J. M. – J. S. Kloppenborg – P. Hoffmann).
Leuven: Peeters, 2000
Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. post Eberhard et Erwin Nestle, B. et K. Aland,
J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bi-
belgesellschaft, 1993 (17th ed.)
Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, ed. by K. Aland. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelge-
sellschaft, 1997 (15th ed., 2nd print) (includes Pap. Oxyrh. 840; Pap.
Oxyrh. 1224; Pap. Fajjum, Gosp. Pet. et al.)
Apocrypha II. Evangelien (KlT 8), ed. by E. Klostermann. Bonn: A. Marcus an E.
Weber, 1910
Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri, ed. by H. Idris
Bell and T. C. Skeat. London: British Museum, 1935
Dieter Lührmann, “Das neue Fragment des Papyrus Egerton 2 (P. Köln 225)”,
in: The Four Gospels – FS F. Neirynck (BETL 100) (ed. by F. van Seg-
broeck et alii). Leuven: University Press + Peeters, 1992, 2239 – 2255
Nag Hammadi Codex II,2 (includes also P. Oxy 1; 654; 655), ( NHS XX) (The
Coptic Gnostic Library), ed. by B. Layton with contributions by H. W. At-
tridge, R. A. Bullard, S. Emmel, W. W. Isenberg, H. Koester, T. O.
Lambdin. Leiden etc.: Brill, 1989; other texts from Nag Hammadi (The
Apocryphon of John and the Gospel of Egyptians) are cited according to the
vol. III. of the complete edition of The Coptic Gnostic Library). Leiden
etc.: Brill, 2000
“Zeugnisse für das Petrusevangelium,” in: Apocrypha I (KlT 1) ed. by E. Klos-
termann. Bonn: A. Marcus and E. Weber’s Verlag, 1921, 3 – 8
200 Bibliography
James H. Charlesworth, “Research in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,

ANRW II,25,5: 3919 – 3968; Greek text of the Gospel of Peter with Eng-
lish translation: 3936 – 3938
Plutarchi Vitae parallelae, ed. K. Ziegler, (Bibliotheca Teubneriana). Leipzig-
Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1959
Die Apostolischen Vter, Griechisch-deutsche Parallelausgabe, ed. by F. X. Funk,
K. Bihlmeyer and M. Whittaker, transl. M. Dibelius and D. A. Koch, ed-
itors of the parallel edition A. Lindemann and H. Paulsen. Tübingen:
Mohr-Siebeck, 1992
Codex Tsachos (TU 161), ed. by J. Brankaer and H.-G. Bethge. Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, 2007
Apuleius, Metamorphoseon libri XI, ed. by R. Helm. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner,
1968
Justin, Apologie pour les Chrtiens, ed. and transl. by Ch. Munier. Paris: du Cerf,
2006
Spicilegium Syriacum containing Remains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose and Mara bar
Serapion, ed. by William Cureton. London, 1855
Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and Fragments. Texts and fragments, ed. by S. G.
Hall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979
Irenée de Lyon, Contre les hrsies I-III, ed. critique, texte et traduction par A.
Rousseau et L. Doutreleau, (Sources chrétiennes 211). Paris: Cerf 1974
Origène Contre Celse II, (Sources chrètiennes), ed. M. Borret. Paris: du Cerf,
1968
Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe (Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen
Bibel 6), ed. and commentary by J. Regul. Freiburg: Herder 1969
Eusebius, Die Kirchengeschichte (GCS N. F. 6,3), ed. by Friedhelm Winckel-
mann. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1999 (incl. the quotations of Irenaeus in
Greek original)
Epiphanius, Ancoratus und Panarion (Kirchenväter-Comission). Leipzig: J. C.
Hinrichsche Buchhandlung 1915
Secondary Literature (alphabetical sequence)

Abramowski, Luise, “Die ‘Erinnerungen der Apostel’ bei Justin,” in: P. Stuhl-
macher (ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (WUNT 28). Tübingen:
Mohr – Siebeck, 1983, 341 – 353
Achtemeier, Paul J., “‘He Taught Them Many Things’: Reflections on Marcan
Christology”, CBQ 42 (1980): 465 – 481
Allison, Dale C. Jr., “The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospel: The Pat-
tern of the Parallels,” NTS 28 (1982): 1 – 32
Idem, Resurrecting Jesus. The Earliest Christian Tradition and its Interpreters. New
York – London: T. & T. Clark, 2005
Arnold, Gerhard, “Mk 1,1 und Eröffnungswendungen in griechischen und la-
teinischen Schriften,” ZNW 68 (1977): 123 – 127
Auerbach, Erich, Mimesis. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957 (German orig-
inal /1946/: Bern – München, 1977 (6th ed.)
Secondary Literature (alphabetical sequence) 201
Aune, David E., Prophecy in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1983
Idem, “Graeco-Roman Biography,” in: Idem (ed.), Graeco-Roman Literature and
the New Testament (SBL sources for Biblical Study 21). Atlanta, GA: Schol-
ars Press, 1988, 107 – 126
Baarlink, Heinrich, Anfngliches Evangelium. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1977
Barrett, Charels Kingsley, The Gospel According to St. John, London: SPCK,
1978 (2nd ed.)
Barth, Gerhard, “Zur Frage nach der in 1Kor 15 bekämpften Auferstehung-
sauslegung,” ZNW 83 (1992): 187 – 191
Barth, Karl, Kirchliche Dogmatik IV/1. Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1960
Barton, John, Law and Narrative in the Pentateuch, lecture at the Conference on
Hermeneutics. Prague 20. 9. 2009
Baum, Armin D., Der mndliche Faktor und seine Bedeutung fr die synoptische
Frage. Tübingen: Francke, 2008 (according to the review of W. Kahl in
ThLZ 135 /2010/, 47 – 49)
Becker, Jürgen, Auferstehung der Toten im Neuen Testament (SBS 82). Stuttgart:
Kath. Bibelwerk, 1976
von Bendemann, Reinhard, Zwischen DONA und STAYQOS (BZNW 101). Ber-
lin – New York: de Gruyter, 2001
Bergemann, Thomas, Q auf dem Prfstand (FRLANT 158). Göttingen, Vanden-
hoeck – Ruprecht, 1993
Best, Ernst, Mark.The Gospel as Story (1983). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988
(reprint)
Blackburn, Barry, Theios Anēr and the Markan Miracle Tradition (WUNT 2/40).
Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1991
Blumenfeld, Bruno, The Political Paul (ISNTS 210), Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 2001
Bonnard, Pierre, “L’anamnèse, structure fondamentale da le théologie chréti-
enne au 1er siècle,” (1961), in idem: Anamnesis (FS S. Amsler) (CRThPh
3). Genève etc.: 1980, 1 – 11
Boring, M. Eugene, Sayings of the Risen Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1982
Idem, “The Christology of Mark: Hermeneutical Issues for Systematic Theol-
ogy,” Semeia 80 (1985):125 – 153
Idem, The Continuing Voice of Jesus. Louisville, KT: Westminster – John Knox
Press, 1991
Idem, Mark. A Commentary. Louisville – London: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2006
Bornkamm, Günther, “Evangelien, formgeschichtlich”, in: RGG II, 749 – 753
Bouttier, Michel, “Commencement, force et fin de l’évangile”, RThPh 21
(1976) : 465 – 493
Brandenburger, Egon, “Gericht Gottes II-III”, TRE 12, Berlin – New York,
1984: 466 – 48
Breytenbach, Cilliers, Versçhnung (WMANT 60). Neukirchen Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener Verlag, 1989
202 Bibliography
Idem, “Grundzüge markinischer Gottessohn-Christologie”, in: Idem and H.

Paulsen (ed.), Anfnge der Christologie (FS F. Hahn). Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1991, 169 – 184
Idem, “Das Markusevangelium als traditionsgebundene Erzählung?”, in: The
Synoptic Gospels , ed. by C. Focant. Leuven: University Press, Peeters,
1993, 77 – 110
Idem, Grace – Reconciliation – Concord. The Death of Christ in Graeco-Roman Met-
aphors (NT.S 135). Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2010
Broadhead, Edwin K., Naming Jesus. Titular Christology of the Gospel of Mark
( JSNTS 175). Sheffield: Sheffield Univ. Press, 1999.
Brown, Raymond E., The Gospel according to John (2 vols). Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1966 and 1970
Idem, “The Gospel of Peter and the Canonical Gospel Priority”, NTS 33
(1987): 321 – 343
Idem, The Death of the Messiah I-II. New York etc.: Doubleday, 1994 (with a
survey of the reconstructions by M. L. Soards on pages 1492 – 1524)
Bryan, Christopher, A Preface to Mark. New York – Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press, 1993
Bultmann, Rudolf, “Zur Frage der Christologie” (1927), in: idem, Glauben und
Verstehen I (see below), 85 – 113
Idem, Jesus and Paul, in: Idem, Existence and Faith. Shorter Writings (ed. by
Schubert M. Ogden). New York: Meridian Books. 1960 (German Origi-
nal, “Jesus und Paulus”, Beiheft zur EvTh 1956, 68 – 90)
Idem, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, ET by J. Marsh; German original:
Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1921) (FRLANT 29). Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979 (9th ed.)
Idem,”Die Bedeutung des geschichtlichen Jesus für die Theologie des Paulus”
(1929), in: idem, Glauben und Verstehen I. Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1966
(6th ed.), 188 – 213
Idem, “New Testament and Mythology”, in: idem, New Testament and Mythol-
ogy and other Basic Writings, ed. by S. M. Ogden. London: SCM Press,
1984, 1 – 43; German original: “Neues Testament und Mythologie,” in:
Kerygma und Mythos, ed. by H.– W. Bartsch. Hamburg-Bergstedt: H.
Reich, 1967 (5th ed.), 15 – 48
Burridge, Richard A., What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-
Roman Biography (SNTSMS 70). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
1992, (1995 paperback)
Byrskog, Samuel, Jesus the only Teacher. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1994
Cancik, Hubert, “Die Gattung Evangelium”, in: idem (ed.), Markus Philologie
(WUNT 33). Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1984, 85 – 113
Charlesworth, James H., “The Fourteen Literary Collections for Studying
Early Judaism and Christian Origins: The Place of Odes of Solomon”,
in: E@ITOAYTO II (FS P. Pokorný), ed. by J. Mrázek, Š. Brodský, R.
Dvořáková. Třebenice: Mlýn, 1998: 185 – 207
Idem, “Can one Recover Aramaic Sources behind Mark’s Gospel?” in: Review
of Rabbinic Judaism 5 (2002): 249 – 262
Collins, John J., The Jewish Apocalypses, Semeia 14 (1979): 21 – 59
Idem, Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (The Forms of the Old
Testament Literature 20). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984
Idem, The Apocalyptic Imagination. An Introduction to
Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998 (2nd ed.)
Collins, Adela Yarbro, Is Mark’s Gospel a Life of Jesus? The Question of Genre.
Milwaykee, Wiconsin: Marguette Univ. Press, 1990
Eadem, “From Noble Death to crucified Messiah”, NTS 40 (1994): 481 – 503
Eadem, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish Christian Apocalypticism. Leiden:
Brill, 1996
Eadem, Mark. A Commentary (Hermeneia), ed by Harold W. Attridge. Minne-
apolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2007
Conzelmann, Hans, The Theology of St. Luke (in German. New York: Harper
and Row, 1961; German original edition: Die Mitte der Zeit (BHTh 18)
(1953). Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1993 (7th ed.)
Cranfield, Charles E. B., The Gospel according to St. Mark (1959), rev. ed.
CGTC). Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977
Crossan, J. Dominic, Four Other Gospels. Minneapolis, MN: Winston, 1985
Idem, The Cross That Spoke. San Francisco: Harper & Row 1988
Idem, The Historical Jesus. The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Fran-
cisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1991
Dehandshutter, B., “La parable des vignerons homicides (Mc XII,1 – 12) et
l’évangile selon Thomas”, in: M. Sabbe (ed.), L’ vangile selon Mark
(BETL 34). Leuven – Gembloux: Leuven Univ. Press – Duculot, 1974,
203 – 218
Deißmann, Adolf, Licht von Osten. Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1908
Denis, Albert-Marie, Introduction
la literature religieuse judo-hellnistique. Turnh-
out (Belgium): Brepols, 2000
Denker, Jürgen, Das theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Petrusevangeliums (EHS.T
36). Bern – Frankfurt: Lang, 1975
Dewey, Joanna, “Oral Methods of Structuring Narrative in Mark”, Interpreta-
tion 43 (1989): 39 – 44
Dibelius, Martin, (1931), “Das historische Problem der Leidensgeschichte”, in
idem: Botschaft und Geschichte I. Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1953: 248 –
257
Idem, From Tradition to Gospel. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1935; German
original: Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck,
1959 (3rd ed.)
Dihle, Albrecht, “Die Evangelien und die griechische Biographie”, in: P.
Stuhlmacher (ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (WUNT 28). Tübin-
gen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1983: 383 – 411
Dodd, Charles H., “The Framework of the Gospel Narrative”, ET 43 (1931 –
32): 396 – 400
Idem, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1936
Donahue, John R., “Temple Trial and Royal Christology (Mark 14:53 – 65)”,
in: W. H. Kelber (ed.), The Passion in Mark (see below): 61 – 79
Idem and D. J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (Sacra Pagina 2). Collegeville
MN: The Liturgical Press, 2002
204 Bibliography
Donfried, Karl Paul, The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity (NT.S
38). Leiden: Brill, 1974
Idem, “The Feeding Narratives and the Marcan Community”, in: Kirche, ed.
by D. Lührmann (FS G. Bornkamm). Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1980,
95 – 103
Dormeyer, Detlev, Evangelium als literarische und theologische Gattung (EF 263).
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1989
Idem, Das Neue Testament im Rahmen der antiken Literaturgeschichte. Darmstadt:
Wiss. Buchgesellschaft, 1993
Idem, Das Markusevangelium als Idealbiographie von Jesus Christus, dem Nazarener
(SBS 43) (1999). Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002, 2nd ed.
Idem, Das Markusevangelium. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
2005
Dornisch, Loretta, “Symbolic Systems and the Interpretation of Scripture: An
Introduction to the Work of Paul Ricoeur”, Semeia 4 (1975), 1 – 21
Dowd, Sharyn E., Prayer, Power, and the Problem of Suffering (SBL.DS 105). At-
lanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988.
Dschulnigg. Peter, Sprache, Redaction und Intention des Markus-Evangeliums (SBS
11). Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984
Dunn, James D. G., “Jesus and the Kingdom: How Would His Message Have
Been Heard?” in: Neotestamentica et Philonica (FS P. Borgen). Leiden: Brill
2003, 3 – 36
Idem, Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, U. K.: Eerdmans,
2003
Ebeling, Gerhard, Theology and Proclamation. Dialogue with Bultmann. ET by J.
Riches. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966 (German Original: Theologie
und Verkndigung /HUTh 1/. Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1962)
Ebeling, Hans Jürgen, Das Messiasgeheimnis und die Botschaft des Marcus-Evangel-
isten (BZNW 19). Berlin: Töpelmannn 1939
Ebner, Martin, “Evangelium contra Evangelium. Das Markusevangelium und
der Aufstieg der Flavier”, Biblische Notizen 116 (2003): 28 – 42
Eckstein, H.-J. – M. Welker (eds), Die Wirklichkeit der Auferstehung. Neukirch-
en-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag (2001), 2004 (2nd ed.)
Edwards, James R., “Markan Sandwiches. The significance of Interpolations in
Markan Narrative”, NT 31(1989): 195 – 216
Elliott, J. Keith (ed.), The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press, 1993
Idem, “Mark 1.1 – 3 – A Later Addition to the Gospel?” NTS 46 (2000): 534 –
538
Erlemann, Kurt, “Papyrus Egerton 2: ’Missing Link’ zwischen synoptischer und
johanneischer Tradition”, NTS 42 (1996): 12 – 34
Ettl, Claudio, “Der ‘Anfang … der Evangelien’. Die Kalenderinschrift von
Priene und ihre Relevanz für die Geschichte des Begriffs eyaggelion”, in:
S. M. Brandenburgem – T. Hieke (eds), Wenn drei das Gleiche sagen (The-
ologie 14). München: Lit. Verlag, 1998: 121 – 151
Etzelmüller, Gregor, “Ich lebe, und ihre sollt auch leben!”, in: H. J. Eckstein –
M. Welker, Die Wirklichkeit der Auferstehung (see above), 221 – 235
Evans, Craig A., Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation. Pea-
body, Mass.: Hedrickson Publishers, 1992
Idem, Mark 1 – 8:26 (vol. I); Mark 8:27 – 16:20 (vol. II) (Word Biblical Com-
mentary). Dallas, TX: Word Books, 2001
Feldmeier, Reinhard, Die Krisis des Gottessohnes. Die Gethsemaneerzhlung als
Schlssel der Markuspassion (WUNT 21). Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1987
Focant, Camille, “Une christologie de type ‘mystique’ (Marc 1.1 – 16.8)”, NTS
55 (2009): 1 – 21
Idem, Marc, un vanglie tonnant (BETL 194). Leuven: University Press. Peeters,
2006
Fowler, Robert, Loaves and Fishes. The Function of Feeding Stories in the Gospel of
Mark. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981
France, R. T., The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC). Grand Rapids / Cambridge, UK:
Eerdmans; Cumbria, UK: Carlisle, 2002
Furnish, Victor P, Jesus according to Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press,
1993, 11 – 13
Gerhardsson, Birger, “The Secret of the Transmission of the Unwritten Jesus
Tradition”, NTS 51 (2005):1 – 18
Grabbe, Lester L. and Robert D. Haak (eds), Knowing the End from the Beginning.
The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and their Relationship ( Journal for the Study of
the Pseudepigrapha, Suppelement Series 46). London – New York: T. &
T. Clark International, A Continuum imprint, 2003
Idem, “Prophetic and Apocalyptic: Time for New Definitions – and New
Thinking”, in: idem and R. L. Haak (eds), Knowing the End from the Begin-
ning (see above): 107 – 133
Grant, Robert M., Gnosticism and Early Christianity. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1959
Idem, The Earliest Lives of Jesus. London: SPCK, 1961
Grass, Hans, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1956
Gray, John, The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1979
Groff, Kent I. – see Scroggs
Guelich, Robert, “The Gospel Genre,” in: Das Evangelium und die Evangelien,
see Stuhlmacher, 183 – 219
Gundry, Robert H., Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans 1993
Idem, “EYAGGELION: How Soon a Book?” JBL 115 (1996): 321 – 325
Haak, Robert D. – see Grabbe
Hadas, Moses, Heroes and Gods. Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity (1965). Free-
port, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1970 (reprint)
Harnack, Adolf von, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius II (1893 –
1904). Leipzig: Hinrich’s Verlag, 1959 (2nd ed.)
Idem, Marcion. Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott, Neue Studien zu Marcion
(1921). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1960; ET: Marcion:
The Gospel of the Alien God. Durham: Labyrinth, 1989 (quoted according to
the German text)
206 Bibliography
Hauger, Martin, “Die Deutung der Auferstehung Jesu Christi durch Paul”, in:
H.-J. Eckstein – M. Welker (eds), Die Wirklichkeit der Auferstehung. Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener V., 2001, 31 – 58
Havelock, Eric A., Preface to Plato. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963.
Hays, Richard, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven – London:
Yale Univ. Press, 1989
Heckel, Theo K., Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium
(WUNT 120). Tübingen; Mohr – Siebeck, 1999
Hedrick, Charles W., “The Role of Summary Statements in the Composition
of the Gospel of Mark: A Dialog with Karl Schmidt and Norman Perrin”,
NT 26 (1984): 289 – 311
Idem and Paul A. Mirecki, Gospel of the Saviour (CCL). Santa Rosa, CA: Pole-
bridge Press, 1999
Hengel, Martin, Die Evangelienberschriften (SHAW 1984/3). Heidelberg: C.
Winter, 1984
Idem, Die johanneische Frage (WUNT 67). Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck 1993
Idem, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. Harrisburg, PA: Trin-
ity Press International, 2000, ET by J. Bowden; German enlarged edition:
Die Vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus (WUNT 224).
Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 2008 (quoted according to the English edi-
tion)
Hengel, Martin – Anna Maria Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Anti-
ochien (WUNT 108). Tübingen: Mohr- Siebeck, 1998
Hock, Ronald, F., “The Greek Novels”, in: D. E. Aune (ed.), Graeco-Roman
Literature and the New Testament (SBL Sources for Biblical Study 21). Atlan-
ta, GA: Scholar’s Press, 1988
Hoffmann, Paul – see J. M. Robinson
Hoffmann, Paul, “Von Freudenboten zum Feuertäufer”, in: U. Busse – M.
Reichardt – M. Theobald (eds), Erinnerung an Jesus (FS R. Hoppe) (BBB
166). Göttingen – Bonn: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht – Bonn University
Press, 2011, 87 – 106
Hofius, Otfried, “Gal 1,18: historēsai Kēfan”, ZNW (1983): 73 – 85
Holmén T. – S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1 – 4
vol. Leiden – Bristol: Brill, 2011 (continuous pagination)
Holtz, Traugott, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKK XIII). Zürich – Neu-
kirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag and Benzinger Verlag, 1986
Horbury, William, “‘Gospel’ in Herodian Judaea”, in: idem, Herodian Judaism
and New Testament Study. Tübingen: Mohr- Siebeck, 2006, 80 – 103
Horsley, Richard A., “Q and Jesus, Assumptions, Approaches, Analyses”, Se-
meia 55 (1991): 173 – 20
Horst van der, Pieter W., “Can a Book End with CAP?, “ JThS 23 (1972):
121 – 124
Iersel van, Bas M. F., Mark. A Reader-Response Commentary ( JSNTS 164). Shef-
field: Sheffield Acad. Press, 1998
Juel, Donald, “‘A Disquieting Silence’: The Matter of the Ending”: in: The End
of Mark and the Ends of God: Essays on Memory of Donald Harrisville Juel, ed.
B. Gaventa and P. D. Müller. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2006
Jüngel, Eberhard, Paulus und Jesus (HUTh 2). Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1962
Kähler, Martin, Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Chris-
tus, Leipzig: 1892, ET by Carl Braaten. The So-Called Historical Jesus and the
Historic Biblical Christ. Philadelphia: Fortess Press, 1964 (referencess accord-
ing to the German original)
Kähler, Wolf-Dietrich, Die Rezeption des Matthusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Ire-
nus (WUNT II/24). Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1987
Käsemann, Ernst, “Sackgassen im Streit um den historichen Jesus”, in: idem,
Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen II. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1965 (2nd ed.), 31 – 68
Idem, “Zum Thema der urchristlichen Apokalyptik”, in: ibidem 105 – 131
Idem, An die Rçmer (HNT 8a). Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1973
Karbusický, Vladimír, Anfnge der historischen berlieferung in Bçhmen: ein Beitrag
zum vergleichenden Studium der mittelalterlichen Sngerepen, Köln: Böhlen,
1980
Kelber, Werner H. (ed.), The Passion in Mark. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press,
1976
Idem, The Oral and the Written Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983
Kelhoffer, “‘How Soon a Book’ Revisited: EYACCEKION as a Reference to
‘Gospel’ Material in the First Half of the Second Century”, ZNW 96
(2004): 1 – 34
Kelly, John N. Davidson, Early Christian Creeds. London: Longmans, 1972 (3rd
ed.)
Kendel, André, “Die Historizität der Auferstehung ist bis auf weiteres voraus-
zusetzen”, in: H.-J. Eckstein – M. Welker, Die Wirklichkeit der Auferstehung,
139 – 163
Kilpatrick, George D., “Galatians 1:18 historēsai Kēfan”, in: A. J. B. Higgins
(ed.), New Testament Essays. Studies in Memory of T. W. Higgins. Manches-
ter: Manchester Univ. Press 1959, 144 – 149
Kingsbury, Jack D., The Christology of the Mark’s Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortess
Press, 1983
Kippenberg, Hans G., “Ein Vergleich jüdischer, christlicher und gnostischer
Apokalyptik”, in: D. Hellholm (ed.), Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean
World and the Near East. Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1983: 751 – 768.
Klauck, Hans-Josef, Vorspiel im Himmel. Erzhltechnik und Theologie im Markuse-
vangelium (BThSt 32). Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997
Klijn, A. F. J., “2 (Syriac) Apocalypse of Baruch”, in: J. H. Charlesworth (ed.),
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983,
615 – 652
Kloppenborg, John S., “Didache 16: 6 – 8 and Special Matthean Tradition”,
ZNW 70 (1979): 54 – 67
Idem, The Formation of Q (SACh). Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987
Idem see J. M. Robinson, The Critical Edition of Q
Idem, Q, the Earliest Gospel. Louisville, KT – London: Westminster John Knox
2008
Idem – see Robinson
Koester, Helmut, Synoptische berlieferung bei den apostolischen Vtern (TU 1957).
Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1957
208 Bibliography
Idem and James R. Robinson, Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frhen Chris-
tentums; English original: Trajectories through Early Christianity, Philadelphia:
Fortress Press). Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1971
Idem, Einfhrung in das Neue Testament. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter,
1981
Idem, “Überlieferung und Geschichte der frühchristichen Evangelienliteratur”,
in: ANRW II, 25,2, Berlin: de Gruyter 1984, 1463 – 1542
Idem, “From the Kerygma-Gospel to Written Gospels”, NTS 35 (1989): 361 –
381
Idem, Ancient Christian Gospels. London – Philadelphia, PA: SCM – Trinity
Press, 1990
Koschorke, Klays, Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das kirchliche Christentum (NHS
12). Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978
Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang, “Der irdische Jesus bei Paulus als traditionsgeschicht-
liches und theologische Problem”, ZThK 67 (1970): 295 – 320
Idem, ltere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (SUNT 8). Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck – Ruprecht, 1971
Labahn, M., “The Non-Synoptic Jesus: An Introduction to John, Paul, Tho-
mas, and Other Outsiders of the Jesus Quest”, in: T. Holmén – S. E. Por-
ter, Handbook for the Study for the Historical Jesus, 1933 – 1996
Lampe, Peter, Die stadtrçmischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten
(WUNT 2/18). Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1987
Idem, “Paul’s Concept of a Spiritual Body”, in: Ted Peters et alii, Resurrection
(see below), 103 – 114
Lang, Friedrich G., “Sola gratia im Markusevangelium”, in: J. Friedrich et alii
(ed.), Rechtfertigung (FS E. Käsemann).Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1976,
321 – 337
Idem, see Walter, N…., Die Briefe an die Philipper
Lang, Manfred, Johannes und die Synoptiker (FRLANT 182). Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990
Layton, Bentley, Nag Hammadi Codex II,2 – 7 (NHS 20). Leiden etc: Brill, 1989
Lindemann, Andreas, “Die Osterbotschaft des Markus. Zur theologischen In-
terpretation von Mark 16.1 – 8”, NTS 26 (1980): 298 – 317
Idem, Die Clemensbriefe (HNT 17). Tübingen: Mohr- Siebeck, 1992
Lohmeyer, Ernst, Das Evangelium des Markus (KEK I/2) (1937). Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1959 (15th ed.)
Lohse, Eduard, “euangelion tou theou. Paul’s Interpretation of the Gospel in His
Epistle to the Romans”, in: idem, Das Neue Testament als Urkunde des Evan-
geliums (FRLANT 192). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000, 89 –
103
Idem, “Von einem Evangelium zu den vier Evangelien. Zu den Anfängen ur-
christlicher Literatur”, in: W. Lehfeldt (ed.), Studien zur Geschichte, Theolo-
gie und Wissenschaftsgeschichte (AAWG 18). Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012, 53 – 76
Lona, Horacio E., Der erste Clemensbrief (KAV 2). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1998
Lüdemann, Gerd, The resurrection of Jesus, London: SCM Press, 1994 (German
original: Die Auferstehung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994)
Lüderitz, Gerd, “Rhetorik, Poetik, Kompositionstechnik im Markusevangeli-
um”, in: H. Cancik (ed.), Markus-Philologie (WUNT 33). Tübingen:
Mohr – Siebeck, 1984, 165 – 203
Lührmann, Dieter, Das Markuevangelium (HbNT 3). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1987
Idem, “Das neue Fragment des Papyrus Egerton 2 (PKöln)”, in: The Four Gos-
pels 1992 (FS F.Neirynck III). Leuven: University Press, Peeters 1992,
2239 – 2255
Lütgert, Wilhelm, Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmergeist in Korinth (BFChTh 12,3).
Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1908
Lukeš, Jiří, Raně křesťansk rtorika. (Early Christian Rhetorics) Praha 2009
Luz, Ulrich, “Der frühchristliche Christusmythos” (originally in ThLZ 128
/2003/ 1243 – 1258), in: P. Lampe and H. Schwier (eds), Neutestamentliche
Grenzgnge (FS G. Theissen). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
2010: 31 – 50
Idem, “Die korinthische Gemeindeprophetie im Kontext urchristlicher Pro-
phetie”, in: APOSTOLOS PAULOS KAI KORINTHOS II. Proceedings
of the International Conference. Athens: Psichogios Publications, 2009:
277 – 293
Idem,”The use of Jesus-traditions in the Post-Pauline Letters and Paul”, Paper
at the 3rd Princeton – Prague Symposion on Jesus Research in Prague, 2009
Mack, Burton L., The Myth of Innocence. Mark and Christian Origins. Philadel-
phia: Fortress Press, 1988
Idem, “Q and the Gospel of Mark”, Semeia 55 (1991): 15 – 37
Mackay, Ian D., John’s Relationship with Mark. An Analysis of John 6 in the Light
of Mark 6 – 8 (WUNT II/182)”. Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 2004
Magness, J. Lee, Sense and Absence. Structure and Suspension in the Ending of
Mark’s Gospel (SBS.SS). Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987
Malbon, Elisabeth Strouthers, Mark’s Jesus. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press,
2009
Marcus, Joel, “Mark 14:61. Are you the Messiah-Son-of-God?” NT 31 (1989):
125 – 141
Idem, The Way of the Lord. Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gos-
pel of Mark. Westminster: John Knox, 1992
Idem, “Mark – Interpreter of Paul”, NTS 46 (2000): 473 – 487
Idem, Mark 1 – 8 (vol. I); Mark 8 – 16 (vol. II) (The Anchor Yale Bible). New
Haven – London: Yale University Press 1999. 2009
Marxsen, Willi, Der Evangelist Markus. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evan-
geliums (FRLANT 67) (1956). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969
(2nd ed.)
Mayeda, Goro, Das Leben-Jesu-Fragment. Papyrus Egerton und seine Stellung in der
urchristliche Literaturgeschichte. Bern: Haupt, 1946
Merklein, Helmut, Jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft (SBS 111). Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983
Idem, Studien zu Jesus und Paulus (WUNT 43). Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987
Merz, Annette see Theissen, Der historische Jesus
Metzger, Bruce M., The Canon of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1987
210 Bibliography
Mitchell, Margaret M., “Patristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim that the Gos-
pels Were Written to All Christians”, NTS 51 (2005): 36 – 79
Moles, John, “Luke’s Preface: The Greek Decree, Classical Historiography and
Christian Redefinition”, NTS 57 (2011), 461 – 482
Neirynck, Frans, “Papyrus Egerton 2 and the Healing of the Leper”, EThL 61
(1985): 153 – 160
Niebuhr, Reinhold, The Meaning of Revelation. New York: Macmillam 1941
Niederwimmer, Kurt, Die Didache (KAV). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1993 (3rd ed.)
Nineham, D. E., “The Order of Events in St. Mark’s Gospel – an Examination
of Dr. Dodd’s Hypothesis”, in: idem (ed.), Studies in the Gospels (FS R. H.
Lightfoot). Oxford: Blackwell, 1955, 223 – 239
Noffke, Eric, Introduzione alla letteratura mediogiudaica precristiana. Torino:
Claudiana 2004
O’Brien, Kelli S., The Use of Scripture in the Markan Passion. London – New
York: T. & T. Clark 2010
Oepke, Albrecht, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (ThHkNT 9). Berlin:
Evang. Verlagsanstalt, 1979 (4th ed.)
Ong, Walter J., The presence of the Word. Some Prolegomena for Cultural and Reli-
gious History. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota 1967.
Overbeck, Franz, Christentum und Kultur (1919), ed. by A. Bernoulli. Darm-
stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1963 (2nd ed.)
Paffenroth, Kim, The Story of Jesus according to L ( JSNTS 147). Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press, 1997
Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Paul. Gnostic Exegesis of Pauline Letters. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1976
Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Grundzge der Christologie. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969
Perrin, Norman, New Testament. An Introduction. New York etc. Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, 1974
Idem, “The High Priest’s Question and Jesus’ Answer (Mark 14:61 – 62)”, in:
W. H. Kelber (ed.), The Passion in Mark (see above under Kelber), 80 – 95
Idem, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom. Symbol and Metaphor in New Testa-
ment Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976
Perry, Ben E, The Ancient Romances. A Literary-Historical Account of their Origins.
Berkeley – Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967
Pesch, Rudolf, Das Markusevangelium I – II (HThK II/1 – 12). Freiburg etc.
Herder, 1976 – 1977
Peters, T. – R. J. Russel – M. Welker (eds), Resurrection. Theological and Scientific
Assesments. Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U. K: Eerdmans, 2002
Petersen, Norman, “Point of View in Mark’s Narrative”, Semeia 12 (1978):
97 – 121
Peterson, Dwight N., The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current
Debate. Leiden etc.: Brill, 2000
Plisch, Uwe-Carsten, Das Thomasevangelium: Originaltext mit Kommentar. Stutt-
gart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007
Pokorný, Petr, “‘Anfang des Evangeliums’. Zum Problem des Anfangs und des
Schlusses des Markusevangeliums”, (1978) last ed. in: idem and Josef B.
Souček, Bibelauslegung als Theologie (WUNT 100). Tübingen: Mohr – Sie-
beck, 1997: 237 – 253
Idem, “Christologie et baptème à l‘ époque du christianisme primitif”, NTS 27
(1980 – 81): 368 – 380
Idem, “Das Markusevangelium: Literarische und theologische Einleitung mit
Forschungsbericht”, in: ANRW II,25,2 (1985): 1969 – 2035
Idem, “Zur Entstehung der Evangeliem”, NTS 32 (1986): 393 – 403
Idem, “From a Puppy to the Child. Some Problems of Contemporary Exegesis
Demonstrated from Mark 7.24 – 30/Matth 15.21 – 8”, NTS 41 (1995):
321 – 337; citated after the reprint in: idem and J. B. Souček Bibelausle-
gung als Theologie, (WUNT 100). Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1997,
69 – 85
Idem, “Die Bedeutung des Markusevangeliums für die Entstehung der christli-
chen Bibel” (1995), in: Text und Kontext (FS L. Hartman), ed. by T. Forn-
berg and D, Hellholm. Oslo etc: Scandinavian University Press, 1995:
409 – 427
Idem, Theologie der lukanischen Schriften (FRLANT 174). Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1998
Idem, “Römer 12,14 – 21 und die Aufforderung zur Feindesliebe (Q 6,27 Par.)
und zum Gewaltverzicht (Q 6,29 f. Par. und Mt 5,39a)”, in: Dummodo
Christus annuntietur (FS Jozef Heriban) (Biblioteca di science religiose
146), ed. by A. Strus and R. Blatnický. Roma: LAS, 1998: 105 – 112
Idem and Ulrich Heckel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (UTB 2798). Tübin-
gen: Mohr – Siebeck, 2007
Idem, A Commentary on the Gospel of Thomas ( JCT 5). New York – London: T.
& T. Clark, 2009
Idem, Hermeneutic as Theory of Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2011
Idem, “Words of Jesus in Paul. On the Theology and Praxis of the Jesus Tra-
dition”, in: Holmén, Tom – Stanley E. Porter (eds), Handbook for the Study
of the Historical Jesus IV. Leiden: Brill 2011, 519 – 549
Porter, Stanley E., “Resurrection, the Greeks and the New Testament”, in:
idem – M. A. Hayes – D. Tombs (eds), Resurrection ( JSNT SS 186;
RILP 5). Sheffield Academic Press 1999
Idem, Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research. Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 2000
Prostmeier, Ferdinand-Rupert., Der Barnabasbrief (KAV 8). Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999
Pryke, E. J., Redactional Style in the Markan Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1978
Von Rad, Gerhard, Theologie des Alten Testaments II. München: Kaiser Verlag,
1960
Rau, Gottfried, “Das Markus-Evangelium”, in: ANRW II,25,3 (1985): 2036 –
2257
Reichardt, Michael, Endgericht durch Menschensohn? Zur eschatologischen Funktion
der Menschensohns im Markusevangelium (SBB). Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel-
werk, 2009
Reinmuth, Eckart – see Walter, N…., Die Briefe an die Philipper…
212 Bibliography
Reiser, Marius, Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums (WUNT 2/11). Tübin-
gen: Mohr- Siebeck, 1984
Idem, Sprache und literarische Formen des Neuen Testaments (UTB 2197). Pader-
born etc.: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2001
Rhoads, David, Joanna Dewey and Donald Michie, Mark as Story. Minneapo-
lis: Fortress Press, 2012 (3rd ed.)
Ricoeur, Paul, Philosophie de la volont II. La symbolique du mal. Paris: du Seuil,
1960
Idem, “Biblical Hermeneutics”, Semeia 4 (1975): 29 – 148
Idem, “Toward a Hermeneutic of the Idea of Revelation” (1980), last ed. in.
Idem, Essays on Biblical Interpretation (translated from French). London:
SPCK 1981: 73 – 118
Idem, Temps et rcit, vol. I – II. Paris: du Seuil, 1983 and 1984
Robbins, Vernon K., The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse. London – New
York: Routledge, 1996
Robinson, James M. see also Koster – Robinson
Idem, “Kerygma und Geschichte im Neuen Testament”, in: Koester – Robin-
son (see above): 21 – 56
Idem, The Problem of History in Mark (Studies in Biblical Theology 21). London:
SCM Press (1957) 1968 (3rd ed.)
Idem, “From Easter to Valentinus (or to the Apostles’ Creed)”, JBL 101 (1982):
5 – 37
Idem, Paul Hoffmann and John. S. Kloppenborg, The Critical Edition of Q.
Leuven: Peeters, 2000
Idem, Jesus, San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers, 2005 (quoted according
to the German edition Jesus in die Suche nach dem ursprnglichen Evangelium.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007)
Roloff, Jürgen, “Das Markusevangelium als Geschichtsdarstellung”, EvTh 27
(1969): 73 – 93
Idem, Das Kerygma und der historische Jesus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1970
Roskovec, Jan, “Prolog Janova evangelia ( J/ohn/ 1,–18)”, Listy filologick –
Folia philologica 133 (200): 123 – 140 (English summary 140)
Sanders, Ed. P., Jesus and Judaism. London: SCM Press, 1985
Sato, Migaku, Q und Prophetie (WUNT II/29). Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck,
1988
Schenk, Wolfgang, “Der Einfluß der Logienquelle auf das Markusevangelium”,
ZNW 70 (1979): 141 – 165
Schenke, Ludger, Das Markusevangelium (UT 405). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1988
Schildgen, Brenda D., Crisis and Continuity. Time in the Gospel of Mark. Shef-
field: Sheffield Univ. Press, 1998
Schillebeeckx, Jesus. Die Geschichte von einem Lebenden. Freiburg – Bael – Wien:
Herder, 1975 (3rd ed.)
Schmidt, Hans H. (ed.), Mythus und Rationalitt. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1988
Schmidt, Karl L., Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (1919), Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964
Schmidt, Werner H.,”Gotteserfahrung und Ich-bewußstsein im Alten Testa-
ment”, in: Altes Testament – Forschung und Wirkung (FS H. Graf Rewen-
tlow). Frankfurt etc.: Peter Lang, 1994: 199 – 218
Schnackenburg, Rudolf, “‘Das Evangelium’ im Verständnis der ältesten Evan-
gelisten”, in: P. Hoffmann (ed.), Orientierungen an Jesus. Zur Theologie der
Synoptiker (FS J. Schmid). Freiburg etc.: Herder, 1973: 309 – 32
Schniewind, Julius, Euangelion. Ursprung und erste Gestalt des Begriffs Evangelium
I. Gütersloh: E. Bertelsmann, 1927
Schnelle, Udo, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (UTB 1830) (1994). Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1999, 3rd ed.
Schrage, Wolfgang, Der erste Brief and die Korinther (EKK VII1 1 – 4). Düsseldorf
– Neukirchen: Benzinger – Neukirchzener Verlag, 1991. 1995. 1999. 2001
Schröter, Jens, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte. Studien zur Rezeption der Logienberlie-
ferung in Markus, Q und Thomas (WMANT 76). Neukirchen: Neukirchen-
er Verlag, 1997
Idem, “The Son of Man as Representative of God’s Kingdom”, in: M. Labahn
– A. Schmidt, Jesus, Mark and Q ( JSNTS 214). Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 2001, 34 – 68
Idem, Jesus und die Anfnge der Christologie (BThSt 47). Neukirchen: Neukirch-
ener Verlag, 2001
Idem, Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament (WUNT 204). Tübingen: Mohr – Sie-
beck, 2007
Idem, “Nicht nur eine Erinnerung, sondern narrative Vergegenwärtigung. Er-
wägungen zur Hermeneutik der Evangelienschreibung”, ZThK 108
(2011): 119 – 137
Schüling, Joachim, Studien zum Verhltnis der Logienquelle und Markusevangelium
(FzB 65). Würzburg: Echter, 1991
Schweitzer, Albert, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (1930), ET, London: A.
and C. Black, 1931; German original: Die Mystik des Apostel Paulus. Tübin-
gen: Mohr – Siebeck, 1930
Scriba, Albrecht, Die Geschichte des Motivkomplexes Theophanie (FRLANT 167).
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995
Scroggs, Robin – Kent I. Groff, “Baptism in Mark: Dying an rising with
Christ”, JBL 92 (1973): 531 – 548
Sellin, Gerhard, “Mythologeme und mythische Züge in der Paulinischen The-
ologie”, in: H. H. Schmidt (ed.), Mythos und Rationalitt. Gütersloh: G.
Mohn, 1988: 209 – 223
Skeat, T. C. – see Bell
Smith, Jonathan Z., To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual (Chicago Studies in
History of Judaism). Chicago – London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1987
Smith, Stephen H., “The Function of the Son of David Traditions in Mark’s
Gospel”, NTS 42 (1996): 523 – 539
Soards, Marion L. see under R. E. Brown.
Söding, Thomas, Glaube bei Markus (SBB 12). Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel-
werk, 1985
Idem, Das Liebesgebot bei Paulus (NTA NF 26). Münster: Aschendorff, 1995
Idem, “Der Evangelist in seiner Zeit”, in: Idem (ed.), Der Evangelist als Theologe
(SBS 163). Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995, 11 – 62
214 Bibliography
Souček, Josef B., “Wir kennen Christus nicht nach dem Fleisch” (1959), in: P.
Pokorný and idem, Bibelauslegung als Theologie (WUNT 100). Tübingen:
Mohr – Siebeck, 1997, 183 – 197
Soulen, Richard N. and R. Kendal Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism. Louis-
wille, KT: Westminster Jon Knox Press, 2001 (3rd ed.)
Stanton, Graham, N., The Gospels and Jesus (The Oxford Bible Series). Oxford:
The Oxford University Press, 1989
Stein, Robert, Mark (Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament).
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic 2008
Idem, “The Fourfold Gospel”, NTS 43 (1997): 317 – 346
Sterling, Greg, Mors philosophi: “The Death of Jesus in Luke”, HTR 94 (2001),
383 – 402
Strecker, Georg, “Das Evangelium Jesu Christi” (1975), in: idem, Eschaton und
Historie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht , 1979, 182 – 228
Idem, “Judenchristentum und Gnosis”, in: Altes Testament – Frhjudentum –
Gnosis, ed. by K.-W. Tröger. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1980,
261 – 282
Idem, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, 1996
Stuhlmacher, Peter, Das Paulinische Evangelium vol. I, Vorgeschichte (FRLANT
95). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck – Ruprecht, 1968
Idem (ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (WUNT 28). Tübingen: Mohr –
Siebeck, 1983
Idem, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenheock & Ru-
precht 1991
Talbert, Charles H., What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Phil-
adelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977
Tannehil, R. C., “The Disciples in Mark. The Function of a Narrative Role”,
Journal of Religion 57 (1977): 386 – 405
Telford, William R., The Theology of the Gospel of Mark. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge Univ. Press, 1999
Theissen, Gerd, Soziologie der Jesusbewegung (THE 194). München: Kaiser Ver-
lag, 12977
Idem, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in Synoptic Traditions
(collection of German short texts, ET by L. M. Maloney). Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 1991
Idem – Annette Merz, Der historische Jesus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1997 (2nd ed.)
Idem, The Religion of the Earliest Churches: Creating a Symbolic World (ET by J.
Bowden). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 1999 ; German original: Die
Religion der ersten Christen. Eine Theorie des Urchristentums. Gütersloh: Kaiser,
Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2000
Idem, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress
Press, 2003
Idem, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments als literargeschichtliches Problem (SHAW
40). Heidelberg: Winter, 2007
Idem, “Jesusüberlieferungen und Christuskerygma bei Paulus. Ein Beitrag zur
kognitiven Analyse urchristlicher Theologie”, in: G. Thomas – A. Schüle
(eds), Gegenwart des lebendigen Christus (FS M. Welker). Leipzig: Evangeli-
sche Verlagsanstalt, 2007, 119 – 138
Idem, Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft vor und nach 1945. Heidelberg: Universi-
tätsverlag Winter, 2009
Theobald, Michael, Herrenworte im Johannesevangelium (HBS 34). Freiburg etc.:
Herder, 2002
Thiselton, Anthony C., The First Epistle to Corinthians (NIGTC). Grand Rap-
ids, MI – Cambridge, UK / Carlisle: Eerdmans / The Paternoster Press
Thomas, Günther, “Resurrection to New Life: Pneumatological Implications
of the Eschatological Transition”, in: T. Peters etc., Resurrection, 255 – 276
Thompson, Michael, Clothed with Christ, The Example and Teaching of Jesus in
Romans 12.1 – 15.13 ( JSNTS 59). Sheffield: Sheffield Academ. Press, 1991
Thornton, Clays-Jürgen, “Justin und das Markusevangelium”, ZNW 84
(1993): 93 – 110
Thyen, Hartwig, Das Johannesevangelium (HNT 6). Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck,
2005
Tuckett, Christopher H., “On the Stratification of Q. A Response”, Semeia 55
(19;91): 213 – 222
Vögtle, Anton, Biblischer Osterglaube. Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1999
Wallace, M. I., The Second Naivet (SABH 6). Macon GA, 1995 (2nd ed.)
Walter, Nikolaus, “Zur theologischen Relevanz apokalyptischer Aussagen”,
ThV IV (1975): 47 – 72
Idem, “Paul and the Early Christian Traditions”, in: Paul and Jesus, (ed. by A. J.
M. Wedderburn) ( JSNT SS 37). Sheffield: Sheffield Academ. Press, 1991,
51 – 80
Idem, Eckhart Reinmuth u. Peter Lampe, Die Briefe an die Philipper, Thessalo-
nicher und an Philemon (NTD 8/2), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1998
Wedderburn, Alexander J. M., “Paul and the Story of Jesus, “ in idem, Paul and
Jesus, see above under Walter, Nikolaus, 161 – 189
Weder, Hans, “‘Evangelium Jesu Christi’ (Mk 1,1) und ‘Evangelium Gottes’
(Mk 1,14)”, in: Die Mitte des neuen Testaments (FS E. Schweizer), ed, by
U. Luz and H. Weder. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983,
399 – 411
Weeden, T. H., “The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospel”, ZNW 59
(1968): 145 – 158
Idem, Mark, Traditions in Conflict. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971
Werner, Martin, Der Einfluß der Paulinischen Theologie im Markusevangelium
(BZNW 1). Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1923
Wiefel, Wolfgang, “Erwägungen zum Thema Mesianismus im Urchristentum”,
Theologische Versuche XI. (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt), 1981: 11 – 24
Wilckens, Ulrich, “Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der Auferstehung Jesu,” in:
W. Marxsen – U- Wilckens – G. Delling – H. G. Geyer: Die Bedeutung
des Auferstehungsbotschaft fr den Glauben an Jesus Christus. Berlin: Evang.
Verlagsanstalt (licence) 1967, 39 – 61
Idem, Der Brief an die Rçmer I (EKK VI/1) (1978). Neukirchen Vluyn – Düs-
seldorf: Neukirchener V. – Patmos, 2008 (4th ed.)
216 Bibliography
Wright, N. T, The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress

Press, 2003.
Wolter, Michael, “Apokalyptik als Redeform im Neuen Testament”, NTS 51
(2005): 171 – 191
Wong, Kun Chum Eric, Evangelien im Dialog with Paulus. Eine intertextuelle Stud-
ie zu den Synoptikern (NTOA), quoted according to the proofs 2011
Wrede, William, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (1901), Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963 (3rd ed.)
Idem, Paulus (RV 1/5 – 6). Tübingen: Mohr – Siebeck 1907 (2nd ed.)
Young, Stephen E., Jesus Traditions in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr –
Siebeck, 2011
Zahn, Theodor, Das Evangelium des Matthus, Leipzig: Deichert, 1926 (4th ed.)
Zeller, Dieter, “Erscheinungen Verstorbener im griechisch- römischen Be-
reich”, in: Resurrection in the New Testament (BETL 165), ed. by G. R. Bier-
inger, V Koperski and B Lataire. Leuven etc.: University Press/ Peeters,
2002, 1 – 19
Zimmermann, Mirjam and Ruben, “Zitation, Kontraktion oder Applikation.
Die Jesuslogien in 1Kor 7,10 f. und 9,14. Traditionsgeschichtliche Veran-
kerung und Paulinische Interpretation”, ZNW 87 (1996): 83 – 100
Abbreviations
Abbreviations for the books of the Bible (including the deuterocanon-

ical ones) are those of the New Revised Standard Version, but for the
canonical Gospels we have used the more understandable abbreviations:
Matth., Mark, Luke, John. – The transcription of the Greek and He-
brew expressions and abbreviations of the texts from the Greek,
Roman and Early Christian literature (mostly the common Latin
ones) correspond mostly to the The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient
Near Eastern, Biblical and Early Christian Studies ed. by P. H. Alexander, J.
F. Kutsko, J. D. Ernst, S. Decker-Lucke and D. L. Petersen. Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers 1999. Hebrew is transcribed in a simpli-
fied phonetic way.
AAWG Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göt-
tingen
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt
BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge

BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium
BFChTh Beiträge zur Forderung Christlicher Theologie
BG Berolinensis gnosticus (codex)
BThSt Biblisch-theologische Studien
BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissen-
schaft
CB.NTS Coniectanea biblica – New Testament series

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CCL Californian Classical Liberary
CGTC Cambridge Greek Testament
EHS.T Europäische Hochschulschriften, Theologie

EF Erträge der Forschung
EKK Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testa-
ment
ET Expository Times
218 Abbreviations
ET as additional information: English translation

EThL Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses
EvTh Evangelische Theologie
FRLANT Forschungen für Religion und Theologie des Alten und
Neuen Testaments
FS Festschrift (volume in honour of…)
FZB Forschungen zur Bibel
Gos. Thom. The Gospel of Thomas
HbNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament

HBS Herders biblische Studien
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
HThK Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
HTR Harvard Theological Revue
HUTh Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zu Theologie
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JCT Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Strudies
JSNT Journal fort he Study of the New Testament
JSNTS Journal for the Study of the New Testament – Supplement
series
JThS Journal of Theological Studies
KAV Kommentar zu den apostolische Vätern

KEK Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testa-
ment
KlT Kleine Texte
KTB Kohlhammer Taschenbücher
LCL The Loeb Classical Library

log. Logion, saying
MT Masoretic text
NHC Nag Hammadi Codex (followed by the number of the

codex/number of tractate / number of the column and of
the line
NHS Nag Hammadi Studies
NIGTC New Internationa Greek Testament Commentary
Abbreviations 219
NIV New International Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version
NT Novum Testamentum
NTOA Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus
NTS New Testament Studies
NT.S Supplements to Novum Testamentum
Q a) The source of Jesus’ Sayings (included in Matthew and

Luke
b) Texts of Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls): Number of the cave –
Q – Abbreviation or number of the title
RGG Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart

RIP Roehampton Institute Papers
RThPh Revue de théologie et de philosohie
RV Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher
SACh Studies in Antiquity and Christianity

SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
SHAW Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissen-
schaften
StUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments
TEH Theologische Existenz heute

ThLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
ThHkNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament
ThV Theologische Versuche
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie
TU Texte und Untersuchungen
UTB Uni-Taschenbücher
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen

Testament
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

General Index
Abraham 29, 129, 162, 169, 171 Babylonian captivity 78

Age to Come 6, 16, 22/note 35, baptism 19 – 21, 35, 48, 94, 117,
24, 32, 49, 58/note 97, 64, 66, 73, 125, 130 – 134, 151, 154 – 156,
98, 122, 140, 145, 164, 174 168, 172, 192
Alexandria 77, 82 Barth, K. 39 – 40, 59
alienation 14, 18, 40, 167, 1712 beatitudes 65, 74, 100
anagnōrisis 177, 134, 138 beginning – archē 3 – 4, 16 – 18, 21,
Antichrist 146 44, 46, 74, 118, 121 – 129, 133,
Antigonos 43 140, 143, 159, 151, 173, 176,
Antioch on the Orontes 62, 82, 178 – 179, 187,–188, 197
121 Benedictus 104
apocalyptic 7, 13, 15 – 19, 22 – 33, biography – bios 105, 108 – 113,
35 – 39, 42 – 43, 49, 50, 63, 66, 79, 122, 125, 128, 152, 161, 163,
89, 98, 100, 101, 113, 129, 131, 175 – 177, 180, 182, 186, 190 –
135 – 136, 146 – 149, 171, 179, 193, 196
145 Bultmann, R. 17, 18, 40, 73, 74, 84
apocryphal (stories, Gospels) 24,
89, 90, 95, 106, 113, 180
apomnēmoneumata tōn apostolōn 146, canonisation (canon) 2, 3, 15, 64,
180 68, 73, 89, 03, 107, 171 – 195, 198
apopthegma 71, 84, 85, 87, 100 Capernaum 85, 88, 100
apophatic 37 Cephas, see also: Peter 7, 60, 123
Apostolic Creed 8, 163 Christ, christology 3, 5, 7, 9 – 12,
Apostolic Fathers 3, 37/note 60, 17, 20 – 21, 31, 35 – 39, 44, 48,
89, 91 – 95, 177 – 182, 187, 190 57 – 60, 63, 68, 72, 75, 101, 123,
appearances 7, 12, 33 – 35, 39, 126, 129 – 141, 143, 146, 153,
116/note 226, 161 – 164, 183, 197 167, 195, 196
Apuleius 111, 156 clean, see also: unclean 51, 120
Aramaic 43, 53, 82, 99, 108, 114, community, communion, communi-
151, 184 cation 8 – 9- 15, 21, 27 – 28,
archeia – documents 178 31 – 34, 39, 47 – 48, 50, 65, 69, 72,
Athanasius 31 83 – 84, 128, 142, 153, 159, 168
Athens 23 concretum universale 36
atonement – hilastērion 119, 178 Corinth, Corinthian Christians
Auerbach, E. 160 13, 45 – 46, 62, 67, 77, 178
authority, see also: exousia 13, 19, confess, confession 2, 6, 8 – 10, 18,
53, 62 – 63, 69, 70, 77 – 78, 80, 91, 28 – 29, 33, 44 – 45, 52, 74, 94, 97,
93 f., 101, 103, 107, 126 – 127, 134 – 135, 145 – 147, 154 – 159,
135, 147, 1545, 175, 178, 180, 163, 172, 181
185, 189, 193, 196 Creator 36, 40, 56, 142, 162
General Index 221
cross – stauros 71, 75, 99, 118 – 119, 107, 115, 118, 121 – 125, 128,
130, 148, 150 – 154, 161, 165, 175 133, 140, 146, 159, 162, 164,
Cyril of Alexandris 39 169 – 173, 176 – 182, 184 – 187,
189 – 190, 195 – 198
daily – kath’ hēmeran, kathēmerinos Euripides 41, 117
165 – 166 evil, the Evil One ēron, ponēros)
David, Davidic Messias 10, 11, 42, 69 – 70, 74, 118
47, 67, 94, 130 – 135, 156 – 157, exaltation 24, 31, 44, 49, 59, 72,
163 175
Decapolis 8, 147, 157 exemplary 39
delayed (postponed) parousia, see also: exousia 147
„not yet“ 9, 16, 31, 102, 149
Demetrios 43 faith, to believe (pisti, pisteuō) 2, 5 –
descent – ascent 15, 59, 162 7, 24 – 25, 30 – 40, 61, 65, 67, 70 –
deutero-Pauline (epistles) 78 – 80 73, 85 – 86, 102, 121, 129 – 130,
Dibelius, M. 83 – 85, 96, 108/note 132, 139, 141 – 147, 152, 172 –
202 175
Diognetes Laertius 111 Fajjum, papyrus 105
Dodd. C. H. 52/note 85, 124 false Messiah – pseudochristos 114,
dogma, dogmatic tradition 8, 18, 117
37, 57, 179 far off, makran 167 – 168
„doubled“ eschatology 48 – 49, 64, fear of God, Fearer of God 56, 89,
67, 121, 141, 146, 149 117, 123
dynamis 36, 58 feedback, see also: point of refer-
ence 17, 35, 128
Easter, incl. Easter gospel 134, filantrōpia 172
136 – 139, 141, 142, 144, 146, flesh – sarx 9, 71, 72, 146, 174, 178
148, 152 – 159, 162 – 165, 168, for – hyper, peri, anti, heneken 7, 8,
171 – 172, 173, 176, 183, 185, 79, 119, 122, 140, 150 – 153
187, 189, 193 – 198 form criticism 81, 84 – 85, 88, 198,
Eden 29 137, 191
Egerton, papyrus 104 – 105, 133, fragmentary testimonies 90 – 106
191
Ephesus 79 Galatia 74
ektrōma – untimely born 8 Galilea 51, 70, 75, 82, 101, 129,
eschatology, see also: „double“ esch- 145, 157, 175
atology 9, 13, 15 – 16, 22 – 28, 30 – genitivus auctoris (subiectivus) 3, 53, 187
31, 36, 37, 40, 42, 44, 48 – 56, 61, genitivus obiectivus 3, 53
64 – 68, 73, 75 – 76, 78, 98, 101, genre, subgenre (literary) 110 –
107, 115, 129, 134, 136, 141, 143, 115, 121, 124/note 245, 160, 163,
146 – 149, 157, 164, 172 – 173, 177, 181, 197
197 – 198 Getsemane 150 – 151
esoteric 66 glory – doxa, kābōd 27, 30 – 32,
ethics (moral) 28, 50, 60, 68, 93, 148 – 149, 171, 175, 195
198 Gnosticism, gnōsis 39, 60, 66 – 67,
ethnē (gōjı̄m), see also: pagans 79 74, 77, 161, 164, 181 – 182
euangelion 1 – 2, 5 – 9, 11, 32, 37 – God, The Blessed One, see also:
50, 54 – 61, 73, 75, 77, 91, 94, 98, Creator, kingdom of God, Son of
222 General Index
God 5 – 11, 14 – 16, 23, 27 – John the Baptist 19, 20, 55, 75,
30, 36, 40, 58, 68, 71, 72, 76, 118, 100, 115, 118, 125, 130, 131, 146,
129, 133, 142 – 143, 162, 168 173
Gospel (Gospel) passim, see also Josephus Flavius 41, 44
euangelion, Easter Goespel Judaeo-Christians 160, 162, 192
Greece 6 Judaism 17, 25, 33, 107, 127, 146,
Greek 50, 54, 82, 109 171
Judas, incl. The Gospel of Judas
hamartia, see also: sin 18 – 19, 40, 97, 193
52, 67, 117, 167 Justification 7, 10, 17, 59, 120, 145,
healings 21, 70 – 71, 95, 113, 124, 173
142, 150 Justin Martyr 3, 93, 111, 180, 186
Hebrew, Hebrew terms 50, 53, 54,
77, 91, 108, 109, 114, 126, 128, Kähler, M. 57, 96
142, 159, 184, 186, 196 Käsemann, E. 143, 174
hell – sheol, hādēs 29 Kelber, W.-H. 107, 129
Hellenism, hellenistic literature 22, Kingdom of God (heavens) 3, 9,
42, 44, 46, 47, 66, 70, 108, 110, 21, 23, 31, 32, 48, 49, 51 – 56, 58,
120, 121, 159, 172, 176 64 – 66, 68, 70, 73, 75, 78, 86, 87,
hermeneutics 1, 2, 38 93, 101, 102, 122, 128, 129, 132,
Herod, Herodians 132, 156, 158, 133, 139 – 140, 142, 143, 145,
175 147 – 149, 151, 164, 166, 170,
history, historical, historeuō 1, 2, 4, 172, 195
14 – 19, 26, 29 – 32, 34, 36, 37, 45, Koester, H. 180, 186
47, 49, 50, 52, 61, 74, 78, 107, kyrios (on God, on Jesus) 31, 47,
109 – 111, 127, 135, 138, 143, 59, 63, 75, 91, 94, 129, 133, 136,
145, 147, 149, 156, 159, 164 – 180
166, 181, 191, 193
History of Salvation (Heilgeschich-
te) 171, 173 Last Judgment 6, 10, 12, 19, 22 –
Holy Spirit 6, 9, 20, 36, 58, 53, 58, 34, 44, 45, 49, 51, 56, 58, 75, 77,
62, 134, 143, 164, 170, 171 101, 149, 195
Homer, Homeric epic 43, 81/note logion, see: saying, Q
144 Lord – ’adonai, see also: kyrios 5, 8 –
humiliation 10, 58 – 60, 75, 150 10, 12, 13, 15, 20, 24, 31, 33 – 35,
47, 49, 51, 60 – 62, 71, 73, 86, 92 –
imperial cult 44, 47 94, 98, 121, 129, 130 – 131, 141,
incarnation 36, 39, 58 – 60, 71, 73, 172, 178
144, 146, 164, 174, 175 lytron – ransom 119 – 120, 149 –
incipit – opening of a book 126, 150
130, 188
inspiration 29, 69 makran 167
Israel 8 – 10, 18, 23, 27, 36, 42, 70, memory – anamnēsis, mnēmosynon, see
76, 132, 135, 144, 152, 158, 169, also: remembrance 27, 30, 40,
171, 178 62, 72, 81 – 82, 84, 98, 105, 107,
127, 145, 156, 158, 169, 181, 183
Jesus passim, see also: Christ, pre- Messiah, see also: Christ 8 – 12, 47,
existence 49, 63, 67, 76, 81, 83, 86, 91, 101,
General Index 223
114, 133, 136, 138, 149, 151 – Peter, see also: Cephas 97, 131 –
152, 157, 170, 175, 188, 197 132, 146, 160, 172, 184, 185
Messianic Secret 118, 129 – 141, Pharisees 76, 132, 156, 158, 169,
158 175
metaphor 18, 20, 22, 27, 32, 42, Philip, Gospel of, see: Nag Hammadi
58, 142, 150, 166 Codices (Index od Early Christian
miracle, miracle worker 32 – 39 Literature)
Mishnah 24, 43, 127 pistis formula, Formula of Faith, see: 1
monotheism 9, 64 Cor 15,3b-5 (Index of references)
Moses 110 Plutarch 15, 41, 43, 44, 110 f.
mystic 59 point of reference, see also: feed-
myth, mythical 30, 31, 48 – 50, back 35
59 – 60, 109 – 111, 147 polemics 65, 74, 87
Pontius Pilate 94, 163
name, incl. Baptism into the name poor – ptōchos 21, 29, 42, 44, 48,
8, 19 – 21, 62, 83, 93, 131, 135, 51, 53, 55, 75, 76, 147
142, 154, 170, 171, 186 post mortal existence 24
narrative – diēgēsis 7, 14 – 16, 18, power, see: dynamis
33 – 34, 48, 60, 70 – 72, 73 – 75, Priene 44, 133
84, 90, 94 – 95, 96 – 99, 109, 111, prophecy, see also apocalyptic 15,
113, 122 – 127, 130, 162 – 163, 22, 29, 55 – 56, 69 – 70, 125, 132,
177, 181 – 182 149
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
8, 168
„not yet“, see also: delayed parusia Q, see: Source of Sayings
13, 29, 49, 68
Rabbi 91, 121
oracles 15, 19 redemption 119
oral tradition 2 – 4, 32, 45, 62, 79, reflection, incl. ultra-reflection 10,
81, 92, 99, 103, 107, 111, 113, 14, 21, 24, 27, 29, 39, 48, 95, 106,
114, 120, 127, 171, 180, 185, 189, 163
196 regula fidei 94, 163
Overbeck, F. 38, 164 remembrance, see: memory
repent, repentance – metanoia 51,
agan, pagans – ethnē 6, 12, 77, 79, 95, 142, 170
82, 92, 114, 134, 150, 157, 158, resurrection – q-w-m, ‘-w-r, ‘-m-d,
167, 168, 171 egeirō, anistēmi, anastasis, see also
Palestine 25, 82, 150, 197 Risen Lord 6 – 9, 11, 12, 13,
Papias of Hierapolis 114, 146, 21 – 40, 49 – 50, 51 – 54, 62 – 64,
184 – 186, 188 – 189 66 – 68, 75, 83, 99, 103, 109, 114,
papyri 66 and 75 190 123, 128, 147, 152, 155, 180, 195
parrēsia 139 revelation 26, 29, 30, 37, 38, 39 –
parousia, see also: second coming; de- 40, 58, 72, 103, 118, 147, 149,
layed eschatology 8, 16, 35, 158, 159, 195
128, 129, 178 Risen Lord 8, 12, 13, 33, 34, 47,
passivum divinum 8 f. 49, 72, 75, 91, 141, 146, 161, 164,
person, personality, individual salvati- 165, 170, 197
on 79, 11 – 112, 151, 166 Roloff, J. 145
224 General Index
Sacrifice, sacrificial death 8, 58 – Son of Man 98, 100, 101, 119, 129,
60, 98, 119, 138, 140, 150, 153, 131, 136, 140, 148 – 149, 151,
116 – 167, 178 166, 168, 171, 175
Salvation 5 – 7, 9, 11 – 12, 15 – 17, Source of Sayings – Q 51, 55, 61,
42 – 44, 47, 58, 65, 66, 67, 73 – 75, 99 – 104, 109, 170, 172, 197
79, 118, 121, 139, 141, 146, 147, Spirit, see also: Holy Spirit 6, 9, 10,
151, 152, 165, 168, 169, 171 – 12, 20 – 21, 23, 33, 36, 48, 51, 53,
173, 178 58, 62, 68, 70, 124, 130, 143, 163,
Samaria 147 170, 171, 174, 175
sapiential (literature) 15, 101, 167 Synoptics, synoptic tradition 68,
Satan 67, 87, 100, 131, 133, 136 76, 95, 99, 100, 105, 133, 161 –
Saviour 28, 36, 40, 47, 60, 72, 73, 162, 173, 186, 191, 192, 198
102, 162, 165
Saviour, Gospel od Saviour, see Index tale 89
of references taxes 105, 132
saying, see also: logion 3, 55, 60, Tatian 191, 198
62 – 71, 77, 82 – 92, 94 – 95, 98, testimony 8, 29, 34, 37, 38 – 39, 95,
99 – 105, 112, 113, 131, 140, 142, 103, 104, 117, 127, 143, 147, 181,
144, 148 – 149, 152, 162, 166, 190
170, 171, 175, 178, 180 – 184, theios anēr 71
187, 192 theology 144, 152, 153, 157, 161,
Schmidt, K. L. 84, 88, 128 170, 172, 173, 190, 196, 198
theophany 33, 134, 146
Schweitzer, A. 59
time – chronos, kairos 113 – 114,
Scripture(s) 2, 7, 13, 45, 69 – 79,
127 – 128, 143, 145 – 146, 165 –
107, 115, 126, 136, 144, 165, 178, 166, 172, 174
196 titles (superscriptions of the Gos-
second coming, see also: parousia pels) 182 – 191, 198
9, 16, 30, 31, 49, 50, 65, 66, 75 Thomas, Gospel of, see Index of re-
self-understanding – messianic s. of ferences: Nad Hammadi codices
Jesus 55 – 56, 135, 137 today – sēmeron 165 – 166, 170
sēmeron, see also: today 165 tomb 33 – 35
Septuagint 41 – 43, 48, 56, 111, tradition – paradidōmi, paradosis, see
126, 159, 187 also: oral tradition 51, 54, 60 –
Sermon on the Mount (on the Plain), 106
see Index of references Matt 5:1 – transcendence, transcending 14 –
7:29; Luke 6:20 – 49 17, 31 – 32, 162 – 172
sin – hamartia 18 – 19, 40, 46, 52, Truth, Gospel of, see Index of refe-
67, 119, 167 rences: Nag Hammadi Codices
Sinaiticus, papyrus 116, 189
social (background) 76 – 78, 95, unclean, see also: clean 41, 120,
129, 132, 140, 154, 160, 166, 172, 131, 147 – 148, 152, 168
174, 181
Son of David 130, 133, 135 Vaticanus, codex 116, 156, 189
Son of God 3, 5, 6, 9 – 12, 14, 22, vaticinium ex eventu 16, 132
33, 35, 49, 54, 63, 75, 86, 110, Vergil, see Index of references
124, 117, 118, 130 – 136, 143,
144, 149, 151, 153, 174, 175, 195 Weder, H. 36
General Index 225
Werner, M. 118 wrath – ’af, orgē 5 – 7, 13, 120, 22,

white robe – stolē leukē, sindōn 45, 75, 149
123, 155 Wrede, W. 57, 136 – 138
YHWH 8, 30, 52, 76, 81, 150

Index of References to the Bible and other Ancient
Writings
Old Testament Nehemiah

6:17 187
Genesis 126, 188, 198
1:1 125, 171, 196 Job
2:9 151
Exodus 70 19:26 24/note 38
18:25 156
20:1 36 Psalms 55, 115, 152, 153, 196
2 76
Deuteronomy 2:7 130
13:2 – 6 29 8 144
17:6 190 22:1 153
22:7 – 9 98
1 Samuel (1Kingdoms in Greek) 22:12 – 19 181
190 22:27 – 28 52
4:17 42 23:1 156
16 131 39:10 42
40 144
17:34 156
40:10 = 39:10 LXX 42
31:9 41
42:6 98, 115
42:11 115
2 Samuel (2 Kingdoms in Greek) 43:5 115
2 131 55:2 – 6 151
4: 10 44 68:12 = 67:12 LXX 42
18:22 42, 44 73:26 24/note 38
18:25 42 95 144
18:27 41 110 76, 133
18:31 41 110:1 96, 115, 133, 134
118:22 f. 86
1 Kings (3 Kingdoms in Greek)
1:42 42 Cant 1:1 187
2 Kings (4 Kingdoms in Greek) 190 Isaiah 55, 69/note 119, 188

2 131 1:1 188, 195
2:2 – 4 52
1 Chronicles (1 Paralipomenon in 11:10 171
Greek) 190 23:25 – 32 29
10: 9 41 26:19 52
Index of References to the Bible and other Ancient Writings 227
35:5 – 6 55 Nahum
40 66, 69/note 119 2:1 42
40:1 130
40:3 – 5 52 Zephaniah
40:11 156 2:2 – 3 22
42:1 130
42:18 55 Zechariah
44:2 130 8:22 f. 171
52:7 42, 51 13:7 94
53:4 – 6 58
53:5 – 12 7 Malachi
57:7 58 3:1 52
61: 44, 47, 48, 55 3:16 27
61 42, 43, 44, 47, 51, 53, 55, 56, 3:23 19
195
61:2 51, 55 Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal
65:24 27 Books
Jeremiah Tobit
5:31 158 12:14 – 20a 15
23 57
23:25 32 – 29 Wisdom
26 76 2:17 – 18 152
29:7 78
31 144 Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
33:25 – 26 27 24:33 – 34 101
Ezekiel 2 Maccabees
1:5 – 14 191 2:13 186
37:1 – 10 23 7:7 – 9 22
7:9 25
Daniel
7 98, 130 Early Jewish Literature and Rab-
7:13 115, 134 binic Writings
12:2 23
2 (Syriac) Baruch
Hosea 30:1 – 2 22
6:2 7 44:6 43
77:12 43
Joel
3:15 98 4 Ezra
3:16 98 7:32 f 22
7:32 – 35 24
Micah
4:1 171 1 Enoch
4:1 – 3 52 7:32 23
228 Index of References to the Bible and other Ancient Writings
51:1 – 3 22 On the Public Fasts – a list of feasts

51:1 25 mentioned and authorized in
83:7 16 Mishnah Taanith 2:8 and quoted
87:3 16 in both Talmuds 43
89:59 f. 158
90:15 – 42 16 New Testament
Joseph and Aseneth Matthew 68, 71, 86, 91, 100, 190,
13:11 – 13 5 198 102 – 104, 109, 120, 126,
153 – 154, 161, 165, 169 – 173,
Josephus Flavius 188
A. J. 18, 116 f. 19 SMt 178
B. J. 3:503:1 41 1:1 198
B. J. 4:618 44 1:2 – 17 162
1:22 f. 163
Psalms of Solomon 1:23 170
3:10 – 12 25 2:15, 17 f., 23 163
3:5 – 11 19
Qumran Writings 3:11 20
1QM 4:3 f. 157 4:23 3, 172
1QH /a / XIX: 12 – 14 52 4:14 – 16 163
1QS IV: 22 25 4:17 170
4Q521: 6 – 8 42 4:23 172
12 – 13 42 4:25 82
5 – 7 171
Sibylline Oracles 5 75
4:162 – 167 19 5:3 – 5 65
4: 171 – 180 19 5:7 92
4:180 – 190 22 5:17 – 20 120
5:18 169
Testaments of Patriarchs 5:22 – 26 179
T. Sim 6:2 – 7 22 5:32 62
T. Levi 18 22 5:38 74
T. Jud 25 22 5:39 211
6:16 – 18 104
6:12, 14 f. 92
7:21 92, 172
8:17 163
9:35 3, 172
10: 171
10:6 171
10:7 – 8 53
10:10b 63
10:16 173
10:40 – 42 179
11:5 51
11:5parr. 53, 55
11:25 – 27 175 1:15 53, 54, 142

12:17 – 21 163 1:17 – 18 143
13 171 1:21 – 34 85, 88
13:31 – 32 103 1:24 – 25 131
13:35 163 1:25 – 34 137
15:21 – 32 97 1:27 117
16:17 170 1:39 170
17:24 – 27 90, 104 1:40 – 44 105
18 171 1:44 136
18:15 – 35 179 2:1 – 3:6 87
18:20 117, 170 2:1 – 12 142
19:29 141 2:5 102, 142
20:1 – 16 104 2:6 – 8 114
21:4 f. 163 2:13 – 14 85
22:34 – 40 169, 2:14 – 15 143
23 171/note 318 2:15 – 17 852:16 – 17 131
24 – 25 2:17 180
25:31 – 46 104, 171 3:5 114, 139
25:34 – 35 172 3:12 137
26:24 92 3:14 156
26:31 94 3:21 – 22 118
27:19 98 3:27 131
28:20 170, 172 4:1 – 34 87
4:1 – 9 87
4:9 – 7 137
Mark 3, 33/note 45, 54, 68, 79, 4:10 – 12 139
81 – 160, 177 – 197 4:13 – 20 87, 139
1:1 – 16:8 116, 138/note 274 4:30 – 32 103
1:1 – 3 126/note 249 4:35 – 6:52 87
1:1 – 8 3, 114 4:35 – 41 114, 142
1:1 3, 4, 36/note 57, 44, 118, 122, 4:40 102
125 , 126, 128/note 253, 131, 162, 5:21 – 43 114
171, 177, 179, 180, 188, 196, 198 5:34 102
1:2 – 13 121 5:36 142
1:2 – 8 125 5:41 – 42 83
1:2 – 3 125 5:41 114
1:7 19, 131 6 156
1:8 20 6:1 143
1:10 – 11 114 6:6b-13 102
1:10 113 6:14 – 29 115
1:10:11 114 6:14 – 16 118
1:11 117, 130, 151 6:19 – 20 114
1:12 – 13 131 6:30 156
1:12 113 6:30 – 44 156
1:13 – 14 125 6:34 156
1:14 – 15 125 6:46 – 48 114
1:14 36, 116, 128/note 253 7:1 – 23 105
1:14 – 15 2, 3, 51, 54, 122, 170, 197 7:3,8,13 127
7:6 – 9 126 10:43 140

7:15 61 10:45 119, 120, 134, 138, 140, 149,
7:19 120 150
7:24 – 30 120, 156 10:52 142
7:28 – 29 121 11:1 116
7:31 157 11:18 116/note 225
7:33 – 35 114 11:22 – 23 142
8:1 – 30 173 12:1 – 12 86
8:1 – 10 156, 157 12:13 – 17 132
8:2 156 12:13 – 15 105
8:14 – 28 154 12:18 75
8:14 – 26 175 12:23 35, 69
8:14 – 21 156, 158 12:25 75
8:26 136 12:31 74
8:27 – 33 81 12:28 – 34 127
8:27 – 29 118 12:35 – 37 133
8:27 – 28 131 13 36
8:27 115, 133 13:7 150
8:29 131, 133 13:10 3, 123, 136, 150, 178
8:30 136 13, 13 29
8:31 – 9:1 133 13:22 117
8:31 – 32 139 13:24 – 26 148
8:31 132, 150 13:26 134, 136
8:33 131 14 – 15 97
8:34 143 14:1 – 2 97
8:35 54, 122 14:1 116
8:38 – 9:8 134 14:3 – 9 86, 97, 98
8:38 98, 149 14:3 95
9 148 14:9 3, 123, 179
9:1 – 8 148 14:10 f. 97
9:2 – 8 149, 175 14:15 97
9:7 117 14:18 97
9:9 131, 136 14:21 92, 97
9:11 115, 150 14:22 – 26 27
9:13 115 14:22 – 23 157
9:17 117 14:24 – 30 106
9:22 156 14:24 – 25 140
9:23 – 27 142 14:24 150
9:31 132 14:26 – 31 97
9:42 92 14:27 156
10:1 – 45 87 14:32 – 42 150
10:11 f. 63 14:34 98, 115
10:17 – 31 140 14:35 – 36 114
10:29 – 31 140 14:41 f. 97
10:29 122 14:44 97
10:32 102 14:50 155
10:33 – 34 132 14:51 – 52 97
10:35 – 45 132 14:51 155
14:53 – 65 97 6:20 55
14:53 – 64 134 6:27 36, 92
14:61 – 62 148 6:27 – 28 74
14:61 133 6:31 92
14:62 98, 115, 129, 134, 136, 149 6:32 – 36 74
14:66 – 72 97 6:37 92
15:1 97, 113 6:38 92
15:10 97 6:46 91, 17
15:15 97 7:9 102
15:16 – 20 97 7:18 – 35 55
15:21 – 32 97 7:22 43, 51, 55
15:31 – 32 152 7:33 – 34 55
15:32 139 7:36 – 50 85
15:33 98 8:1 – 3 95
15:34 148, 153 9:2 53
15:37 98 9:23 165
15:39 114, 117, 134 10:2 – 12 102
15:42 – 47 97 10:9 51 – 102
16:1 – 8 161 10:20 27
16:1 116 10:21 – 22 181
16:6 – 7 7, 117, 123, 128, 161 10:22 181
16:7 7, 134 11:2 52
16:8 116, 117 11:3 165
16:9 – 20 116, 182, 183 11:14 100
11:20 52, 70
16:14 116
12:8 98, 149
16:15 116
12:13 – 21 32, 87
16:20a 183
12:20 29
12:39 f. 63
Luke 31/note 43, 89, 90, 151, 13:18 – 19 103
165 – 169, 180, 185, 186, 192, 197 14:4 75
1 163 15 117
1:1 – 4 190 15:7 167
1:1 – 3 164 15:11 – 32 167
1:1 109 15:17 167
2:1 – 11 165 15: 24 – 32 168
3:7 22 16:10 180
3:23 – 38 162 16:16 51
4 42 16:22 29
4:16 – 30 177 17:6 102
4:16 21 17:19 102
4:17 188 17:24 101/note 182
4:21 165 19:5 165
5 183 19:9 165
5:1 – 11 183 19:10 166, 168
6 25 19:11 – 27 167
6:20 – 25 55 22:19 – 20 166
6:20 – 22 65 22:27 119
23:43 29, 151, 165, 166 3:21 – 50 165

24 34 7 5/note 6
24:13 – 43 183 10:34 – 43 53
24:30 157 10:37 – 41 124, 125
24:39 36 10:27 – 30 167
24:43 165 11:27 69
24:50 – 53 36 12:12 189
24:50 – 51 183 12:25 189
15 21
John 72, 125, 173 – 176 15:37 189
1:1 18, 125, 162 15:39 189
1:1 – 5 59, 79 16:5 165
1:10 175 16:25 – 34 90
1:14 146, 174 17:11 165
1:18 146 17:17 165
1:19 – 23 125 17:28 166, 168
3:14 175 17:29 – 31 166
5 105 19:4 26
5:24 66, 174 19:9 62
5:25 29 20:28 165
6: 5 – 70 173 21:1 69
6:15 157 26:8 36
6:22 – 59 175 26:17 – 18 5
6:35 159 26:26b 27
6:41 – 42 175 28:31 164
6:44 175
7:41 – 42 175 Romans 81
8:28 175 1 12
12:24 40 1:1 5, 11, 53, 58
12:27 151 1:3 – 4 9, 10, 11, 12, 45, 46, 47, 68,
12:32 – 34 175 79, 118, 130, 132, 135, 163
13:34 174 1:3 100
16:14 174 1:4 36
18:5 – 6 175 1:9 48, 53
18:7 – 8 175 1:16 10, 58, 121
18:8 – 9 155 2:16 11
19:19 – 22 152 3:24 119, 120
20:31 175 3:25 119
4:17 36
Acts 50, 90, 109, 164 – 169 5:8 – 11 118, 150
1:1 124 5:16 18
1:9 – 11 36 6 19, 167
2:22 63 6:1ff 173
2:38 20 6:1 – 11 11, 24, 48, 155, 168
2:46 165 6:3 – 11 35
2:47 165 6:5 19
3:15 36 6:10 – 23 150
6:23 119 11:23 – 26 27

8:15 68 11:23 150
8:23 119 11:24 150, 157
8:38 – 39 31, 59 11:25 158
10:9 10, 121, 179 13::2b 69
11:5 – 8 138 13:12 27
12 70 15 33, 66, 75, 163
12:9 – 21 75 15:1 – 3a 46
12: 14 – 21 70/note 124 15:1 – 2 13
12:17 – 21 69 15:1 63, 97
13 78 15:3 8, 11, 13, 58
13:1 78 15:3b-5 7, 9, 10, 12, 20, 45, 46, 63,
13:1 – 10 78 66, 123, 128, 132, 155, 162, 163,
13:2 155 174, 196
13:8 – 10 74 15:4 13
13:9 69 15:4b 7
13:11 – 14 67 15:5 – 8 20, 23, 45, 162
14:14 120 15:5 134
14:20 120 15:5a 62
15:3 60 15:6 – 8 45
15:16 11 15:7 52
15:19 11 15:12 – 58 36
16:25 11 15:12 – 57 29
15:12 f. 66
1 Corinthians 15:12 46
1:18 – 25 11 15:20 – 28 54
1:18 11, 46 15:20 30, 35
1:22a 71 15:23 67
1:23 – 24 72 15:36 – 38 40
3:1 – 76 70 16: 76
3:10 – 17 31, 178
4 66 2 Corinthians
4:1 – 13 74 1:9 36
4:5 67, 75 2:12 11
4:6 – 13 13, 65, 174 2:14 f. 40/note 65
4:15 58, 178 3:17 70
4:24 36 3:18 27
6:11 20 4:3 – 6 46,
6:14 30, 36 5:14 – 21 118
7 65 5:16 71
7:10 62 5:21 58, 150
7:12 – 16 63 6:2 58, 126
7:25 61,71 8:9 15, 59, 68
8:6 15, 59, 79, 85 9:10 – 13 40
9:5 62 9:13 7
9:23 5 10:1 60
11:23 – 25 7, 63, 96 11:3 18
11:7 11 Colossians
1:5 79
Galatians 1:15 – 20 79
1:6 46 1:15 f. 59, 79
1:7 11 1:18 35, 77
1:7b 46 1:23 79
1:16 5 2:12 – 15 155
1:18 61 3:9 – 12 155
1:19 60, 62 4:10 189
2 61 4:14 189
2:1 ff. 21
2:7 46 1 Thessalonians
2:9 62 1:1 77
2:11 – 21 121 1:5 5, 46, 58
2:11 – 14 157 1:9b-10 6, 130
2:14 62 1:9 – 10 9, 12, 22, 30, 46, 75
3 70 1:9 118
3:13 58, 150 1:10 8, 10, 11, 46, 49, 75, 149
3:27 20 3:6 43
4:4 62 4:13 – 18 36, 66
4:6 68, 113 4:15 50, 63
5:1 70 4:16 – 17 30
5:2 – 6 17 4:17 – 18 27
5:6 173 4:17 6
5:14 69, 74 5:2 63
5:10 6
Ephesians
1:13 f. 79 2 Thessalonians
1:18 27 1:8 79
3:1 – 6 79
4:24 55 1 Timothy
2:1 78
Philippians 2:5 – 6 120
1:13 79
1:27 11 2 Timothy
2 150 1:8 79
2:1 – 14 65 1:10 79
2:1 – 11 59 2:8 78
2:6 – 11 24, 31, 59, 71, 150
2:6 – 10 162 Titus
2:6 – 8 59 2:13 40
2:6 – 7 85
2:14 150/note 296
2:8 11
3:4 ff. 40/note 65
4:3 27
4:15 178
Hebrews
1:1 – 2 59, 79
5:7 151
9:12 150/note 296 Berlin Gnostic Papyrus [8502,2]

102
James
2:15 – 17 173 Bodmer Papyri 66 and 75 189 f.
1 Peter Clement of Alexandria

1:12 169 Strom 2 45:5 192
1:23 – 25 169
2:13 – 14 78 1 Clement
4:17 – 19 79 13:1c-2 92
24 40
2 Peter 46:7c-8 92
1:4 79 47:2 178
3:5 – 6 20
2 Clement
1 John 2:4 180
2:10 174 4:2 180
4:1 – 3 146 4:5 5:2 180
4:2 174 5:4 6:1, 2 180
4:20 – 21 174 8:5 180
9:11 92, 180
2 John 12:2 91, 180
7 146, 174
Didache
3 John 72 1–6 92
1:3 – 76 92
Revelation 1:3 92
3:5 27 8:2 179
7:9 155 11:3 179
14:6 – 8 56, 191 9:1 – 5 95
14:6 79 15:3 179
20:11 15
Egerton, Papyrus 104 f.
Early Christian Literature frgm. 2r 133
Barnabas Epiphanius
5:8 – 9 94 Panarion 30:18:19 67
7:3 – 6 94
8:1 – 2 178 Eusebius of Caesarea, Hist. eccl.
19:5 92 3, 24:5_8 188
3, 39:15 – 16 184
3, 39:15 146
5,8:2 – 4 185
Fajjum, Papyrus 105 Mary, Gospel of (BG II) 193
Hermas, Shepherd of Melito of Sardis 182

Sim VIII, 2:3 155 f
Nag Hammadi Codices:
Ignatius 1/3 Gospel of Truth 193
Eph 17:1 94 II/1 (III/1; IV/1) Apocryphon of
Trall 9 163 John 102
Philad 5:1 178 II/2 Gospel of Thomas (logia) 102,
Philad 5:2 178 193
Philad 9:2 178 1 (=Pap. Oxyrh. 654,1 – 5) 66,
Smyrn 5:1 178 174
Smyrn 7:2 178 3 66, 174
Smyrn 1:1 10, 94 22 66, 91
Smyrn 3,1 – 3 94 49 66
51 66
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 63 87
1:10 :1 8 65 86 f.
1:29 102 82 66
3:3:1 184 III/2 (IV/2) Gospel of Egyptians
3:4:1 – 2 93 193
3:10:16 183 69:6 193
3:11:7.8 189 II/3 Gospel of Philip 193
3:11:8 191 56:15b-20 66
3:24:7 189 56:15 – 20 174
56:17 – 19 66 f.
Justin Martyr II/5 On the Origin of the World
1 Apol 66:3 183, 189 125:2, 6 93
1 Apol 67:3 181 127:10 – 15 93
1 Apol 45:5 183 127:13 93
Dial 10:2 181 II/7 Book of Thomas 102
Dial 100 – 107 181 III/5 Dialogue of the Savi-
Dial 100:1 181 our 102
Dial 100:4 181 VII/3 Apocalypse of Peter
Dial 101:3 146 79:21 – 31 95
Dial 102:5 181
Dial 103:6 181 Origenes, Contra Celsum
Dial 103:8 185 2:23 – 24 151
Dial 104:1 146, 181
Dial 106:1, 6 181 Oxyrhynchus, Papyri
Dial 107:1 181 Nr. 840 105
Nr. 1224 105
Peter, Gospel of 32, 99, 192
Polycarp, Letter of
7 :1 67
Q Source of Sayings (reconstruction) Homer, Odysseia 14:152 43

(chapters and verses according to Luke)
4:1 – 13 100 Isocrates
6:27 – 36 101 Orationes 7:10 44
6:6b-13 102
7:35 101 Lucian
7:1 – 9 100 Peregrinus 11 – 16 76
10:2 – 12 102 Philopseudes 31 41
11:31 – 32 101
11:31 101 Mara bar Serapion, Letter of
11:49 – 51 101 page 46 63
12:8 – 10 100
14:15 – 17 100
Plutarch, Parallel Lives 110 f.
Romulus 28:2 – 3 15
Savior, Gospel of (Pap. Berolinensis Pompeius 66:3:7 41
22220) 193 Demosthenes 22:3:1 44
Demetrios 17 (last sentence) 43
Tertullian 11:4:5 44
Adv. Marc 4:2:3 186
De prescr 13 163 Priene, Inscription from 44
Greek, Latin and Syriac Texts Pseudo-Clement, Recogn 1217
Diogenes Laertius, Bioi 111 Virgil
4th Ecloge 15
Euripides
Iphigenia Taur. 117 Xenophon, Remebrances of Socra-
Medea 975 41 tes 180
1010 41

From The Gospel To The Gospels History Theology and Impact of The Biblical Term Euangelion 2013 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From The Gospel To The Gospels History Theology and Impact of The Biblical Term Euangelion 2013 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

From The Gospel To The Gospels History Theology and Impact of The Biblical Term Euangelion 2013 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petr Pokorný

From the Gospel to the Gospels

From the Gospel to the Gospels

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

쑔 2013 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

2. The Pre-Pauline Easter Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. The Gospel of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4. The Pauline Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5. The Survival of the Jesus Traditions before Mark . . . . . . . . . . 81

6. The Gospel in the Gospel according to Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

7. The other canonical Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

8. Early Christian Literature and Canonization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

9.3 Other canonical Gospels and the beginnings of the

Sources in Critical Editions (chronological sequence) . . . . . . . . . . 199

general hermeneutics are applied. That is why methodologically we

1 Cf. Theissen, The Religion of the Earliest Churches, 323.

2.1.1 Salvation from the “wrath of God”

In 1 Thess 1:5 Paul mentions that he brought the euangelion to Thessa-

2.1.2 Death and resurrection

er way (the continuing spiritual presence of Jesus, the consequence of

vinum (grammatically perfect passive) – a periphrasis of God’s name,

2.1.3 Jesus Christ the Lord

The third formula of the Gospel is preserved in Rom 1:3 – 4. Again,

9 See G. Theissen, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments, 100.

The fact that this formulation of the gospel became authoritative

2.1.4 A survey of the formulae

10 A different opinion is presented by H. Koester, From Kerygma-Gospel to the

gospel but, as the Risen Lord, he is its content.11 He has changed

11 E. Käsemann, An die Rçmer, 7.

associated groups of post-Easter followers of Jesus to dissociate them-

14 See P. Pokorný, A Commentary on the Gospel of Thomas, 20 – 25.

2.2 The Gospel and Myth

15 See G. Theissen, The Religion of the Earliest Churches, 2; G. Sellin, Mythologeme

the elements of apocalyptic myth form a framework to the role of Jesus

For our context we prefer a more historical definition of apocalyp-

trace conflicts of various myths (vegetative myth, imperial myth, dual-

2.2.2 Interpreting myth

Transformation is the beginning of interpretation. Rudolf Bultmann

30 P. Ricoeur, Philosophie de la volont II. La symbolique du mal; for more on this

2.3 The Gospel and Christian Liturgy

The post-Easter transformation of the apocalyptic expectation has been

2.3.2 Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ as a new phenomenon

31 See the argument in P. Pokorný, Christologie et baptéme à l’époque du chris-

2.4 The Resurrection

The first reaction of Jesus’ followers to the Easter experience of a new

34 E. Lohse warned against the consistently apocalyptic concept of resurrection

2.4.2 Resurrection and the Last Judgment

Resurrection means to acquire a new life, as in Ezek 37:1 – 10, where

36 S. E. Porter, Resurrection, the Greeks and the New Testament, especially 80 f.

Last Judgment,37 which is presupposed here. Resurrection at the Last

2.4.3 Apocalyptic vision as a world concept

37 By Last Judgment we understand the expected revelation of the justice of God

2.4.4 Theological function of the apocalyptic imagery: Interpreting the

When interpreting the apocalyptic myth we have to take seriously con-

39 For further material see G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and

systematic reflection but rather by a lucky inspiration during the devel-

er a transformation of the whole human life through God’s justice

41 P. Pokorný, The Genesis of Christology, 196 f.; P. Lampe, Paul’s Concept of a