Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:16:19.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Promises to David and their Entrance into Christianity—Nailing down a Likely Hypothesis*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Dennis C. Duling
Dennis C. Duling
Affiliation:
Boston, Mass., U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The fundamental outlook in what follows is that there is a fairly consistent, compact, yet expanding and developing promise tradition which is founded on the promises to David (and his descendants) in the Hebrew Scriptures; that this tradition in certain ways has been rejuvenated and strengthened in the early Christian period; and that it enters Christianity in connection with the application of these promises to Jesus' resurrection apart from the title Son of David itself, a title whose acceptance and adaptation in early Christianity appears on both historical and redaction critical grounds to be relatively late. The hypothesis is not totally new. My intention will be to put some older information into what will hopefully be an illuminating perspective, to draw out some implications from the perspective itself, and to nail down the hypothesis of the use of Old Testament texts in connection with the resurrection of Jesus a little tighter. I have not undertaken here to trace out a history of tradition in the New Testament such as can now be found in C. Burger's excellent study, Jesus als Davidssohn, though the direction of the paper will support the legitimacy of his starting point in early Christian formulae.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , October 1973 , pp. 55 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 55 note 1 Burger, C., Jesus als Davidssohn. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (F.R.L.A.N.T. 98; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 56 note 1 Ahlström, G., ‘Der Prophet Nathan und der Tempelbau’, V.T. XI (1961), 113–27Google Scholar; Carlson, R. A., David, the Chosen King, trans. by Sharpe, E. J. and Rudman, S. (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964), pp. 105 ff.Google Scholar

page 56 note 2 Analysis is found in Rost, L., Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1926), pp. 47–74Google Scholar; Noth, M., ‘David und Israel in II Sam 7’, Mélanges Bibliques André Robert (Travaux de l'Institut Catholique de Paris, No. 4; Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1957), pp. 122–30Google Scholar; also McKenzie, J., ‘The Dynastic Oracle: II Samuel 7’, T.S. VIII (1947), 201 ff.Google Scholar; Carlson, , David, pp. 97 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 56 note 3 For the view that these verses represent a distinct and separate section of the psalm see Lipinski, E., Le Poème Royal du Psaume LXXXIX 1–5, 20–38 (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, No. 6; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1967), p. 9Google Scholar; the literature on the psalm is great, see esp. Ahlström, G., Psalm 89 (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerups, 1959).Google Scholar

page 56 note 4 McKenzie, ‘The Dynastic Oracle’, pp. 201 ff.

page 56 note 5 II Sam. vii. 17: ⌉ ; Ps. lxxxix. 20: .

page 57 note 1 Bentzen, Aage, ‘The Cultic Use of the Story of the Ark in Samuel’, J.B.L. LVI (1948), 53–73Google Scholar; Porter, J. R., ‘The Interpretation of 2 Samuel vi and Psalm cxxxii’, J.T.S. v (1954), 161 ff.Google Scholar; Kraus, H.-J., Die Königsherrschaft Jahwes im Alten Testament (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 12; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1951), pp. 73 ff.Google Scholar, who makes this connection central to his ‘royal Zion festival’; Fretheim, T. E., ‘Psalm 132: A Form-Critical Study’, J.B.L. LXXXVI (1967), 292Google Scholar: ‘The relation between vss. 1–5 and 10–12 is thus seen to be the same as the relationship between II Sam. 6 and 7’; Eissfeldt, O., ‘Psalm 132’, Die Welt des Orients II (1954–1959), 480–3Google Scholar; Ward, J. M., ‘The Literary Form and Liturgical Background of Psalm LXXXIX’, V.T. XI (1961), 330Google Scholar; cp. Bentzen, A., King and Messiah (London: Lutterworth Press, 1955), pp. 31–4.Google Scholar

page 57 note 2 Though the phrase and its elaboration in later Jewish texts comes from my own study, the recognition of the formula in OT texts was prompted by the study of Tsevat, M., ‘The Steadfast House: What was David Promised in II Samuel 7: 11b–16?’, H.U.C.A. XXXIV (1963), 71–82.Google Scholar

page 57 note 3 Eissfeldt, O., ‘The Promises of Grace in Isaiah 55: 1–5’, Israel's Prophetic Heritage; Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. by Anderson, B. W. and Harrelson, W. (New York: Harper & Bros. 1962), pp. 196–207Google Scholar, who makes close comparisons with Ps. lxxxix; Brueggemann, W., ‘Isaiah 55 and Deuteronomic Theology’, Z.A.W. LXXX (1958), 194–6Google Scholar believes that the of Isa. lv. 3 go back to and in II Sam. vii. 15 ff. Cp. Lövestam, E., Son and Saviour (Lund 1961), pp. 54 ff.Google Scholar

page 58 note 1 See Rad, G. von, Studies in Deuteronomy, trans. by Stalker, D. (Studies in Biblical Theology, No. 9; London: SCM Press, 1953), pp. 84–5.Google Scholar

page 58 note 2 Scheftelowitz, I., ‘Das Hörnermotif in den Religionen’, A.R.W. xv (1912), 451–87.Google Scholar

page 59 note 1 See Mowinckel, S., He That Cometh, trans. by Anderson, G. W. (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), pp. 17 ff.Google Scholar

page 59 note 2 Cooke, G. A., A Text Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), pp. 82–8Google Scholar. In a 3rd–2nd century B.C.E. Phoenician inscription from Cyprus, appears to mean ‘legitimate offspring’. On the term in general see Baldwin, J. G., ‘Semah as a Technical Term in the Prophets’, V.T. XIV (1964), 93–7Google Scholar. Compare also Swetnam, J., ‘Some Observations on the Background of in Jeremiah 23, 5a’, Biblica XLVI (1965), 29–40.Google Scholar

page 59 note 3 The significance of this passage was seen long ago in the elaborate study of Posnanski, A., Schiloh. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1904)Google Scholar; also see Smyth, K., ‘The Prophecy Concerning Judah, Gen. 49: 8–12’, C.B.Q. VII (1945), 290–305Google Scholar: Good, E. M., ‘The Blessing of Judah, Genesis 49: 8–12’, J.B.L. LXXXII (1963), 427–32.Google Scholar

page 59 note 4 Foerster, W., ‘άστήρ’, T.W.N.T. I (1965), 503Google Scholar; Mowinckel, S., ‘Der Ursprung der Bileamsage’, Z.N.W. XLVIII-XLIX (1930/1931), 247–9Google Scholar; Albright, W. F., ‘The Oracles of Balaam’, J.B.L. LXIII (1944), 207–33.Google Scholar

page 59 note 5 Moran, W. L., ‘Gen. 49: 10 and its Use in Ez 21, 32’, Biblica XXXIX (1958), 416 ff.Google Scholar

page 60 note 1 Mowinckel, , He That Cometh, pp. 160 ff.Google Scholar

page 60 note 2 Friedman, D. N., ‘The Chronicler's Purpose’, C.B.Q. XXIII (1961), 437–8Google Scholar; North, R., ‘Theology of the Chronicler’, J.B.L. LXXXII (1963), 369–81.Google Scholar

page 61 note 1 Jacoby, A., ‘ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗ ΕΖ γΨΟΥΣ’, Z.N.W. xx (1921), 205–14Google Scholar; Schlier, H., ‘άνατέλλω/άνατολή’, T.W.N.T. I, 351–3.Google Scholar

page 61 note 2 Baldwin, ‘Semah’, p. 91; Buda, J., ‘Semah Jahweh’, Biblica xx (1939), 10–26Google Scholar, argues that the expression is messianic along with its parallel, ‘fruit of the land’. Most commentators suggest that it is simply a reference to abundant vegetation. For the view that άνατολή έξ ύψους in Luke i. 78 may be a translation of it, see Jacoby, Ibid.

page 61 note 3 For example, , ‘inward parts’, in II Sam. vii. 12b as the source of the ‘seed’ and , ‘womb’, in Ps. cxxxii. 11 as the source of the ‘fruit’ are both translated κοιλία; the strong interaction between Gen. xlix. 8–12 and Ezek. xix produces some corresponding translations; for numerous correlations among several different language translations, see Vermes, G., Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961).Google Scholar

page 61 note 4 It is usually backdated two generations from Ben Sirach's grandson-translator's arrival in Egypt c. 132 B.C.E. The text is contained in Levi, I., The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1904), pp. 62 ff.Google Scholar

page 61 note 5 Ibid.; cp. also Siebeneck, R. T., ‘May Their Bones Return to Life! – Sirach's Praise of the Fathers’, C.B.Q. XXI (1959), 411–28Google Scholar; Hartman, L. F., ‘Sirach in Hebrew and in Greek’, C.B.Q. XXIII (1961), 443–51.Google Scholar

page 62 note 1 The passage is missing in the LXX.

page 63 note 1 Di Lella, A. A., The Hebrew Text of Sirach. A Text-Critical and Historical Study (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1966)Google Scholar, chapter III: ‘Authenticity of the Cairo Hebrew: Historical Arguments’. See Schechter, S. and Taylor, C., eds., The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors (Cambridge University Press, 1899).Google Scholar

page 63 note 2 The two texts are put in parallel columns in Oesterley, W. O. E., The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925), pp. 55–7Google Scholar, and Idelsohn, A. Z., Jewish Liturgy and its Development (New York: Henry Holt & Co., n.d.), p. 21.Google Scholar

page 63 note 3 For the Hebrew see Staerk, W., Altjüdische Liturgische Gebete (Bonn: A. Marcus & E. Weber, 1910), p. 18.Google Scholar

page 63 note 4 Elbogen, I., Der Jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (3rd ed.; Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1931), pp. 39 ff.Google Scholar, 54, marshals arguments for the view that Benediction XV is from third-century Babylon, the most important of which are its omission from the Palestinian Talmud and its specific mention in the Cairo Geniza text. He thus thinks the first evidence is from b. Pes. 117b (c. C.E. 250). He is followed by Oesterley, Ibid. pp. 54–67, and Kuhn, K. G., Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1950)Google Scholar. However, Zeitlin, S., ‘The Tefillah, the Shemoneh Esreh: An Historical Study of the First Canonization of the Hebrew Liturgy’, J.Q.R. LIV (1964/1965), 241Google Scholar, states that it is mentioned in the Palestinian Talmud, though he would not put it before the second century C.E. Further, Di Lella, Ibid., argues for its earlier origin and it must be noted that , ‘who causes the horn of salvation to shoot up’, found in b. Pes. 117b, is precisely the phrase found in the Hebrew Geniza text of Sirach li. 12. I suspect that it is also reflected in Luke i. 69 in the phrase ήγειρεν κήρας σωτηρίας ήμīν. Benediction XV, a petition for the Shoot of David to ‘shoot up’, can also be assigned to the earlier period on the basis of the Dead Sea Scrolls' Cave IV emphasis on the Shoot of David, a dating which is assumed now by Lohse, E., ‘Der König aus Davids Geschlecht: Bemerkungen zur messianischen Erwartung der Synagoge’ in Abraham Unser Vater (Festschrift O. Michel; ed. by Betz, O., Hengel, M., Schmidt, P.; Leiden/Köln: E. J. Brill, 1963), pp. 337–45Google Scholar, esp. p. 342.

page 64 note 1 The literature here is great; I mention only Liver, J., ‘The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature at the Time of the Second Commonwealth’, H.T.R. LII (1959), 149–85Google Scholar; Kuhn, K. G., ‘The Two Messiahs of Aaron and Israel’, N.T.S. I (1954/5), 168–80Google Scholar, reprinted in Stendahl, K., The Scrolls and the New Testament (New York: Harper & Bros. 1957), pp. 54–64.Google Scholar

page 64 note 2 Starcky, J., ‘Les quatre étapes du Messianisme à Qumrân’, R.B. LXX, 4 (1963), 481–505Google Scholar. Agreement is found completely in Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘The Aramaic “Elect of God” Text from Qumran Cave IV’, C.B.Q. XXVII (1965), 348–72Google Scholar, and mostly Brown, R. E., ‘J. Starcky's Theory of Qumran Messianic Development’, C.B.Q. XXVIII (1966), 51–7.Google Scholar

page 64 note 3 These examples are placed in the earlier periods by Starcky, Ibid.

page 65 note 1 There is a growing interest in the pesher method of interpretation; one thinks especially of the writings of Stendahl, K., Lindars, B., Perrin, N., and recently also Black, M., ‘The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament’, N.T.S. XVIII (1971), 1–14.Google Scholar

page 65 note 2 Lane, W. R., ‘A New Commentary Structure in 4 Q Florilegium’, J.B.L. LXXVIII (1959), 343–6Google Scholar. The formal structure is: (1) a quotation from II Sam. vii; (2) an exposition beginning with ηℵ┐η, ‘it is’; (3) a further exposition (Exod. xv. 17–18; Amos ix. II) beginning with ℶ┐ηℶ ┐$ℵℶ ‘as it is written’.

page 65 note 3 Gärtner, B., The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Cambridge University Press, 1965), pp. 30 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 66 note 1 Silberman, L. H., ‘A Note on 4Q Florilegium’, J.B.L. LXXVIII (1959), 158–9.Google Scholar

page 66 note 2 Jansen, L., ‘The Consecration in the Eighth Chapter of Testamentum Levi’, La regalità sacral The Sacral Kingship (‘Studies in the History of Religions IV’; Supplements to Numen; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959), pp. 356–65Google Scholar; Widengren, G., ‘Royal Ideology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, Promise and Fulfilment (S. H. Hooke Festschrift, ed. by Bruce, F. F.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), pp. 202–12.Google Scholar

page 68 note 1 Texts and translations based on Charles, R. M., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908)Google Scholar and The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908)Google Scholar; see also de Jonge, M., Testamenta XII Patriarcharum (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964)Google Scholar who prints MS b in contrast to Charles' eclectic text. Charles, p. lvii, thinks of interpolations by Christians; M. de Jonge originally put forward the view of Christian composition, though based on material, Jewish, in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, A Study of Their Composition and Origin (Assen: van Gorcum 1953)Google Scholar. Others, most notably Woude, A. S. van der, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumran (Studia semitica neerlandica 3; Assen: van Gorcum, 1957)Google Scholar, chapter II, think of originally Jewish documents which have been interpolated, redacted, and abbreviated, most probably at least once before Christian redaction; J. Liver, ‘Two Messiahs’, thinks that the Testaments are largely pre-Christian; Philonenko, M., ‘Les Interpolations chrétiennes des Douze Patriarches et les Manuscrits des Qumrân’, Cahiers of R.H.P.R. XXXV (1958)Google Scholar thinks of redaction by a series of Essenes; Braun, F. M., ‘Les Testaments des XII Patriarches et le Probléme de leur Origine’, Revue Biblique. LXVII (1960), 516–49Google Scholar (esp. P. 543), espouses a (non-Essene) Jewish Grund-schrift redacted by a Christian. Such studies have caused de Jonge to modify his position on composition slightly, though he still stresses the essentially Christian nature of the Testaments, see ‘The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the New Testament’, Studia Evangelica. Texte und Under-suchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, LXXIII (Berlin, 1959)Google Scholar; ‘Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, Nov. Test. v. (1960), 182–235Google Scholar; ‘Once More: Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, Nov. Test. v. (1962), 311–19Google Scholar. See also Schubert, K., ‘Testamentum Judah 24 im Lichte der Texte von Chirbet Qumran’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes LIII (1957), 227–36Google Scholar; Chevallier, M.-A., ‘L'Esprit et le Messie dans le Bas-Judaïsme et le Nouveau Testament (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1958)Google Scholar, IV/II.

page 68 note 1 Ryle, H. E. and James, M. R., Psalms of the Pharisees (Cambridge University Press, 1891)Google Scholar, Introduction.

page 68 note 2 As always, there is the difficulty of dating these materials. On the possibility of the use of ‘Son of David’ among the Rabbis of the late first century, seeKlausner, J., The Messianic Idea in Israel, trans. by Stinespring, W. F. (New York: Macmillan, 1955), p. 392Google Scholar: for the Targums and the promise tradition, see below, pp. 75 ff.

page 68 note 3 Rom. i. 3–4; II Tim. ii. 8; Luke i. 69, 78, 32–4; Acts ii. 30, xiii. 23; Rev. iii. 7, v. 5, xxii. 16; John vii. 42.

page 68 note 4 So Lohmeyer, E., Gottesknecht und Davidssohn (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953), p. 68Google Scholar; Burger, , Davidssohn, p. 18Google Scholar; contrast Lohse, E., ‘υίός Δαυιδ’, T.W.N.T. VIII, 484.Google Scholar

page 69 note 1 I attempted to elaborate this theme in a paper delivered at the SBL meetings at Atlanta in October 1971, namely; ‘The Healing Son of David – A Study in Matthew's Christological Apologetic.’

page 69 note 2 Burger, C., Davidssohn, pp. 52 ff.Google Scholar, following Wrede, W., ‘Jesus als Davidssohn’, Vorträge und Studien (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1907), pp. 147–77.Google Scholar

page 69 note 3 The sources are silent about Bar Cochba's origins, see Moore, G. F., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, II (2 vols.; New York: Schocken Books, 1971 [originally 1927]), p. 329.Google Scholar

page 70 note 1 ‘Reluctant’ or ’hesitatingly’ or some such term would be central to these views, for they invariably suggest that another title such as Son of God of Son of Man was considered by Jesus to be more appropriate to his (further) status, or that Son of David carried with it nationalistic overtones which Jesus thought were inappropriate for his mission. See the short sketch by Burger, Davidssohn, pp. 53–7.

page 70 note 2 Fisher, L. R., ‘Can This Be the Son of David?’ in Jesus and the Historian. Written in Honor of Ernest Cadman Colwell, ed. by Trotter, F. T., (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1968), pp. 82–97.Google Scholar

page 70 note 3 Cullmann, Especially O., The Christology of the New Testament, trans. by Guthrie, S. C. and Hall, C. A. M., (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1959), pp. 128–30Google Scholar, who believes that it is a very strong possibility. Ferd. Hahn, , The Titles of Jesus in Christology, trans. by Knight, H., and Ogg, G. (London: Lutterworth Press, 1969), pp. 240–1Google Scholar and Fuller, R., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965), pp. 111, 163Google Scholar, agree, See also Michaelis, W., ‘Die Davidssohnschaft Jesu als historisches und kerygmatisches Problem’, in Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus, ed. by Ristow, H., and Matthiae, K., (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1960), pp. 317–30.Google Scholar

page 70 note 4 Hahn, Ibid. pp. 242–16; Fuller, Ibid. pp. 162–3; contrast Burger, Davidssohn, pp. 128–35.

page 70 note 5 Weiss, J., Earliest Christianity (2 vols.; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959), I, 118 ff.Google Scholar, originally published in German in 1914; Wrede, ‘Jesus als Davidssohn’, pp. 165–6.

page 71 note 1 Schweizer, E., ‘The concept of the Davidic “Son of God” in Acts and its Old Testament Background’, Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Martyn, J. L. (New York/Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), pp. 186–93Google Scholar, esp. p. 190; Betz, O. B., ‘Die Frage nach dem messianischen Bewusstsein Jesu’, Nov. Test. VI (1963)Google Scholar, 32 n. 4; Hayes, J. H., ‘The Resurrection as Enthronement and the Earliest Church Christology;’, Interpretation XXII (1968), 342 ff.Google Scholar

page 71 note 2 Burger, C., Davidssohn, pp. 25 ff.Google Scholar

page 71 note 3 In b. Sanh 98, Rab Judah argues in Rab's name: The Holy one, blessed be he, will raise up, ℸ'□ηζ, another David, ℸתℵℸ⌉ℸ, for us (them), as it is written, But they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them (Jer. xxx. 9); not ‘raised up’, □יקη, but ‘ will raise up’, □יקא, is said. The arguments is based on Jer. xxx. 9 but, in contrast to the Targum which interprets ‘David’ as ‘Son of David’, here we have ‘another David’, R. Tanhuma offsets this argument with an allusion to Ps. xviii. 51: Making great the deliverances for his king, and showing loving-Kindness to his anointedit does not say, ‘to David’, but ‘to David and his seed for ever’. Do such discussions inform us in any way about the background to the arguments in Acts ii and xiii? Cp. Lövestam, Son and Savior, passim.

page 71 note 4 Cp. Rev. i. 7, 13; xiv. 14; v. 5.

page 71 note 5 On the Zweistufenchristologie, see especially Hahn, Titles, in the sections on the hellenistic Jewish stratum of tradition.

page 72 note 1 On the passage as a whole, see Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Corinthians 6: 14–7: 1’, C.B.Q., XXIII (1961), 271–80Google Scholar; Gnilka, J., ‘2 Kor 6, 14–7, I im Lichte der Qumranschriften und der Zwölf-Patriarchen-Testamente’, Neutestamentliche Aufsätze, Festschrift für Prof. Josef Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by Blinzler, J., Kuss, O., Mussner, F. (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1963), pp. 86–99Google Scholar; Betz, H. D., J.B.L. XCII (1973), 88–108.Google Scholar

page 72 note 2 Cp. Isa. lxiii. 10 f.; Ps. li. 13; T. Levi xvii. 11.

page 73 note 1 Schweizer, E., ‘Röm 1:3 f. und der Gegensatz von Fleisch und Geist vor und bei Paulus’, Neotestamentica. (Zürich/Stuttgart: Zwingli Verlag, 1963), pp. 108–9Google Scholar, thought he does not use the term Zweistufenchristologie and for him the formula has Jewish (Palestinan) roots.

Fuller, Foundations, pp. 165–7, interprets όρıσθέντος not as ‘appointed’, but as ‘predestined’ on the basis of Acts iii. 20, x. 42, and xvii. 31, i.e.he will become Son of God at the parousia. For Fuller, then, this is not the hellenistic Jewish Zweistufenchristologie, but the earlier Palestinian two-foci Christology.

page 73 note 2 The earthly throne of the Davidic descendant is not stressed in the New Testament; see Luke i. 32–4, which could be taken by Lake as a heavenly throne, though Acts ii. 30 appears ambiguous.

page 73 note 3 Sanders, J. T., The New Testament Christological Hymns (SNTS Monograph Series No. 15; Cambridge University Press, 1971), p. 16Google Scholar Puts I Tim. iii. 16 on the line between ‘hymn’ and ‘confession’.

page 74 note 1 Ibid. p. 17, who draws on Selwyn, E. G., The First Epistle of St Peter (London, 1946), pp. 17 f.Google Scholar

page 74 note 2 See above, p. 71.

page 74 note 3 McArthur, H., ‘On The Third Day’, N.T.S. XVIII (1971), 81Google Scholar, notes 1,2, and 82, notes 1,2, gives much of the recent opinion.

page 75 note 1 Ibid. pp. 81–6; also recently, M. Black, ‘The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament’, pp. 5–6.

page 75 note 2 Jeremias, J., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. by Perrin, N. (3rd ed.; London: SCM Press, 1964), pp. 101–3.Google Scholar

page 75 note 3 Tödt, H.E., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, trans. by Barton, D. M. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965), p. 185.Google Scholar