^{page 271 note 1} The present paper was essentially completed before the appearance of Hengel, M., ‘Christologie und neutestamentliche Chronologie’ (Baltensweiler, H. and Reicke, B., Neues Testament und Geschichte: Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag, Zürich, 1972, pp. 43–67)Google Scholar; I am glad to find my position here stated much more fully and convincingly by Professor Hengel, and hope that some of the statements here may at least supplement his detailed argumentation.

^{page 271 note 2} Heitmüller, W., ‘Zum Problem Paulus und Jesus’, Z.N.W. XIII (1912), 320–37Google Scholar. Cf. Blank, J., Paulus und Jesus (München, 1968), p. 249.Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 3} Bousset, W., Kyrios Christos (Göttingen, 1965 ⁵), pp. 75–7 (Eng. tr. by Steely, J. E.Nashville, 1970).Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 4} Dibelius, M., Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen, 1971 ⁶), p. 17Google Scholar n. 2.

^{page 272 note 1} Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament (London, 1952), I, 33–62, 63–183Google Scholar. Cf. Balz, H. R., Methodische Probleme der neutestamentlichen Christologie (Neukirchen, 1967), pp. 129–37Google Scholar, especially 131–3.

^{page 272 note 2} Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel (Göttingen, 1964 ²), pp. 11 f.Google Scholar (Eng. tr. by Knight, H. and Ogg, G., The Titles of Jesus in Christology, London, 1969Google Scholar); cf. Der urchristliche Gottesdienst (Stuttgart, 1970), pp. 10 f.Google Scholar, 47. Hahn places Paul within the Hellenistic Gentile church.

The earlier works referred to by Hahn are: Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen, 1958 ⁴), pp. 330 f.Google Scholar (where the author argues for the existence of several strata in the Hellenistic church and stresses the importance of the Jewish Hellenistic element) and Dibelius, M., Botschaft und Geschichte (Tübingen, 1953), I, 1–78Google Scholar. See also Dibelius, M., Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, pp. 27–33Google Scholar, especially pp. 27 f., where the pre-Pauline Hellenistic churches are said to be distinguished from the Pauline churches by a closer attachment to Judaism.

^{page 272 note 3} The term ‘Jewish’ is the more common English form.

^{page 272 note 4} Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel, pp. 11Google Scholar n. 5, 309.

^{page 272 note 5} Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (London, 1965), pp. 15–22Google Scholar. Fuller devotes three chapters to the background influences on christology to be found in Palestinian Judaism, Hellenistic Judaism and the Hellenistic Gentile world. Then he discusses the development of christology in the earliest church, the Hellenistic Jewish mission and the Hellenistic Gentile mission, but is careful to note that the Hellenistic Gentile mission was carried on by Hellenistic Jews. See also Kramer, W., Christ, Lord, Son of God (London, 1966), pp. 33 f.Google Scholar (7a).

^{page 272 note 6} R. H. Fuller, op. cit. p. 18, argues that the traditions in Mark and Q have passed successively through Palestinian and Hellenistic stages. He traces such titles as ‘Lord’ and ‘Son of God’ through all three stages of development; see p. 281 n. 4.

^{page 273 note 1} Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, p. 256Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., ‘The Present Position in the Controversy concerning the Problem of the Historical Jesus’, Exp. T. LXIX (1957–1958), 333–9Google Scholar, especially p. 337. Naturally the establishment of a tradition as coming from the Palestinian Jewish church is not in itself proof of its historical value.

^{page 273 note 2} The so-called traditio-historical method is concerned with the significance of this material.

^{page 273 note 3} On the importance and value of the expression of the Christian faith in Hellenistic terms in order to enable it to speak to a wider audience see Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (London, 1965), pp. 135–8.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 4} Conzelmann, H., Grundriβ der Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart, 1968 ²), especially pp. 46–8Google Scholar; Geschichte des Urchristentums (Göttingen, 1969), pp. 42–5, 53Google Scholar. Kümmel, W. G., Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments nach seinen Hauptzeugen (Göttingen, 1969)Google Scholar, especially pp. 93 f., 105 f. Kümmel admits the theoretical distinction between the three stages, but stresses that it is virtually impossible to distinguish between the theology of the Hellenistic Jewish and Gentile churches with the resources at our disposal; nor does he find it easy to distinguish between the thought of the earliest church and the Hellenistic church.

^{page 273 note 5} Manson, T. W., review of Bultmann's work in J.T.S. L (1949), 202–6Google Scholar; quotations from 203. Cf. Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester, 1962), pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 6} Cullmann, O., The Christology of the New Testament (London, 1959), p. 323.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 7} ‘We can only speak of Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity in order to characterise the spheres in which a given congregation lived and which predominantly determined the means of expression and thought patterns’, Goppelt, L., Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times (London, 1970), pp. 65 f.Google Scholar With reference to Hahn he further writes: ‘To be sure, Hellenistic Jewish Christianity was a mediating element between the Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christianity of Palestine and Hellenistic Gentile Christianity. Nevertheless, it is often impossible to grasp this second element in the development of the primitive Christian tradition. Indeed, apart from Jerusalem and Egypt, there were hardly any purely Jewish-Christian congregations to be found. In all these a Gentile-Christian element soon became active’ (op. cit. p. 63 n. 10).Luhrmann, D., Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (Neukirchen, 1969), pp. 16 f.Google Scholar, states that the distinction between the Aramaic-speaking Palestinian church and the Greek-speaking Hellenistic church is a useful thought-model, provided that it is used for religionsgeschichtlich and traditionsgeschichtlich research; but it must not be ‘historicized’ to give a chronological order of development, for the Palestinian church did not cease to exist when the Hellenistic church started; nor should we speak of the Hellenistic church or the Palestinian church; the boundaries were fluid and there was influence in both directions. Similarly, Vielhauer, P. accuses Hahn of adopting too rigid a schematization (Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament, München, 1965, p. 144).Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 1} Only a few representative opinions can be listed here: Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1955 ²), pp. 1–16, 354Google Scholar; Christian Origins and Judaism (London, 1962), pp. 19–30, 105–8, 141Google Scholar; Introduction to Pharisaism (Philadelphia, 1967), p. 11Google Scholar; Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), p. ixGoogle Scholar; Grässer, E., ‘Der Hebräerbrief 1938–63’, Th. R. XX (1964), 138–236Google Scholar (especially p. 176); Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium (Frieburg, 1965), I, 101–3Google Scholar; Meeks, W. A., The prophet-King (Leiden, 1967), p. 100CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John (London, 1971), I, lvi.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 2} Moulton, J. H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh, 1906), I, 6–8Google Scholar; Lieberman, S., Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1942)Google Scholar; Gundry, R. H., The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel (Leiden, 1967), pp. 164–8Google Scholar; Sevenster, J. N., Do you know Greek? (Leiden, 1968)Google Scholar; M. Hengel, op. cit. below, pp. 108–20.

^{page 274 note 3} Kittel, G., Die Probleme des palästinischen Spätjudentums und das Urchristentum (Stuttgart, 1926)Google Scholar; ‘Die geschichtliche Ort des Jakobusbriefes’, Z.N.W. XLI (1942), 71–105Google Scholar, especiallyw pp. 78–81; Lieberman, S., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1962 ²).Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 4} Hengel, M., Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh. v. Chr. (Tübingen, 1969)Google Scholar. There is a summary of the book by the author, ‘Die Begegnung von Judentum und Hellenismus im Palästina der vorchristlichen Zeit’, in Böcher, O. and Haacker, K., Verborum Veritas: Festschrift für Gustav Stählin zum 70. Geburtstag (Wuppertal, 1970), pp. 329–48.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 5} For example, the degree of ‘traditional’ Judaism in Philo should not be under-emphasized. For his dependence on Palestinian traditions see Borgen, P., Bread from Heaven (Leiden, 1965), p. 13 n. I.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 6} Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel, p. 11Google Scholar n. 5.

^{page 274 note 7} Hengel, M., Judentum und Hellenismus, pp. 194 f.Google Scholar, draws the appropriate lesson for the history of the early church.

^{page 275 note 1} L. Goppelt, op. cit. pp. 65 f.

^{page 275 note 2} Schürer, E., A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1886), IIGoogle Scholar, 3. I f., states emphatically ‘that the line of demarcation between those two groups is of a somewhat fluctuating and indefinite character, and that the designations applied to them are to be taken very much cum grano salis. By the Palestinian Jewish literature we mean that which, in all essential (but only essential) respects, represents the standpoint of Pharisaic Judaism as it had developed itself in Palestine; while by the Hellenistic Jewish literature again we mean that which, either as regards form or matter, bears traces, to any noticeable extent, of Hellenistic influences.’ Cf. H. R. Balz, op. cit. p. 134. There was of course more to Palestinian Jewish literature than simply the expression of Pharisaism. One small illustration of the interpenetration of cultures may be seen in the way in which J. Jeremias, having drawn a distinction between Palestinian and Hellenistic Jewish exegesis, has immediately to note how R. Hillel applied Hellenistic hermeneutical principles to the Torah (‘paulus als Hillelit’, in Ellis, E. E. and Wilcox, M., Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, Edinburgh, 1969, pp. 88–94Google Scholar, especially 89 f.).

^{page 275 note 3} Kuhn, K. G., ‘Die in Palästina gefundenen hebräischen Texte und das Neue Testament’, Z.Th.K. XLVII (1954), 192–211Google Scholar; Schoeps, H. J., ‘Das gnostische Judentum in den Dead Sea Scrolls’, Z.R.G.G. VI (1954), 276–9Google Scholar. Cf. Reicke, B., ’Traces of Gnosticism in theDead Sea Scrolls?’ N.T.S.. I (1954–1955), 137–41.Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 4} Wilson, R. M., Gnosis and the New Testament (Oxford, 1968).Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 5} See the discussion by Ringgren, H., ‘Qumaran and Gnosticism’ (Bianchi, U., The Origins of Gnosticism, Leiden, 1967, pp. 379–84)Google Scholar and M. Mansoor, ‘The Nature of Gnosticism in Qumran’ (Ibid. pp. 389–400).

^{page 276 note 1} See p. 272 n. 5 above.

^{page 276 note 2} R. H. Fuller, op. cit. pp. 23–61.

^{page 276 note 3} Ibid. pp. 62–8. Fuller finds a shift from eschatological expectation to a concern with cosmology and ethics. Hence there was a lack of interest in messianic titles of an eschatological character.

One important point is his claim that the connotation of Greek κύριος was different from that the Aramaic mar. The use of the term mar is still under discussion, but is could be used to refer to God, and thus be equivalent to κύριος in the LXX. Cf. M. Hengel, ‘Christologie und neutestamentliche Chronologie’, p. 56 n. 43.

^{page 276 note 4} Ibid. pp. 68–81.

^{page 276 note 5} Cf. Schweizer, E., T.D.N.T. VIII, 356 f.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 1} The possibility that Memra may from part of the background of the Logos concept has been raised again by McNamara, M., ‘Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex. 12: 42)’, Exp. T. LXXIX (1967, –1968), 115–17Google Scholar. See also R. E. Brown, op. cit. I, 519–24. On the First Man See Scorggs, R., The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Oxford, 1966)Google Scholar, where the Jewish material is presented in detail.

Since Fuller's book was published, the role of priesthood in Jewish speculation has received new light from II QMelch. (de Jonge, M. and van der Woude, A. S., ‘II QMelchizedek and the New Testament’, N.T.S. XII (1965–1966), 301–26).Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 2} Cadbury, H. J., B.C. V (59–74)Google Scholar; Windisch, H., T.D.N.T. II, 511 f.Google Scholar; Gutbrod, W., T.D.N.T. III, 372–5; 389–91Google Scholar; Weiss, J., The History of Primitive Christianity (New York, 1937), I, 165 f.Google Scholar; Moule, C. F. D., ‘Once More, Who were the Hellenists?’ Exp. T. LXX (1958–1959), 100–2Google Scholar; Haenchen, E., Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen, 1959 ¹²), pp. 213–15Google Scholar; H. R. Balz, op. cit. pp. 136 f.

^{page 277 note 3} The view that the Hellenists were Greek-speaking Gentiles was arqued by H. J. Cadbury, op. cit.

^{page 277 note 4} The question whether Hebrew of Arsmaic was the language in question need not concern us here; we are concerned solely with the use of a Semitic language or Greek. See p. 279 n. I below.

^{page 277 note 5} Modern parallels with Welsh and Gaelic speakers would suggest that conservatism is particularly strong in religious worship, even when another language is normally used in everyday life.

^{page 277 note 6} Bruce, F. F., The Book of Acts (London, 1968), pp. 127 fGoogle Scholar. Scharlemann, M. H., Stepthen: A Singular Saint (Rome, 1968), p. 18Google Scholar. Ellis, E. E. (‘“Those of the Circumcision” and the Early Christian Mission’, Studia Evangelica IV, Berlin, 1968, pp. 390–9)Google Scholar follows the view that the terms designate promarily differences in attitude to the Jewish cultus but does not deny that a linguistic difference may have been present.

^{page 278 note 1} ‘To get back to a stage at which there were no Greek-speaking Christians is a hopeless enterprise, if there is any truth in Acts vi, I’ (Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures, p. 118Google Scholar n. 2); cf. M. Hangel, ‘Christologie und neutestamentliche Chronologie’, p. 47. The view that an Aramaic-speaking church and a Greek-speaking church existed separately alongside each other from the beginning (Wilckens, U., ‘Jesusüberlieferung und Christuskerygma-zwei Wege urchristlicher Überlieferungs-geschichte’, Theol. Viat. X (1965–1966), 310–39Google Scholar; brierly in ‘Hellenistisch-christliche Missionsüberlieferung und Jesustradition’, Th.L.A.Z. LXXXIX (1964), 517–20)Google Scholar is unrealistic.

^{page 278 note 2} This, however, is the view of many commentators who think that the use of Aramaic is stressed (Lightfoot, J. B., The Epistle to the Philippians, London, 1890, pp. 146 f.Google Scholar; Beare, F. W., The Epistle to the Philippians, London, 1969 ², p. 107Google Scholar; Lohmeyer, E., Der Brief an die Philipper, Göttingen, 1961 ¹², p. 130Google Scholar; Martin, R. P., The Epistle to the Philippians, London, 1959, p. 142.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 3} Gutbrod, W., T.D.N.T. III, 390.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 4} Allo, E. B., Seconde Épître aux Corinthiens (Paris, 1956), pp. 292f.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 5} Bruce, F. F., 1 and 2 Corinthians (1971), pp. 240fGoogle Scholar. Does the Greek inscription ‘Synagogue of the Hebrews’ found in Corinth (Deissmann, A., Light from the Ancient East, 1927, p. 16)Google Scholar indicate that the workhippers themselves used Greek? Modern church notice boards tend to be written in the language of the worhippers.

^{page 278 note 6} Acts xxvi. 10 is taken in its full sense by E. Haenchen, op. cit. p. 610 n. 3; Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte (Tübingen, 1963), p. 138Google Scholar; Burchard, C., Der dreizehnte (Göttingen, 1971), p. 46.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 1} Barr, J., ‘Which language did Jesus speak? Some remarks of a Semitist’, B.J.R.L. liii (1970–1971), 9–29Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘The Languages of Palestine in the First Century AD’, C.B.Q. xxxii (1970), 501–31Google Scholar. An attempt to minimize the place of Aramaic has been made by Turner, N., ‘Q in Recent Thought’ Exp. T. lxxx (1968–1969), 324–8.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 2} Hahn, F., Der urchristliche Cottesdienst, pp. 42f.Google Scholar other Aramaic expressions in the New Testament come from sayings of Jesus.

^{page 279 note 3} The position is similar to that in the attempt of some scholars to limit the authentic sayings of Jesus to those which differ in content from the thought of the early church, thereby excluding from consideration the (very strong) likelihood that the early church took up and accepted the teaching of Jesus on many points; a highly one-sided and distorted picture of the teaching of Jesus is inevitable when this method is practised.

^{page 279 note 4} Büchsel, F., T.D.N.T. iv, 349Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology (London, 1971), I, 293fGoogle Scholar. Thyen's, H. claim to the contrary (Studien zur Sündenvergebung, Göttingen, 1970, p. 158Google Scholar n. 3) is quite unconvincing.

^{page 279 note 5} I see no good reason to deny the authenticity of the saying: see France, R. T., Jesus and the Old Testament (1971), pp. 116f.Google Scholar; Colpe, C., T.D.N.T. viii, 455.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 1} Bousset, W., Kyrios Christos, p. 84.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 2} Kuhn, K. G., T.D.N.T. IV, 466–72Google Scholar, especially pp. 470 f.

^{page 280 note 3} Cf. Dibelius, M., Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 4} See, for example, Schmithals, W., Paul and James (London, 1965), pp. 16–37Google Scholar; E. Haenchen, op. cit. pp. 218–22.

^{page 280 note 5} M. Hengel, ‘Christologie und neutestamentliche Chronologie’, p. 59.

^{page 280 note 6} Schoeps, H.-J., Das Judenchristentum (Bern, 1964), pp. 22 f.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 7} Schoeps himself admits that their point of view was never dominant, even if it may contain traces of view once held in the primitive church which have been obscured in our other sources. Few scholars would claim that we can work back with any certainty from Ebionite sources to the theology of the primitive church; Cf. Kümmel, W. G., RGG³ III, 967–72.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 8} Marshall, I. H., ‘The Development of Christology in the Early Church’, Tyn. B. XVIII (1967), 77–93Google Scholar, especially pp. 84 f. See now above all M. Hengel, op. cit. pp. 43–7.

^{page 281 note 1} The early dating of Galatians appears most probable to me (so Bruce, F. F., ‘Galatian Problems. 4: The Date of the Epistle’, B.J.R.L. LIV (1971–1972), 250–67)Google Scholar, but even on the later dating it is still an early witness to christological development.

^{page 281 note 2} This is all the more so if Paul is making use of traditional formulae in at least some of his christological statements.

^{page 281 note 3} P. Vielhauer, op. cit. pp. 144, 197, claims that Hahn has confused the chronological order of the spread of Christinanity with the traditio-historical development of christology; nevertheless he himself still adheres to something very like Hahn's scheme.

^{page 281 note 4} R. H. Fuller, op. cit. pp. 164–7, 187f., 192–7, 231f.; cf. 31–3, 65, 68–72, 88f.

^{page 281 note 5} Sanders, E. P., The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 195 f.Google Scholar, likewise claims that while a strict unilinear view is not stated in so many words by some scholars they never-theless give the impression of being unconsciously influenced by such a postulate.

^{page 281 note 6} One should also note the possibility of a re-judaization- should one say, a re-palestinization ? - of some traditons; Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, p. 378Google Scholar; Smith, M., ‘The Jewish Elements in the Gospels’, J.B.R. xxiv (1956), 90–6Google Scholar; Stauffer, E., Die Botschaft Jesu damals und heute (Bern, 1959)Google Scholar; E. P. Sanders, op. cit. pp. 197–9.

^{page 281 note 7} R. H. Fuller, op. cit. p. 203.

^{page 282 note 1} This is reflected in the pattern which lies behind the sermons to Jewish audiences in Acts and in the development of early christological formulae.

^{page 282 note 2} Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, I, 65.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 3} The point is unaffected if Luke's picture is idealistic rather than historical. In our view, however, there is a substantial element of tradition in the early speeches in Acts; see the forthcoming work by Stanton, G. N., The Primitive Preaching and Jesus of Nazareth, On the question of a preaching pattern in Acts xiv. 15–17 and xvii. 22–31Google Scholar (addressed to Gentiles) see Wilckens, U., Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte (Neukirchen, 1963 ²), pp. 81–91.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 4} Jeremias, J., Jesu Verheiβung für die Völker (Stuttgart, 1956), pp. 9–16.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 5} Georgi, D., Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief (Neukirchen, 1964), pp. 58–60Google Scholar. On Jewish missionary propaganda see further Dalbert, P., Die Theologie der hellenistisch-jüdischen Missionsliteratur unter Ausschluβ von Philo und Josephus (Hamburg-Volksdorf, 1954)Google Scholar; Thyen, H., Der Stil der jüdisch-hellenistischen Homilie (Göttingen, 1955).Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 6} E. Haenchen, op. cit. p. 465.

^{page 282 note 7} R. Bultmann, op. cit. I, 77 f.

^{page 283 note 1} It may of course be less, depending on how soon after his conversion Paul began to evangelize the Gentiles. The Jerusalem church was slower in evangelizing the Gentiles, but it was by no means whithout contact with what was going on: certainly by A.D. 50 it had been compelled to face the issue. What is beyond question is that we cannot separate between two groups of Hellenistic Christians in terms of the Gentile mission. At most we can admit that some Jerusalem Christians held back from the mission.

^{page 283 note 2} Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology, I, 170Google Scholar. For the early origins of mission in the infant church see Hahn, F., Mission in the New Testament, pp. 47–54Google Scholar; Hengel, M., ‘Die Ursprünge der Christlichen Mission,’ N.T.S. xviii (1971–1972), 15–38.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 3} Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel, p. 309Google Scholar, goes so far as to admit that the boundary between Hellenistic Jewish and Hellenistic Gentile Christianity was a fluid one, but fails to see that the boundary was so fluid as to be non-existent at this period.

^{page 283 note 4} M. Hengel, ‘Christologie und neutestamentliche Chronologie’, p. 50, rightly criticizes W. Bousset for in effect turning the church at Antioch into a Gentile community.

^{page 283 note 5} Ellis, ‘“Those of the Circumcision” and the Early Christian Mission’, loc. cit.

^{page 283 note 6} According to Schmithals, W., Paul and James, p. 60Google Scholar, Paul did not evangelize in the synagogues at all. This view has rightly not found acceptance; see Burchard, C., Der dreizehnte Zeuge, p. 165 n. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 7} It is true that in Gal. ii. 7–9 we read of an agreement by which Peter was to go to the circumcised and Paul to the Gentiles. Whatever may have been the character of Peter's mission, that of Paul was certainly carried on by both Jewish and Gentile missionaries and was directed to both Jews and Gentiles.

^{page 283 note 8} Paul himself is a Jew writing for Gentiles (as well as Jews). There are aspects of the Gospel of Matthew which can lead to a denial that it is a Jewish Christian gospel, although these are not sufficient in out opinion to overturn the older view (Hill, D., The Gospel of Matthew, London, 1972, pp. 39–44)Google Scholar. The Geospel of Mark is usually reckoned to be intended for Gentile readers; its author was probably a Jewish Christian (if the traditional authorship be upheld), but it has also been argued that he was a Gentile. Even Luke, usually assumed to be a Gentile, has been claimed as a Jewish Christian (Ellis, E. E., The Gospel of Luke, 1966, pp. 52 f.Google Scholar). The mixture of Jewish and Hellenistic thought in John continues to puzzle scholars, but the basic ingredient appears to be Jewish. The destination of Hebrews, if not its author, has been plausibly sought among both Jewish and Gentile Christians. Both James and I Peter display an interesting mixture of Jewish and Greek features. Probably Revealation is the only major work in the New Testament concerning which it can un-hesitatingly be claimed that it is the work of a Jewish Christian.

If, therefore, in the period of composition of the New Testament books none can be unhesitatingly claimed as Gentile in origin or audience, it is all the more likely that in earlier times a purely Gentile Christian theology cannot be found. The evidence cited shows rather that a strict boundary between Jewish and Gentile Christianity simply did not exist.

^{page 284 note 1} We may take up Heitmüller's points briefly:

(a) For Paul all that mattered was the death of Jesus for our sins; His earthly life was irrelevant. This thesis has two sides. The one asserts that the death of Jesus mattered for Paul, but not for the early church. The other asserts that the earthly life of Jesus was important for the Jerusalem church, but not for Paul. In each case Paul is dependent on the Hellenistic church.

^{page 284 note 1(a)} But it is certain that the traditions utilized by Paul which speak of the death of Jesus for sin go back to the primitive church; even H. Conzelmann, who argues that the Semitic features in I Corinthians XV. 3–5 are due to the language of the LXX, does not dent that Jerusalem tradition is to be found here (op. cit. pp. 84 f.). It should be noted that the argument from the presence of Semitisms (Klappert, B., ‘Zur Frage des semitischen oder griechischen Urtextes von I Kor. XV. 3–5’, N.T.S. XIII, 1966–1967, 168–73)Google Scholar still stands despite our insistence above on bilingualism in the early church, traditional formulations showing signs of Semitic influence remain more likely in Palestine than any-where else. For Paul's knowledge of traditions about the earthly Jesus see Dungen, D. L., The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul (Philadelphia, 1971).Google Scholar

Again the preaching of the early church appears to have been largely concerned with the resurrection of Jesus, and it is doubtful whether the earthly life of Jesus was any more important in the early church than in the Hellenistic church.

Heitmüller's argument has been presented in a fresh form by Wilckens, ‘Jesusüberlieferung und Christuskerygma - zwei Wege urchristlicher Überlieferungsgeschichte’, loc. cit.

^{page 284 note 1(b)} Heitmüller argued that the use of the title ‘Lord’ was not Palestinian but Hellenistic. This thesis is rarely advanced today in so extreme a form. It is recognized that the existence of the phrase ‘Maranath’ proves the use of a corresponding title in Aramaic. Consequently recourse is had to the view that there were two independent uses of teh title with significantly different meanings (W. Kramer, op. cit. pp. 65–107 (15–23); Schulz, S., ‘Maranatha und Kyrios Jesus’, Z.N.W. liii (1962), 125–44)Google Scholar. See p. 276 n. 3 above. There are no grounds for claiming that the simple confession ‘Jesus is Lord’ (Rom. x. 9; I Cor. xii. 3) does not go back to an early date, despite W. Kramer, op. cit. pp. 68, 70 (15, d).

^{page 284 note 1(c)} Heitmüller argued that in the Hellenistic world the Lord's Supper was regarded as the provision of miraculous food in the same way as in the sacred meals which took place in the mystery cults.

But there is no indication that Paul himself accepted such a view of the supper (and it is with in fluences upon Paul that we are concerned). He strenuously resisted any attempt made in Corinth to regard the sacraments as conferring magical powers of preservation upon their recipients. His own understanding of the supper was based on early tradition (Cf. Schürmann, H., Der Einsetzungsbericht, Münster, 1955).Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 1(d)} With regard to Heitmüller's claim that the mysticism in Romans vi is Hellenistic, it may suffice to refer to Wagner, G., Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (Edinburgh, 1967)Google Scholar. The influence of the Hellenistic mystery religions is minimal.

^{page 285 note 1} See also the programmatic remarks in M. Hengel, ‘Christologie und neutestamentliche Chronologie’, pp. 63–7.

^{page 285 note 2} Although Hahn discusses the place of women in worship in his chapter on Gentile Christianity (op. cit. pp. 62–4), he admits that women played a part in worship in the Hellenistic Jewish church.

^{page 285 note 3} F. Hahn, Der urchristliche Gottesdienst, p. 65.

^{page 285 note 4} See the qualifications made by H. Paulsen in F. Hahn, op. cit. p. 60 n. 21.

^{page 285 note 5} F. Hahn, op. cit. p. 50 and p. 61 n. 26. There is however, a problem posed by the lack of specific Old Testament quotations in Philippians, Colossians and I and II Thessalonians; were these churches purely Gentile in composition? (Cf. Ellis, E. E., Paul' Use of the Old Testament, Edinburgh, 1957, p. 30Google Scholar n. 8.)

^{page 285 note 6} F. Hahn, op. cit. p. 49 n. 9.

^{page 286 note 1} See p. 281 nn. 6 and 7 above on Ebionitism.

^{page 286 note 2} F. Hahn, op. cit. p. 54.

^{page 287 note 1} Lohmeyer, E., Galiläa und Jerusalem (Göttingen, 1936)Google Scholar; Schille, G., Anfänge der Kirche: Erwägungen zur apostolischen Frühgeschichte (München, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 2} This is not, however, to cliam that there were several rival and disparate christologies: ‘Die Vielzahl von christologischen Titeln bedeutete nicht eine Vielzahl von sich ausschließenden “Christologien”, sondern eine akkumulative Verherrlichung Jesu. Sie müssen unter dem Blick-winkel der “Vielfalt der Annäherungsweisen” gesehen werden, die für mythisches Denken typischist’ (M. Hengel, ‘Christologie und neutestamentliche Chronologie’, p. 60).

^{page 287 note 3} Attention should be directed to the suggestions of H. Köster regarding variety in the NT witness (H. Köster and Robinson, J. M., Trajectories through Early Christianity, Philadelphia, 1971).Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 4} H. Conzelmann, op. cit. pp. 46–8.