^{Page 454 note 1} Z.Th.K. LVII, 2 (1960), pp. 162–85; published in Eng. tr. as The Beginnings of ‘Christian Theology’ in Apocalyplicism, ed. by Funk, R. W. (Journal of Theology and Church, VI; New York, 1969), pp. 17–46Google Scholar, henceforth cited as Anfänge’. Subsequent page references will cite original pagination with that of the Eng. tr. in parentheses.

^{Page 454 note 2} Ibid. p. 162 (17).

^{Page 454 note 3} Ibid. p. 257 n. 2 (101).

^{Page 454 note 4} Z.Th.K. LIX, 3 (1962), pp. 257–84; published in Eng. tr. as On the Topic of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic’ in Funk, op. cit. pp. 99–133; henceforth cited as Thema’.

^{Page 454 note 5} Ibid. p. 284 (133); Anfänge’, p. 180 (40).

^{Page 454 note 6} The present article has grown out of an earlier paper on ‘The Secularization of Apocalyptic in the New Testament’, presented in October 1968 at the annual meeting of the A.A.R. Since that time the volume on apocalypticism edited by R. Funk has made its appearance, with its helpful commentary on Käsemann's theses concerning ‘apocalyptic’ and the early church. The present article is greatly indebted to the Funk volume and hopefully represents a supplement to the work of G. Ebeling, E. Fuchs, H. D. Betz, and R. Funk in their caveats against the hypotheses of Käsemann, the Pannenberg group, and others, concerning the ‘apocalyptic’ provenance of New Testament theology.

^{Page 455 note 1} Thema’, p. 263 n. 5 (107).

^{Page 455 note 2} Anfänge’, p. 180 (40).

^{Page 455 note 3} Ibid. pp. 260–72 (102–18); cf. Anfänge’, p. 179 (40).

^{Page 455 note 4} Ibid. p. 270 (115–16). Käsemann draws the following comparison: Ünlike the prophetic message, but like the Baptist and Qumran, Jesus is concerned with the near basileia. Unlike the Baptist or the teacher of righteousness in Qumran or the rabbinic miracle seeker, Jesus combines his call to decision with healings and exorcisms…Jesus regarded it as his task and as his special grace conferred upon him, to testify to the gracious God as present and breaking into the world…Thus he enters into his message as himself a sort of incarnate promise and can no longer like the Baptist be comprehended under the category of the forerunner but, if a category must indeed be used, then it can only be that of the mediator who brings the eschatological age in announcing it.’. U. Wilckens, however, sees. Jesus as an apocalyptist: cf. Pannenberg, W., Rendtorff, R., Rendtorff, T., and Wilckens, U., Offenbarung als Geschichte, Kerygma und Dogma (Beiheft, I, ³ 1965), pp. 50Google Scholar ff. Pannenberg does not go quite as far as Wilckens, preferring instead simply to speak of jesus’ teaching in connection with apocalyptically coloured prophecy’. Cf. H. D. Betz, The Concept of Apocalyptic in the Theology of the Pannenberg Group’, in Funk, op. cit. pp. 194, 202 n. 52.

^{Page 455 note 5} Ibid. p. 272 (118).

^{Page 455 note 6} ‘Anfänge’, pp. 163–7 (18–24).

^{Page 455 note 7} ‘Thema’, p. 257 n. 1 (100).

^{Page 455 note 8} ‘Anfänge’, pp. 168–9 (24–6). Käsemann maintains the two groups represent two different eschatologies, but in our estimation fails to make this difference clear.

^{Page 455 note 9} Ibid. p. 163 (18).

^{Page 455 note 10} Ibid. p. 169 (26). Käsemann also proposes the existence of a presbytery seated in Jerusalem either before or shortly after James. Cf. p. 171 (28–9).

^{Page 456 note 1} Ibid. p. 168 (25).

^{Page 456 note 2} Ibid. p. 175 (33).

^{Page 456 note 3} Ibid. pp. 171 f. (29 f.), 174 (32), 176 (36), 184 (45), cf. Matt. vii. 2; xiii. 2; xvi. 19; xxv. 29. Käsemann makes a special point of Matt. xxiii. 12 as evidence of the transformation of a purely gnomic saying (Mark ix. 35; Luke ix. 24b; xii. 48; xiv. 11; xviii. 14; xix. 26; xx. 18) into an eschatological threat.

^{Page 456 note 4} Ibid. p. 178 (37); 184 (45). Cf. Matt. vii. 2; x. 26, 39; xvi. 25. Käsemann points also to I Cor. i. 25 ff. as examplification ‘of the apocalytptic law of the transformations of values’ in the end time, apparently ignoring the fact that for Paul the transvaluation had already been inaugurated.

^{Page 456 note 5} Ibid. p. 184 (45).

^{Page 456 note 6} Ibid. Cf. also Thema’, p. 257 n. 1 (100).

^{Page 456 note 7} Ibid. Käsemann states categorically that ‘it must be plainly declared that this hope was deceived, and that along with it there collapsed the whole theological picture of post-Easter apocalyptic…’.

^{Page 456 note 8} Ibid. pp. 175 f. (34 f.).

^{Page 456 note 9} Ibid. p. 176 (35–6).

^{Page 456 note 10} Ibid. pp. 184–5. (46).

^{Page 456 note 11} Ibid. Cf. also Käsemann's valuation of the ‘apocalyptic’ response to the Easter event as the appropriate way of expressing the fact that in Jesus the world is confronted by ultimate promise’ (italics added); ‘Thema’, p. 272 (118).

^{Page 456 note 12} ‘Thema’, pp. 277 f. (125 f.). Although Käsemann is eager to distinguish Hellenistic enthusiasm theologically from ‘apocalyptic’, at the same time he wishes to maintain a continuity between the two by suggesting that Hellenistic enthusiasm is a growth ‘beyond’ apocalyptic or a ‘transformation’ of it that nevertheless ‘links up precisely with the post-Easter apocalyptic’. Cf. also p. 274 (121); pp. 272–8 (118–26).

^{Page 457 note 1} Ibid. p. 274 (121); 276b (124).

^{Page 457 note 2} Ibid. p. 274 (120). Käsemann states that ‘the products of a Christianity arising on Hellenistic soil…revolve around the exaltation of Christ, which is understood as his enthronement and is contrasted with the incarnation as his humiliation and occasionally with pre-existence as the starting point of the way of salvation’. Käsemann cites Phil. ii. 6 ff. and 1 Tim. iii. 16 as typical of this Christology.

^{Page 457 note 3} Ibid. pp. 274 (121).

^{Page 457 note 4} Ibid. p. 278 (126).

^{Page 457 note 5} Ibid. pp. 274–5. (122).

^{Page 457 note 6} Ibid. p. 275 (122), 278 (126).

^{Page 457 note 7} However, cf. Wilckens, op. cit. pp. 63 ff., who interprets Paul as thoroughly apocalyptic. Cf. Betz, ‘Pannenberg’, pp. 204 f.

^{Page 457 note 8} ‘Thema’, p. 278 (126). Käsemann attributes this point to the work of Sass, G., Apostelamt und Kirche (Munich, 1939)Google Scholar.

^{Page 457 note 9} Ibid. p. 279 (127); cf. also p. 280 (129), where Käsemann states that Christ in Paul's theology ‘is God's viceroy in a world which is not yet wholly subject to God although its eschatological subjection has been under way since Easter and the end of the Process is in sight’. Käsemann adds: ‘No view could be more apocalyptic’, to which one might add further: ‘except Jewish apocalypticism itself which would have denied the eschatological subjection of which Käsemann speaks’.

^{Page 457 note 10} Ibid. pp. 282–3 (132). Käsemann labels the ‘question as to whom the lordship of the world belongs’ as an ‘apocalyptic question’, ostensibly ignoring the importance of this same question in the prophetic and wisdom literature. Cf. part II, B, (iii) below.

^{Page 457 note 11} ‘Anfänge’, p. 183 (44). Käsemann fails to support this point from any data in Jewish apocalyptic literature. He simply makes reference to the early church belief ‘that divine right in and over this earth of ours is…already realized’, which in itself would appear to be distinctively Christian and rather un-apocalyptic.

^{Page 457 note 12} ‘Thema’, pp. 280 f. (129).

^{Page 458 note 1} Ibid.

^{Page 458 note 2} Ibid. p. 281 (130).

^{Page 458 note 3} Ibid.

^{Page 458 note 4} ‘Anfänge’, p. 184 (45).

^{Page 458 note 5} ‘Thema’, p. 257 n. 1 (100).

^{Page 458 note 6} Ibid. Cf. also ‘Anfänge’, pp. 184 f. (46).

^{Page 458 note 7} Ibid. p. 268 (113). Käsemann speaks of the ‘first Christian theology’ as having a ‘characteristically apocalyptic stamp’.

^{Page 458 note 8} Ibid. p. 272 (118).

^{Page 458 note 9} Ibid.

^{Page 458 note 10} Ibid. p. 275 (122), 283 (132). Cf. ‘Anfänge’e, p. 183 (45), where the life of the ‘apocalyptic’ is characterized as the ‘suffering of tribulation’.

^{Page 458 note 11} ‘Anfänge’, pp. 167 (24), 172 (30), 175 (33), 178–9 (37–9), 184 (45); ‘Thema’, pp. 261 (104), 280 (129), 283 (132).

^{Page 458 note 12} ‘Anfänge’, p. 178 (38); ‘Thema’, p. 260 (103).

^{Page 458 note 13} ‘Anfänge’, p. 175 (33–4).

^{Page 458 note 14} ‘Thema’, p. 282 (132).

^{Page 458 note 15} Ibid. pp. 274 (121), 277 (125).

^{Page 458 note 16} Käsemann refers to its typology, proof of the fulfilment of predictions, exhortations, prophetic ‘curse’ or ‘woe’. Cf. ‘Anfänge’, pp. 175–6 (34–5), 178 (38).

^{Page 459 note 1} Ibid. pp. 172 (29).

^{Page 459 note 2} Ibid. pp. 167 (24).

^{Page 459 note 3} Ibid. p. 178 (38).

^{Page 459 note 4} This assumption permits Käsemann to sprinkle his work with generalized references to an ‘apocalyptic outlook’, to an ‘apocalyptic approach’, to an ‘apocalyptic schema’, to an ‘apocalyptic question’, or to an ‘apocalyptic view’. He also makes reference to an ‘apocalyptically based narrative’, an ‘apocalyptically determained message’, or to an item as ‘interpreted apocalyptically’. Cf. ‘Anfänge’, pp. 175 (33), 175–6 (34–5), 179 (40), 180 (40); ‘Thema’, pp. 261 (104–5), 263 (106), 280 (129), 281 (130), 282 (132).

^{Page 459 note 5} ‘Anfänge’, pp. 175 (34), 176 (35–6), 179 (39), 180 (40), 183 (44), 184 (46); ‘Thema’, pp. 257 n. 1 (100), 260 (103), 263 n. 5 (107), 272 (118), 274 (121), 275 (122), 277 n. 17 (125), 278 (126), 279 (127), 281–1 (129) bis, 283 (132).

^{Page 459 note 6} In response to a criticism of Ebeling's, Käsemann acknowledges a difference between Jewish and Christian apocalypticism as ‘obvious’, yet fails to indicate the nature of this difference; ‘Thema’, p. 264 n. 6 (107–8).

^{Page 459 note 7} ‘Anfänge’, pp. 167 (24), 175 (33–4), where he refers to the ‘tradition of late Judaism’ and the apocalyptic notes to be found in the ‘Jewish haggada of the passover’, though nowhere attempts a systematic statement on the relationship of ‘apocalyptic’ to ‘late Judaism’.

^{Page 459 note 8} This is is especially evident in Käsemann's assumption, noted above, that Christian apocalyptic collapsed when its eschatological hopes were dashed, indicating the pre-eminent role imminentistic eschatology plays in Käsemann's definition of ‘apocalyptic’. ‘Anfänge’, p. 184 (45). Cf. p. 458, n. 6, above.

^{Page 460 note 1} H. D. Betz, ‘Zum Problem des religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnißes der Apokalyptik’, Z.Th.K. LXIII (1966), 392; Eng. tr., ‘On the problem of the religio-historical understanding of Apocalypticism’, in R. Runk, op. cit. p. 135; henceforth cited as ‘Problem’. Cf. G. von. Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, II (Munich, ⁴1965), 315.

^{Page 460 note 2} Ibid. p. 392 (135).

^{Page 460 note 3} Ibid. p. 392 (136).

^{Page 460 note 4} Ibid. p. 393 (136).

^{Page 460 note 5} Ibid. p. 394 (138). Betz comments, ‘The underlying questions which have led to the development of dualism, angelology, cosmology, astrology and so forth, are to a large exten identical with the basic problems which occupy the entire period of Hellenism, and which have precipitated parallel doctrines there’.

^{Page 460 note 6} Even R. Funk, who wishes to emphasize the discontinuity between Jewish apocalypticism and earliest Christianity, still uses the phrase ‘common apocalyptic’ to describe the primitive church; cf. ‘Apocalyptic as a historical and theological problem in current New Testament scholarship’, Funk, op. cit. p. 190; henceforth cited as ‘Apocalyptic’.

^{Page 461 note 1} D. N. Freedman, ‘The Flowering of Apocalyptic’, in Funk, Apocalypticism, p. 169, speaks of Daniel both as ‘characteristically biblical’ and as the ‘model apocalyptic’ which taken to its logical conclusion would imply little if any difference between ‘biblical’ and ‘apocalyptic’ expression. H. D. Betz, however, maintains that given the profound differences between biblical and apocalyptic works, one can ‘by no means’ regard Daniel ‘as the standard example of apocalyptic thought’; ‘Pannenberg’, p. 199. Betz cites the observation of L. Ginzberg that ‘Daniel is one of the very few apocalypses that does not contain cosmological speculations, and this apocalypse is the only one admitted into the canon’. ‘Observations on the attitude of the synagogue toward the apocalypticeschatological writings’, J.B.L. XLI (1922), 135 n. 48. One might observe with Ginzberg that in the New Testament canon as well, certain types of apocalypses proved admissible; others did not.

^{Page 461 note 2} Recent New Testament scholarship has begun to raise the question of the ‘apocalyptic’ character of the Johnannine Apocalypse; cf. Jones, R. W., ‘More About the Apocalypse as Apocalyptic’, J.B.L. LXXXVII (1968), 325–7Google Scholar; Kallas, J., ‘The Apocalypse—an Apocalyptic Book?’ J.B.L. LXXXVI (1967), 69–80Google Scholar; Nikolainen, A. T., ‘Über die theologische Eigenart der Offenbarung des Johannes’, T.L.Z. XCIII (1968), 161–70Google Scholar.

^{Page 461 note 3} ‘Thema’, p. 272 (119).

^{Page 461 note 4} Ibid. p. 264 (108). He introduces each of these factors as part of the ‘apocalyptic context’ of the ‘oldest Christian kerygma’, cf. p. 263 (106).

^{Page 461 note 5} The precise relationship between Jewish apocalypticism and the Old Testament is by no means a settled issue. Cf. n. 1, above. The Pannenberg group and H. H. Rowley locate the root of Jewish apocalypticism in O.T. prophecy (cf. Betz, ‘Pannenberg’, p. 200 n. 38). Von Rad maintains Jewish apocalypticism is a syncretistic phenomenon rooted in wisdom (von Rad, op. cit. pp. 317, 319 f., 322; cf. Freedman, op. cit. p. 159 n. 3). F. Cross, in ‘New Directions in the Study of Apocalyptic’, in Funk, , Apocalypticism, pp. 162–5Google Scholar, relates the origin of Jewish apocalypticism to the decline of prophecy and the recrudescence of mythic themes stemming in part from ‘decadent royal ideologies’ and in part from the ‘wisdom schools’. In any event it would seem desirable to avoid any simple equation of Jewish apocalypticism with the Old Testament in general.

^{Page 461 note 6} ‘Pannenberg’, p. 201.

^{Page 462 note 1} Rad, Von, op. cit. p. 330Google Scholar; cf. Betz, , ‘Problem’, p. 392 (135)Google Scholar.

^{Page 462 note 2} ‘Thema’, p. 275 (122).

^{Page 462 note 3} Op. cit. p. 171.

^{Page 462 note 4} Ibid. p. 173. Freedman comments, ‘apocalyptic nurtured a viable community…’. Though this statement properly recognizes the interrelationship of the theology and communal structure of apocalypticism, it assumes, perhaps prematurely, that ‘the theology’ precedes ‘the community’.

^{Page 462 note 5} Ibid. p. 171.

^{Page 462 note 6} Ibid. p. 173.

^{Page 462 note 7} Gesetz und Geschichte. Untersuchung zur Theologie der jüdischen Apokalyptik und der pharisäischen Orthodoxie, W.M.A.N.T. III (Neukirchen, 1960); cf. Betz, , ‘Pannenberg’, pp. 195–7Google Scholar.

^{Page 463 note 1} The Dead Sea Scrolls (London, 1958), pp. 89–91.

^{Page 463 note 2} ‘Thema’, p. 272 (118).

^{Page 463 note 3} As Freedman comments, op. cit. p. 166, the seventy apocalypses referred to in 4 Ezra xiv. 44–5, ‘for the most part…mirror sharply the vicissitudes of the Jewish community during that period of unusual instability and upheaval in the Near East (in marked contrast with the preceding Achaemenid and Ptolemaic periods of comparative tranquillity)’. Cf. also p. 173.

^{Page 463 note 4} Davies, W. D., ‘Apocalypticism and Pharisaism’, in Christian Origins and Judaism, (London, 1962), pp. 19–30Google Scholar. Reicke, Bo, ‘Official and pietistic elements of Jewish apocalyptic’, J.B.L. LXXIX (1960), 145 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{Page 463 note 5} Reicke, op. cit. p. 145.

^{Page 464 note 1} Davies, op. cit. p. 29.

^{Page 464 note 2} Sanhedrin 96 b–97 a.

^{Page 464 note 3} Davies, op. cit. p. 23. Davies' position runs counter to that of Rössler, who sees Jewish apocalypticism and Pharisaic (rabbinic) orthodoxy as two fundamentally different theological perspectives. Davies believes the division to which Rössler refers applies only after Jamnia, at a time when Rabbinic Judaism found itself building up its hedges against a variety of foreign’ elements, including Christianity and gnosticism; cf. pp. 26 ff. Guttmann, A., ‘Pharisaism in Transition’, in Essays in Honor of Solomon B. Freehof (1964), pp. 202–19Google Scholar, would agree with Davies that pre-Jamnian Pharisaism is not to be equated with ‘Rabbinic Judaism’. Cf. Betz, , ‘Pannenberg’, p. 195 n. 15Google Scholar.

^{Page 464 note 4} F. Cross, op. cit. p. 160 n. 5.

^{Page 464 note 5} Freedman, op. cit. p. 172.

^{Page 465 note 1} ‘Anfänge’, p. 162 (17).

^{Page 465 note 2} Ibid. p. 184 (45).

^{Page 465 note 3} ‘Thema’, p. 272 (118).

^{Page 465 note 4} ‘Anfänge’, p. 180 (40).

^{Page 465 note 5} Ibid. p. 163 (18).

^{Page 465 note 6} Ibid.

^{Page 465 note 7} ‘Apocalyptic’, p. 185.

^{Page 465 note 8} Ibid. pp. 185 f.

^{Page 466 note 1} Ebeling, G., ‘Der Grund christlicher Theologie’, Z.Th.K. LVIII, 2 (1961), pp. 227–44Google Scholar; published in Eng. tr. as ‘The Ground of Christian Theology’ in Funk, , Apocalypticism, pp. 47–68Google Scholar. Cf. p. 232 (53).

^{Page 466 note 2} Although the Acts narrative cannot be taken as ‘pure history’, neither can it be taken as pure fiction or as the unmitigated theological fancy of the author. Moule, G. F. D., in his essay on ‘The Christology of Acts’ in Studies in Luke–Acts, ed. by Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L. (London, 1968), pp. 159–85Google Scholar, has made a strong case for taking the Acts narrative somewhat more seriously than it has been in the past as a valid historical reflection on the life and thought of the earliest church. Moule's case rests on his observation and demonstration of the clear-cut differences that exist between the Christologies of the gospel of Luke and of Acts. This observation would seem to undermine the claim that Luke has simply fashioned the gospel and Acts in his own theological image. To the contrary, Moule would argue, the evidence suggests ‘strongly’ that Luke either impersonated the various outlooks reflected in the Acts narrative or used sources. Gf. p. 182. Cf. also the preface to the forthcoming second editition of O'Neill's, J. C.The Theology of Acts in its Historical Setting (London, 1970)Google Scholar, which maintains that ‘Luke was using written sources throughout’ the Acts narrative.

^{Page 466 note 3} E.g. (i) the proof-from-prophecy technique in interpreting O.T. scripture, somewhat resembling the ‘pesher’ method at Qumran (Acts ii. 16–31, 24–8; iii. 22; vii. 37); (ii) the self-understanding of the church as a community of ‘saints’, who have turned from wickedness under a new covenant (Acts ii. 38–42; iii. 25 f.), and who stand opposed to the ‘powers’ (iv. 27); (iii) a communalistic social structure in which property is commonly owned (ii. 44–6; iv. 32, 35–7; v. 1–11), characterized by cultic acts of breaking of bread and prayer; (iv) a rite of baptism (viii. ia, without the Holy Spirit); and (v) a view of history as determined (iv. 28; v. 38–9).

^{Page 466 note 4} Acts ii. 22–31.

^{Page 466 note 5} Acts ii. 1–4, 17–21; iv. 30–1; v. 32; vi. 5; viii. 16; ix. 18 f., 31; cf. i. 4, 8.

^{Page 466 note 6} Acts iv. 16, 30; iii. 16; v. 12; ix. 32–53.

^{Page 466 note 7} Acts viii. 35.

^{Page 466 note 8} The common assumption that ‘everyone’ in first-century Palestine or Galilee would have been ‘apocalyptic’ or would have been supportive of Jewish apocalyptic party spirit is far from selfevident. Over against the Essenes, Zealots, Pharisees, and the Baptist party stood at least two groups which almost certainly cannot be identified with Jewish apocalypticism, the Sadducees and the am-ha-aretz. It is clear that the latter, as ‘sinners’, would have been excluded from the society of Jewish apocalypticism by virtue of their failure to live by the law that according to Rossler was the most distinctive feature of Jewish apocalypticism and provided the criterion for membership in the community.

^{Page 467 note 1} Acts xviii. 15.

^{Page 467 note 2} ‘Thema’, p. 269 (114–15).

^{Page 467 note 3} Ibid. p. 263 (106).

^{Page 467 note 4} Käsemann argues that it is ‘impossible’ that the basis of the Easter faith could be found in Jesus' message on the questionable ground that ‘the crucifixion…profoundly shook, and indeed shattered, the disciples' expectation’; ibid. p. 262 (106).

^{Page 467 note 5} Ibid. pp. 269–70 (114).

^{Page 467 note 6} Some of the descriptions Käsemann offers of the early church would seem to suggest, contrary to his own thesis, that they are in fact rooted in the teaching of Jesus: e.g. (i) Their membership consists of the am-ha-aretz who were ‘bound to clash with Pharisaic piety’; ‘Thema’, p. 266 (110), (ii) Their anti-exclusivism found them opposed to ‘Pharisaism and Qumran’; ibid. p. 267 (111). (iii) They stood opposed to rabbinical exposition; ibid. p. 265 (108–9). Almost paradoxically, (iv) Käsemann does say that the Easter faith, as apocalyptic as it was in conception, was in essence a response to ‘Jesus' preaching of the nearness of God’; ‘Anfänge’, p. 180 (40). Cf. Ebeling's remarks to this latter point, op. cit. p. 236 (59).

^{Page 468 note 1} ‘Anfänge’, p. 168 (25); cf. p. 166 (22), ‘rigorously legalistic Jewish Christianity’.

^{Page 468 note 2} Ibid. p. 168 (25).

^{Page 468 note 3} Ibid. p. 166 (22).

^{Page 468 note 4} Acts vi. 9.

^{Page 469 note 1} ‘Anfänge’, p. 171 (28).

^{Page 469 note 2} Ibid. p. 168 (25).

^{Page 469 note 3} Ibid. p. 169 (26).

^{Page 469 note 4} Acts xii. 3 ff.

^{Page 469 note 5} Gal. ii. 9, 12; Acts xii. 17.

^{Page 469 note 6} Acts xii. 3–17.

^{Page 469 note 7} Acts xv. 5; cf. Gal. ii. 12.

^{Page 469 note 8} Acts xv. 1–21.

^{Page 469 note 9} Gal. ii. 9.

^{Page 469 note 10} Acts xxi. 17–29.

^{Page 469 note 11} Acts xv. 5.

^{Page 470 note 1} It might be said that rigorous Jewish Christianity and gentile-mission Christianity were mutual creations in the sense that their destinies were increasinly shaped and determined by the fact of their opposition to one another.

^{Page 470 note 2} ‘Anfänge’, p. 171 (29).

^{Page 470 note 3} Ibid. p. 169 (26).

^{Page 470 note 4} Mark xiv. 28; xvi. 7; Matt. xxviii. 7, 16. One of the most recent statements on this hypothesis is P. Parker's work on ‘Mark, Acts, and Galilean Christianity’, N.T.S. (April 1970), pp. 295–304. Parker concludes that Acts represents a Judean provenance and Mark a Galilean.

^{Page 470 note 5} John xx–xxi.

^{Page 470 note 6} Acts viii. 1.

^{Page 470 note 7} Acts viii. 13 f.

^{Page 470 note 8} Acts viii. 19.

^{Page 470 note 9} Acts viii. 18.

^{Page 470 note 10} Actsxviii. 24 ff.

^{Page 471 note 1} Acts ix. 32.

^{Page 471 note 2} Similar hints of a multi-linear origin of the early church might be found also (i) in Paul's reference to Andronicus and Junias who ‘were in Christ’ before him (Rom. xvi. 7); (ii) in thereference to Alexander and Rufus, sons of Simon of Cyrene (Mark xv. 21); (iii) in Paul's reference to the brother ‘who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel’ (II Cor. viii. 18), which seems to suggest he does not represent Jerusalem Christianity. Though the evidence is not unambiguous, it would seem to point to the springing up of Christians and Christian groups apart from Jerusalem at a very early date.

^{Page 471 note 3} Though as we hope to indicate below, the degree of correspondence may be far less than commonly assumed; cf. IV, c.

^{Page 471 note 4} Ebeling, , op. cit. p. 395 (138)Google Scholar. He makes a similar point in discussing the controversy between Stephen and the ‘eschatological tradition of the fathers’. ‘As almost always happens in such controversies, the breakthrough to the new position still bears traces of the conquered opponent’; p. 230 n. 5 (50).

^{Page 472 note 1} Acts ii. 31–6.

^{Page 472 note 2} Acts ii. 38; iii. 6; iv. 10, 12, 18; v. 28.

^{Page 472 note 3} Ebeling, , op. cit. p. 236 (58)Google Scholar.

^{Page 473 note 1} ‘Pannenberg’, p. 202.

^{Page 473 note 2} Ibid. pp. 201 f.

^{Page 473 note 3} Rad, Von, op. cit. pp. 304 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Ebeling, , op. cit. p. 240 n. 11 (64)Google Scholar.

^{Page 473 note 4} Acts ii. 22.

^{Page 473 note 5} ‘Promise and Fulfilment’, in Essays on Old Testament Interpretation, ed. by Westermann, C. (London, 1963), pp. 105–8, 112 fGoogle Scholar.

^{Page 473 note 6} Acts ii. 20 cites the prophecy of Joel concerning the coming ‘day of the Lord’ (Joel ii. 28–32) proclaiming that the prophecy has been fulfilled; the ‘last days’ (Acts ii. 17; Joel ii. 28) have arrived. The eschatological gladness (euphrosynē) (Ps. xvi. 11) has been realized (Acts ii. 28.).

^{Page 473 note 7} ‘World in modern theology and in New Testament theology’, in Soli Deo Gloria, ed. Richards, J. McDowell (Richmond, Va., 1968), pp. 88–100Google Scholar.

^{Page 473 note 8} Ibid. p. 109.

^{Page 474 note 1} Ibid.

^{Page 474 note 2} Cf. also Col. i. 15–20; I Cor. xv; 28; John i, as reflections of the reclamation of ‘sophia speculation’ to express the unity of God and his creation. One finds a similar note in Jesus' use of the parable, which in drawing on nature and the common life’ (Dodd) to speak of the basileia tou theou, illustrates the relationship between them; though the provenance of the parable is more likely folk-wisdom rather than ‘sophia speculation’.

^{Page 474 note 3} Acts ii. 35.

^{Page 474 note 4} Acts ii. 34–6, citing Ps. cx. 1.

^{Page 474 note 5} Acts ii. 34.

^{Page 474 note 6} Acts ii. 22.

^{Page 474 note 7} Acts ii. 24, 27, 31, 33.

^{Page 474 note 8} Acts ii. 28; citing Ps. xvi. 9–11.

^{Page 474 note 9} Significantly, the theologia crucis is noticeably absent from the earliest kerygma, if the early speeches in Acts are typical. In Acts ii. 23, iii. 14 f., the cross functions only as a symbol of indictment. Likewise in iv. 27, the cross identifies the enemies of Jesus as the enemies of God, but even so only by virtue of the resurrection. The overwhelming stress is given to the theme of witness to the power of the Spirit and to the resurrection as vindication of Jesus as Lord and Christ, both of which point to the inauguration of the new age.

^{Page 474 note 10} To be sure world-weariness is to be found in the New Testament, but qualified by the post-Easter expreience. Paul can say ‘to die is gain’, but he adds that to live ‘means fruitful labour’, which means labour in the gentile world (Phil. i. 21). In any event, the ‘world weariness’ seems to be absent from the initial enthusiasm of the Pentecost church that Käsemann wishes to identify as ‘apocalyptic’.

^{Page 475 note 1} Even if the theories concerning the development of formal didactic traditions are valid (Stendahl, Gerhardsson), these traditions would no doubt post-date the earliest church.

^{Page 475 note 2} Cf. p. 464 n. 3, above.

^{Page 475 note 3} Op. cit. p. 232 (53).

^{Page 475 note 4} Acts v. 20.

^{Page 475 note 5} Acts vi. 4; viii. 4; ix. 2.

^{Page 475 note 6} Mark xiii; Matt. xxiv; Luke xxi. 5–36.

^{Page 475 note 7} ‘Altchristliche Apokalyptik’, R.G.G. ³, I (1957), col. 467.

^{Page 475 note 8} I Cor. xv. 20–8; II Cor. xii. 4; I Thess. iv. 13—v. 6; IIThess. i. 4–10; ii. 1–12; Eph. iii. 3 f.; Heb. xii. 22–9; Jas. v. 7–11; I Pet. i. 13 ff.; II Pet. iii; I John ii. 18–28; iv. 1–6; II John 7.

^{Page 476 note 1} E.g. the repudiation of sings found in the midst of the apocalypses in Mark (xiii. 32) and Luke (xvii. 20 f.).

^{Page 476 note 2} ‘Thema’, p. 257 n. 1 (100).

^{Page 476 note 3} Ibid. p. 263 n. 5. (107).