Son-of-God traditions in the Synoptic Gospels : Ferdinand Hahn ' s diachronic perspective

This study makes use of Ferdinand Hahn's insights (with Son of God as case study) to indicate how the naming of Jesus developed in stages. It is shown that the name Son of God was not used by Jesus. It functioned within the context of the cultic activities of early Christianity, was taken over from the surrounding religious, political and cultural world while its referential meaning shifted in the various layers. Hahn focuses on the multi-stage development of the Jesus tradition from an Aramaic "Judaism", through a Hellenistic "Judaism" to a Gaeco-Roman stage. First the possible historical origins of the title Son of God are discussed, after which Hahn's view is taken into consideration.


INTRODUCTION
In this article the use of Christological titles is studied from the perspective of a diachronic (historical-critical) approach to texts.Since the work of Wilhelm Bousset ([1913] 1921) and Rudolf Bultmann ([1921] 1931; [1926] 1988; [1949] 1956), the transition of the Jesus tradition from a "Jewish" context to a "Gentile" context (the Zweistufen Christologie) has been studied as a development from "Judaism" to "Hellenism".In this article the Son-oJ-God traditions will be investigated.This title is chosen because it sheds light on the transition from an interpretation of Jesus in an earlier Judaic context to a more Gentile-Hellenistic context.First the historical possibilities of the origins of the title Son of God will be discussed, after which the view of Ferdinand Hahn ([1963] 1974a) will be taken into consideration.Hahn is selected because he refined the point of view put forward by Bousset (the creator of the idea of a distinction between an earlier and a later context).A diachronic analysis ofthe use of the title Son of God (building on the work of Hahn) will then be given: in a more Judean context; in a more Hellenistic context; in a Gentile-Hellenistic context.The article concludes with a synopsis of the results.
In the investigation of the honorary titles used for Jesus, two matters are of importance: • The principles for the evaluation of the redactional work of the evangelists must be clearly stated at the outset to ensure that this process does not proceed in an arbitrary way.
• Christological tendencies can be discerned by investigating the evangelists' redactional work and the selection of Jesus traditions that were incorporated by the evangelists (Hahn 1974:9).
Ferdinand Hahn indicates five Christological honorary titles (Son of David.Son of Man. Messiah.Kyrios and Son of God) in order to facilitate an accurate analysis of the titles.
This distinction does not mean, however, that the titles were used in a compartmentalized way in the tradition (Hahn 1974: 1 0).

Historical probabilities
It has become clear that the Hellenistic (second) stratum is important for the titles Kyrios and Son of Man.This especially holds true for the title Son of God (Hahn 1974: 12 note 1).The historical-critical investigation of the name, Son of God, used for Jesus, set out by searching for the origins of this title.The origins could either have been Judean or Gentile-Hellenistic, or somewhere between the two.Bousset ([1913] 1926:54) questions the Judean origin of the title Son of God.Hahn (1974:280), however, is of the opinion that the influence of an Aramaic Judean environment is clear.Yet, it is equally clear that HTS 57(1&2) 2001 507 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Son-of-God traditions in the Synoptic Gospels the referential meaning of the name Son of God should also be sought in a Gentile-Hellenistic environment (cfBultmann [1958(cfBultmann [ ] 1968:130-132):130-132).If the name originated in the Judean environment it has something to do with "kingship" and Jesus as God's "anointed One".If the origin were Hellenistic, it would be in the sphere of divine origins and Jesus' relationship to God.With regard to the possible Judean roots of the expression "son of god", the opinions, according to Hahn, differ widely as to the precise origin of the concept.
Feine (1934:47-55), Stauffer (1948:93-94), Bultmann (1968:52-53) and Ktimmel (1950: 131) are of the opinion that, for Judean Israelites, the expression "son of god" originated in the context of royal messianology.In Israel the term mashiah was used for the reigning king Saul who was called "messiah" (1 Sam 26:9 et al).His successors were also called by this name (those from the house of David).The same tendency can also be found in the "royal psalms", that were probably sung in the context of the inauguration of Davidic kings (Ps 2:2; 89:51 et al).Kings were called "messiah" because they were anointed with oil (I Sam 10: I; 1 Ki 1 :39).In addition there was the connotation that God's presence enabled the king to perform his special task.Not only kings, but also priests and prophets were anointed for their task and were therefore called "messiah".An example of a king who was called "messiah" was the Persian ruler Cyrus, called "messiah" in Isaiah 45: 1 because he was God's chosen one who would free the Judean captives.Even before the Babylonian captivity, Isaiah (9:2-7; 11:1-9) and Michah (5:2-6) initiated the expectation of an ideal Davidic ruler who would do God's will (Tatum 1999:158).Later the prophets Jeremiah (23:5-6; 33:14-18) and Ezekiel also anticipated the restoration of God's people under the leadership ofajust and righteous Davidic ruler.
By the first century C.E. the term "messiah" expressed the expectation that God Messiah was used as an honorary title (Tatum 1999: 158).According to the gospels Jesus did, at times, use the expression "messiah".In John 4:26 Jesus conceded to the Samaritan woman that he was the "messiah".In Luke  EUAOYllTOU).Mark connects this positive answer directly to a Jesus saying that the Son of Man will be seen "sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven".Of this logion two things can be said: firstly, that the description of the Son of Man as sitting at the right hand of the One who has power, was taken from Daniel 7:13-14, and, secondly, that this Son of Man logion bears evidence of Marcan redaction (Tatum 1999:159).Both Matthew and Luke differ from Mark in this regard.
According to them, Jesus answered the question of the high priest evasively ("it is as you say"), not affirmatively ("I am").These words cannot be considered as authentic words of Jesus, but rather as a Marcan "supplement".
Matthew and Luke are independent of each other and therefore the "minor agreement" between them (the evasive answer) probably goes back to Q3 which was used by them both, but not by Mark, who seemed to only have known Q2 (see Van Aarde 1999a:804).A reasonable explanation could be that QI (and the historical Jesus) did not know of the high priest's question or the response, but that it can be attributed to redactional work by Mark.Mark probably did this on the grounds of his confession that Jesus is the suffering Messiah and Son of God, and not the political, national messiah, Son of David.It would also be the reason for his motif of the "messianic secret" (see Mk Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Son-of-God traditions in the Synoptic Gospels 8:30).Therefore Mark sees Jesus as the triumphant, apocalyptic Son of Man who will come with might.This motif of Son of Man is not peculiar to Mark.He probably took it over from the Jesus movement in Jerusalem.Matthew and Luke also get it via the Jerusalem faction.The Q tradition does not confess Jesus to be the Messiah.At the time of Q3 Jesus was, however, widely recognized as "messiah" and therefore Q presents an evasive answer to the question of the high priest.Matthew and Luke take the evasive answer over from Q3.One can conclude that Mark saw Jesus as "messiah" in a qualified way, but that Jesus did not see himself as such.
Friedrich (1956:279-281) and Grundmann (1956:113-133) see the context of the origin of "messiah" as the expectation of an ideal messianic high priest.However, Mowinckel ([1951Mowinckel ([ ] 1956:293-294, 366-368) :293-294, 366-368) and Lohmeyer ([1951] 1953:4-5) see the name Son of God as an apocalyptic designation and therefore find the origins of its application to Jesus in the context of the Son of Man sayings in the Judean-Israelite tradition.Some scholars saw a connection between the expression "my beloved son" and the ebed Jahweh tradition.Hahn (1974:280   Hahn is of the opinion that one should not think of the cultic activities of these three groups as taking place in three different centres.One should also not think that the traditions that came from these cultic activities developed in chronological stages as though each represented a different time-span.This means that the names these groups used for Jesus should not be seen in isolation from one another.If Hahn chose the third option of a "development" from the Judean to a Hellenistic stage, the question is whether one could then say that there was no Hellenistic influence to be seen in the earliest Aramaic-Judean stage.It is, however, conceivable that the gospel tradition represented layers that were transmitted from the Aramaic-speaking scribes in Judea to the Gentile world (cf Hahn 1974:35).Some ideas originated in a specific stage, while others developed through different stages.

2.3
The title Son of God in a more Judean context demonstrate a uniform ritual pattern underlying this ideology.The representation of "son of god" was articulated in various ways in the ancient East.Only in Egypt was there any reference to an immediate and physical sonship.In the Mesopotamian milieu the godly honour and legitimacy of the king were of particular importance.In the Israelite royal tradition all these elements were combined.For example, the names (titles) in Isaiah 9:5 indicate a direct Egyptian influence.In the Hebrew Scriptures there was a tendency to remove the mythical representations ofYahweh's interaction with humankind.However, another exponent of the Scandinavian School, Knud Jeppesen (1994:158-163) shows in his work, "Then began men to call upon the name ofYahweh", that this tendency was not entirely successful.This can be seen in the Judean-Hellenistic document, The Book of Jubilees (cf also Joseph and Asenath -see Standartinger 1995Standartinger , 1996)), where the mythological representation of God's interaction with human beings (especially regarding sexuality) recurs.An example in the Bible can be found in Genesis 6: 1-4.The aim of this mythology was to attribute divine status to specific heroic figures.
However, according to the conventional Israelite view no creature could have divine status (see Ex 20:3-5a).The reason for attempting to remove mythological elements was to protect the holiness of the transcendental God.If these elements would have remained, the implication would have been that heroic figures, such as the king, would have had divine status.For the emphasis to remain on the humanness of the king, his sonship of God could only be possible as a sonship by means of adoption by Jahweh.The question is, therefore, whether the "son of God" motif is to be found in the period of formative Judaism in a context where the concept of "royal messiah" was also known.Scholars such as Kilmmel (1934:129-130), Dalman ([1898] 1902:268-273) and Bousset (1926:53-54) do not seem to think so.Hahn, however, does not agree.He admits that texts such as AethHen 105:2; IV Ezra 7:28; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9 cannot be used in order to prove the point (Hahn 1974:285).The relevant reference in AethHen does not occur in the oldest existing S.emitic fragment behind the Greek translation.The expression filius meus in IV Ezra does refer to a messianic figure, but, according to Hahn it is not connected with the "son of God" motif, but was originally related to the term abdi C'~.t7).According to Hahn only the early "rabbinical" use of Psalm 2:7 in the Judean context can be regarded as valid texts for investigation whether the term "son of God" was used in the Judean environment.Hahn posits the following as valid references: 1922-1928, Ill: 19), Ill: 19), dated circa 200 CE, identified the "son of God" mentioned in Psalm 2:7 with the "messiah ben David",

•
The connection between Psalm 2:7 and the messiah is found explicitly in the Judean polemic (cfStrack & BiIlerbeck 1922-1928:20-22) against the "Christian" (in a Judean-HeIlenistic environment -YD) representation of Jesus as the Son of God and, therefore, someone with divine status (Rang/Funktion -Bultmann).
For this study it is important to note that, in the conclusion to the Apostolic Convent in Acts 15:16-17 a similar citation from Amos 9:11 is placed on the lips of "the scribe" James, the brother of Jesus.In this citation the expression "the restoration of the hut of David" (ciVOIKoOO\.1~Ou)Ti]v OKTJV~V 6aulo) (cfVan Aarde 1991:51-64) is used as an honorary reference to Jesus.In order to present a unified front of early Christianity, Luke reinterprets the anti-Hellenistic-Gentile tradition of James and Peter, giving James the authority to "allow" Paul to become the missionary to the Gentiles.The expression skene David (OKTJV~ 6aulo) is a concept which directly opposes that of "temple in Jerusalem", the latter being the fixed cultic institution, whereas the "hut of David" suggests a "mobile" (see Giirtner 1965:30-42) temporary structure, a metaphor for God "moving" from the traditional cultic setting to the Gentile people.This motif probably has to do with the Stephen saying which refers to the tabernacle and to the "house of God that was not built with human hands" (see Acts 7:44, 48-50).In Acts 7:44, 48-50 Stephen uses the motif of the tabernacle (a temporary, mobile dwelling) to express his opposition to the Jerusalem temple.He employs a Jesus saying (Mk 13:1-2; 14:57-58) as support for his idea that the death of Jesus resulted in a rebuilt temple not constructed with human hands.
According to Luke, James announced that non-Judeans (TCX According to Hahn (1974:285), 4 Q Flor 10-14 is evidence that a connection between the concept "royal messiah" and the concept "son of God" was made in the Judean environment (formative Judaism).This was not influenced by the later use of the term "son of God" in normative Judaism.In normative rabbinical (Talmudic) writings the term "son of God" was used with and without a connection to the theme of "royal  1922-28:676-677; 1922-28:19-20 rsp).A further example from the Qumran texts that the connection between the concept "son of God" and the concept "royal messiah" was known in the Judean environment, is 1 Q Samuel ILl!.In this text and in 2 Samuel 7: 11-14 the connection between "royal messiah" and "son of God" is not explicitly mentioned.However, the motif "son of God" appears within the framework of the tradition that people could be legitimated (adopted) as sons of God.This pertains to the notion of "messianic adoption ism" attested to in the Hebrew Scriptures.Therefore, these texts (1 Q Sam ILl 1 and 2 Sam 7:11-14) cannot be used as evidence that "son of God" was used as a title, independent of its connection with "royal messiah", in formative Judaism (see Hahn 1974:287).Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:11-14 are eschatological texts.They refer to the coming of an ideal Israelite king who will conquer the enemies of the people (Ps 2:7) and will maintain the Davidic dynasty in future (2 Sam 7:11-14).
Hahn's specific contribution to understanding the use of the title Son of God in the Judean-Hellenistic environment, is that this title should be interpreted "eschatologically".
He firstly asks what the title Son of God meant to the Jesus faction in Jerusalem.He presumes that Messiah as well as Son of God were used to express the expectation of an "ideal king".The expected "king" was not thought of in terms of how kings performed in the past, but rather in terms of what an "ideal" king would do in the future.Evidence in especially the Hebrew Scriptures, contributed to this insight.The messianic era or ideal time will begin with the coming of this expected king.In the prophets this time is referred to as the Day of the Lord (see Amos 5: 18-20) which is supposed to mean the end of war between God and God's enemies.It is described in Psalm 2:7-9: "I will proclaim 506HTS 57(1&2) 2001Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Yolanda Dreyer would send a saviour to free Israel from Roman oppression.The term indicated a future king from the house of David.Just as in earlier periods, the name "messiah" became associated with other types of religious leaders.There was the expectation that God would send a priestly saviour from the line of Aaron (the brother of Moses), the first high priest.The Qumran sect also expected two types of messianic figures: a high priest from the line of Aaron and one from the line of David (cf I QS [Manual of Discipline] 9: 10-11 which refers to the "messiah(s) of Aaron and Israel").In the time of Jesus the name 508 HTS 57(1&2) 2001 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Yolanda Dreyer figure" who was the obedient "servant of God" (seeMaurer 1953:1-38).•Or, at this early stage of the development of the gospel tradition, with regard to the background of the title Son of God, was it possible that there was no witness to a royal messianology, but only references to the sonship idea taken over from the Graeco-Roman mystery religions?•Or should the exegete rather look for traditions that attest to an early Israelite influence that developed into traditions influenced by a Hellenistic environment?

It
has become clear that the presentations of "son of God" in the Hebrew Scriptures form part of the Israelite royal traditions regarding the House of David.The early history of this title can be traced from ancient Middle-Eastern royal households and their mythical presentation, via Canaanite royal courts to the use of the title in the Israelite tradition.Exponents of the Scandinavian School of History (e g, G Widengren and T Thompson) HTS 57(1&2) 2001 513 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Son-of-God trtulit;ons in the Synoptic Gospels e6vTJ) will worship Jesus as the Kyrios because Jesus restored Israel.The context of Luke-Acts is clearly Judean-Hellenistic and Luke refers back to a scribal tradition that originated in the Aramaicspeaking Jesus faction in Jerusalem.HTS 57(1&2) 2001 515 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Son-of-God traditions in the Synoptic Gospels figure.In the earliest Jesus faction in Jerusalem Son of Man indicated divine authority.In this (apocalyptic) stratum both designations, Messiah and Son of Man, presuppose an act in the future.On account of this Hahn describes the role of the Son of God (divine ruler as the Messiah and an apocalyptic figure with divine authority such as the Son of Man) as futuristic.Therefore, Hahn cannot accept that the pre-Easter Jesus thought of himself as the Son of God in this sense.The Jesus faction in Jerusalem, however, attributed the role of Son of God to the exalted Jesus.Hahn does not agree with Cullmann (1958:276-313) who wants to limit the work of Jesus as Son of God to his preexistence.Hahn's specific contribution was to highlight the Jesus faction in Jerusalem's interpretation of Jesus, the work of the Messiah and Son of Man, as eschatological (Hahn 1974:287).Hahn's insight that a connection between the role of the Son of Man and the royal Messiah exists, was built chiefly on a combination of Psalm 2 (royal Messiah) and Psalm 110 (the triumphant warrior, i.e.Son of Man).The combination of these two passages seems to have been a common tradition in the Judean-Hellenistic era.It can be seen in the two independent citations in different passages: Acts 4:25-26 and Hebrews 1 :8-9.In these combinations of the two Psalms, the titles Messiah (see the Greek word EXPIOEV and Messiah. the Son of the Blessed One (0 XPIOTOs 0 UIOS' TOU