ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES

THE SUB-STRUCTURE OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

By C. H. DODD PROFESSOR EMERITUS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
LONDON: NISBET & CO., LTD. 22 BERNERS STREET, W.I
First published in November 1953
Prepared for katapi by Paul Ingram 2006.

III THE BIBLE OF THE EARLY CHURCH

HOME | Introduction | I. Apocalyptic-eschatological Scriptures | II. Scriptures of the New Israel | III. Scriptures of the Servant of the Lord and the Righteous Sufferer | IV. Unclassified Scriptures | Summary

IN our search for well-attested examples of citation from the Old Testament which may be supposed to be drawn from pre-canonical tradition, we have seen reason to believe that the unit of reference was sometimes wider than the usually brief form of words actually quoted, and that the citation by different writers of adjacent or contiguous passages within a single context may be evidence of a common pre-canonical tradition, just as strong as agreement in the citation of a single phrase or sentence.
Our next step, clearly, should be to examine, first, the contexts from which our fifteen attested common citations are drawn, and then similar contexts from which adjacent or contiguous extracts have been drawn by more than one writer, with the aim of defining, in each case, the probable extent of the context which for this purpose was treated as a unit of scripture.
That we should be able to do so in all cases with precision, is not to be expected, but if we could isolate with approximate accuracy certain portions of the Old Testament which can be shown to have been commonly used as a source of testimonia, we should have before us a body of scripture which we might assume with reasonable certainty to have been used by the earliest Christian thinkers in their efforts to understand and commend the contents of the kerygma.
It should be observed that our fifteen citations refer, in nearly every case, to essential articles of the apostolic preaching, and can be related for the most part to the general headings under which the author of Luke-Acts has repeatedly placed the exposition of the scriptures in the early Church (see pp. 15-18).
In our further investigations this general reference to kerygmatic themes will serve as a guiding thread through what at this point threatens to become an unmanageable multiplicity of citations and allusions.
The New Testament writers give us to understand that certain facts to which they attach extreme importance happened "according to the scriptures."
The question is, "What scriptures, in particular?"
We are attempting to answer that question, with such approach to precision as may be possible.

To follow the method suggested in detail, however, would prove tedious, involving a good deal of repetition.
It seems better to exhibit the results of such an examination in a systematic form, with references which should enable the reader to verify for himself the degree of strength of the evidence.
I give therefore a list of portions of the Old Testament which appear to have been used by preference in illustration of the themes of the kerygma, arranged in four groups.

I. Apocalyptic-eschatological Scriptures

The principal portions of scripture here are Joel ii-iii (iii-iv in Hebrew), Zechariah ix-xiv, and parts of Daniel.

The starting point is the long citation of Joel in Acts ii (see pp. 46-48).
The passage there quoted stands in the middle of a long continuous prophecy upon the theme of the Day of the Lord.
It begins (ii. i),

Sound a trumpet in Zion,
proclaim (κηρύξατε) in my holy mountain ...
that the Day of the Lord is here:
it is at hand.

assemble a people,
sanctify an ecclesia,
elect presbyters
(ii.15-16)—

You shall eat and be filled,

which seems to be echoed both in the beatitude of Lk.vi.21 and in the gospel accounts of the feeding of the multitude.
This leads up to the promise of the Spirit which in Acts ii Peter declares to be fulfilled.
But the judgment on the Gentiles is still to come.
It is described in Chapter iii in phraseology which finds many vague echoes in the New Testament,
though it affords no example of close quotation apart from iii.13,

Put in the sickle, because harvest is here—

words which (in a non-septuagintal version) are adapted to form the conclusion of the parable of seed and harvest in Mk.iv.29.
[Joel iii. 2 introduces a scene of the judgment of the Gentiles,
and this is described, there and in verses 11-12,
in terms which are echoed in the judgment-scene of Mt.xxv.31-46;
cf. especially Joel's συνάξω τὰ ἔθνη with Matthew's συναχθήσονται ἔμπτοσθεν άυτοῦ πάντα τᾶ ἔθνη.
Again, the phrase κηρύξατε έν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (Joel iii.9) would have a significant ring in Christian ears.
The darkening of sun and stars (iii.15)
and the shaking of heaven and earth (16)
may be commonplaces of apocalyptic imagery,
but at any rate they form part of the picture both here and in kindred passages of the New Testament.]
If the whole passage be considered, it will appear probable that it played a significant part in moulding the language in which the early Church set forth its convictions about what Christ had done and would yet do.
See further my pamphlet The Old Testament in the New (Athlone Press, 1952), pp. 17-19.

The second half of the Book of Zechariah, chs.ix-xiv, has the character of an apocalypse, and while its component visions (like those of many apocalypses) are not easy to bring into a consistent scheme, it can be understood as setting forth a whole eschatological programme, many elements of which have been taken up in the New Testament.

We start with ix.9, the picture of the King riding into Zion "upon an ass and upon the foal of an ass,"
expressly quoted in Mt.xxi.5 and Jn..15, in different versions,
neither of them septuagintal (see pp. 48-49).
The prophecy continues with a reference to the "blood of the covenant," (11)
and is probably one of the scriptures underlying the "words of institution" at the last supper
(Mk.xiv.24, though the primary source is probably Exod.xxiv.8; cf. Heb.ix.20, x.29, i.20).
It then proclaims an advent of the Lord, heralded, once again, by the trumpet call (ix.14).
In what follows the sustained figure of the flock of the Lord which He visits and saves (ix.16, x.3)
brings us again into the sphere of New Testament thought and language;
still more the promise, "I will redeem them" (λυτρώσομαι αὐτούς, x.8).
In Chapter xi the image of shepherd and flock recurs, but there is no striking parallel to New Testament language until we reach the strange passage about "thirty pieces of silver" (xi.13) in which Matthew has discovered a testimonium to the venal treachery of Judas (Mt.xxvii.9, where it is combined with words from Jer.xx.6-9).
There is no reason to suppose that this belongs to the primitive corpus of testimonia,
but we may well believe that Matthew was led to it because the whole passage of Zechariah was already recognized as a source of testimonies.
To proceed,
in ch. we encounter two passages which have supplied testimonia'.
Verse 3, which speaks of Jerusalem being trodden down by the Gentiles (cf. Lk.xxi.24)
and verse 10, where after a reference to the outpouring of the Spirit which recalls the prophecy of Joel, we have the enigmatic words,

they shall look upon him whom they pierced (10).

every eye shall see him, and those who pierced him,
and all the tribes of earth (this from Zech.i.14) shall mourn over him.

Both writers follow a correct version of the Massoretic text, similar to that of Theodotion,
and differing widely from the LXX, which apparently represents a variant reading in the Hebrew.
The probable conclusion is that both were independently following a pre-canonical tradition;
and this passage might have been included in the list of primary testimonia, but for the fact that the authors of the Fourth Gospel and of the Apocalypse, however different their standpoints, are both (in all probability) Ephesian authors and share in some degree a common background, so that we might conceivably have before us a common Ephesian or "Johannine" tradition rather than something strictly gemeinchristlich.
Since however the evidence is now accumulating that the whole context is one which drew the attention of writers in various traditions, we need not hesitate to set this down as one more item in the common stock.

In Chapter i, the opening section, verses 1-6, shows no contact with the New Testament, though verse 6 was in later times associated with the passion of Christ.
But with verse 7 we come to an important testimonium:
"smite the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered" (so the Hebrew).
This is quoted (under the rubric, "it is written") in Mk.xiv.27, in a slightly variant form, which is however still nearer to the Hebrew than to the LXX:

I will smite the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.

In the context the shepherd who is to be smitten is apparently a leader of Israel, whose death is followed by a drastic purge of the people, leaving only one-third to call upon the name of the Lord and to be accepted as His people.
The language of verse 9,
πυρώσω αὐτοὺς ὡς πυροῦται τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ δοκιμῶ αύτοὺς ὡς δοκιμάζαται τὸ χρυσίον,
seems to be echoed in I Pet.i.7,
τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμπῶν τῆς πίστεως πολυτιμότερον χρυσίου τοῦ ἀπολλυμένοθ, διὰ πυρὸς δὲ δοκιμαζένου
(cf. also iv.12, τῆ πυρώσει πρός πειρασμὸν),
and the conclusion,

"They shall invoke my name and I will hear them;
I will say, It is my people;
and they shall say, The Lord is my God,"

is closely similar to other Old Testament passages which are cited as testimonia
(see Jer.xxxi.33, pp. 44-46, above;
Hosea ii.23, pp. 74-78, below).

Chapter xiv describes an advent of the Lord upon the Mount of Olives, in language which occasionally seems to be echoed in the New Testament, notably so in verse 5, ἥξει ὁ κύριος καὶ πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι μετ' αὐτοῦ,
cf. I Thess.iii.13 ἐν τῆ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ.
The promise of "living water" flowing out of Jerusalem (verse 8)
may be among the scriptures which suggested the use of that symbol in the Fourth Gospel,
particularly in Jn.vii.38,
especially since it is associated, there as here,
with the Feast of Tabernacles (verse 16).
Finally, the prediction (21) that when the Lord comes

there will be no trader in the house of the Lord

(if, as seems probable, the word  כנעני is to be so understood, and not as "Canaanite")
may underly Jn.ii.16,
μὴ ποιεῖτε τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου οἶκον ἐμπορίου.

In Zech.ix-xiv, then,
although explicit quotations are not very thick on the ground, yet, apart from express quotations,
there are no very long tracts without some phrases which are alluded to, or echoed, in various parts of the New Testament,
and it appears highly probable that the whole was one of the scriptures which from a very early time were adduced in illustration of the Gospel facts.

In the Book of Daniel,
our starting point will be the prophecy of the "Son of Man" in vii.13.
Although there is no explicit quotation of this passage,
it is unmistakably in view in Mk.i.26, xiv.62, where it is conflated with Ps.cx.1,
and Rev.i.7, where it is associated with Zech..10.
In Rev.i.13 the same passage is employed in a different way,
to supply, along with extracts from other Old Testament passages, details of the vision of Christ in glory;
its employment in that way would not in itself be significant for our purpose.
The coming of Christ "with clouds" is also implied in Acts i.9-11,
where the disciples, having seen Christ ascending in a cloud, are assured that He will come again "in the same manner,"
and in I Thess.iv.17, where Christians who survive until Christ's second advent join the resurrected dead "in the clouds," to "meet the Lord in the air."
This passage therefore is clearly one of those which from a very early stage were determinative of the manner in which Christians spoke and thought of that article of the kerygma which referred to the return of Christ as Judge and Saviour of men.

There are some further indications that this chapter was much in the mind of early Christian thinkers.
In the interpretation of the vision the coming of the Son of Man signifies that God "has given the judgment to the saints of the Most High" (vii.22), and this supplies the implicit scriptural authority for Paul's doctrine that "the saints shall judge the world" (I Cor.vi.2).
The equivalent expression "the saints of the Most High shall take over the kingdom" (Dan.vii.18) is similarly echoed,
not only in the hymn of Christ and the Church in Rev.v.9-10,
but also, ironically, in I Cor.iv.8.
The "faithful saying" of II Tim.ii.11-12,
apparently from a confession of faith in the form of a hymn,
expresses the ultimate Christian formulation of the meaning of the vision,
in which the Son of Man is at once Christ Himself,
and the Church as the "people of the saints of the Most High":
"If we endure, we shall also reign with him."

The same chapter of Daniel has some striking echoes in dominical sayings reported in the Gospels.
In Lk.x.28-30 the idea expressed concisely in the "faithful saying" appears in an extended form:

"You are those who have stood by me in my trials;
and as my Father has assigned a kingdom to me,
so I assign to you the privilege of eating and drinking at my table in my kingdom;
and you shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

"Fear not, little flock;
it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."

2 [I have argued elsewhere (Parables of the Kingdom, 3rd Ed., pp. 44-45) that ἤγγικεν and ἔφθασεν might well be variant translations of the Aramaic מטא which is used here in Daniel.]
There is amply enough here to show how deeply this chapter of Daniel is embedded in the foundations of New Testament thought.

There is one slight indication that some early Christian thinkers at least were aware that the vision of the Son of Man is in some sort parallel to the vision of the great image in Dan.ii,
where the various parts of the image are equivalent to the four beasts,
and the victorious people of God (or Son of Man) appears as the "stone cut without hands" which wrecks the image (ii.34)
signifying that God, through His chosen people, λικμήσει πάσας τὰς βασιλείας (44).
The recurrence of the verb λικμᾶν in Lk.xx.18
indicates that Luke has equated the stone which the builders rejected of Ps.cxviii.22,
and the stone of stumbling of Is.viii.14, with the stone of Dan.ii.34.
But this probably belongs to a later stage of reflection rather than to the primitive scheme of testimonial.
Dan.ii does not otherwise figure in the New Testament.

Another characteristic Danielic figure taken up in the New Testament,
is that of the "abomination of desolation,"
which is expressly ascribed to "Daniel the prophet" in Mt.xxiv.15.
It occurs in Dan.ix.27 (according to the Greek versions), xi.31, .11.
It is the last of these which gives signs of occurring in a context which early Christian thinkers regarded as a source of testimonial.
[Dan.xi.41 (LXX) might seem to be echoed in Mt.xxiv.10, σκανδαλισθήσονται πολλοί, but the whole context is alien.]
The following places in Chapter appear to be echoed or alluded to:

It seems highly probable, therefore, that Dan.vii and are to be added to the list of scriptures which were early selected as sources of testimonial.

In addition to these portions of Joel, Zechariah and Daniel,
there are two isolated passages of Malachi which are taken up in the New Testament.
The first is iii.1-6 which speaks of the coming judgment. Verse 1,

Behold, I send out my messenger,
and he will prepare a way before my face,

is cited in a variant form—
varying chiefly in substituting "thy face" for "my face"—
in Mt.xi.10 and Lk.vii.27, under the rubric γέγραπται.
In Mk.i.2 (in the same version, substantially) it is associated with Is.xl.3, under the rubric "it is written in Isaiah the prophet."

Since this sentence is evidently an important testimonium, it is possible that the continuation of the passage, "and the Lord whom you seek will come suddenly into his temple," was in the minds of the evangelists who recorded the coming of Christ into the temple to purge it of evil things and to claim it for the worship of God, as in Malachi the priesthood is cleansed in order that they may offer a righteous sacrifice (iii.3);
but if so, they have not followed the language of the prophecy.

The closing verses of Mal.iv contain the prophecy of the coming of Elijah before the Day of the Lord.
In Mk.ix.11-12 there is a clear allusion to this prophecy
but curiously enough it is introduced not as a reference to scripture,
but to what "the scribes say."
In Lk.i.17 there is a clear allusion to the same passage,
where it is said that John the Baptist will come

in the spirit and power of Elijah,
to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.

ἐπιστρέψαι is perhaps closer to the meaning of the Hebrew than the ἀποκαθιστάναι of the LXX and Mark),
but not, explicitly, that John is Elijah.

Whatever may have been the intention of the prophet,
for the evangelists the "messenger" of Mal.iii.i and the "Elijah" of iv.5 are identical.
All three Synoptics more or less explicitly identify the composite figure with John the Baptist,
whom they also identify with the "voice crying in the wilderness" of Isaiah xl.3.
The Fourth Evangelist however, rejects this identification:
he makes the Baptist deny that he is "Elijah," and affirm that he is the "voice" (Jn.i.21-23).
It seems that there was some difference of opinion in the early Church.
It is possible that the references to Elijah are not part of the primitive body of testimonies,
but the product of early speculation and controversy upon the status of the Baptist in the context of current Jewish belief;
conceivably that might be why Mark speaks of a scribal tradition rather than of scripture as authority for the coming of Elijah.
In any case, there does not seem to be sufficient ground for placing Malachi among the primary body of scriptures which supplied testimonies.
Most of the book is alien from the New Testament;
at most the two short paragraphs, iii.1-6, iv.4-5 were utilized,
and primarily, it may be, in explication of the Isaianic prophecy of the "voice," as Mk.i.2 would suggest.
[Much as Is.xxviii.16, from a context which is not itself taken up, appears chiefly in explication of Is.viii.14.]

The scriptures we have so far reviewed have all the same general "plot," with manifold variations.
They describe that supreme crisis of history which Joel, like other prophets, calls the Day of the Lord.
It is the intervention of God in history to achieve His purpose for His creation.
This intervention takes the form of judgment upon the evil things in history, and the establishment of a people of God, through whom all nations will come under His everlasting and beneficent reign.
The employment of these scriptures as testimonies to the kerygma indicates that the crisis out of which the Christian movement arose is regarded as the realization of the prophetic vision of judgment and redemption.
The passages to which reference is made are in general couched in the symbolic language characteristic of apocalyptic literature.
We should do less than justice to their authors, and certainly to the New Testament writers who quote them, if we insisted on the kind of crudely literal understanding to which our western minds are prone.
Exactly where the attempt at literal description ends and symbolism begins, the writers themselves probably did not know, and we can hardly guess.
But we shall be wise to treat the entire scheme of imagery as language appropriate to describe that which lies upon the frontier of normal experience, which therefore cannot be directly communicated in plain speech.
But the prophets seriously believed that what they spoke of (in however cryptic terms) would happen.
The early Christians believed it had happened, or at least was in process of happening.

There is indeed some ambiguity about the precise stage which the eschatological process has reached at the time when the New Testament documents were written.
If we have Joel before us, it is clear that we have got at least as far as the outpouring of the Spirit before the great and terrible Day of the Lord.
The moment has come when men invoke the name of the Lord and are saved.
The people is being gathered together, the ecclesia has been sanctified, and presbyters are being elected.
The harvest, according to some places in the New Testament, has already come, and the sickle is at work;
in other places the harvest is still pending;
the gathering of all nations for final judgment is thought of as future.

If we follow Zechariah,
the King has already ridden into Zion,
the Shepherd has been slain,
the blood of the covenant has been shed,
and Israel have looked upon Him whom they pierced—
at least according to the Fourth Gospel,
though according to the Apocalypse of John that is something yet to come.
The temple has been claimed for the nations,
and the traders excluded from it;
and the gathering of the nations to worship the Lord in holiness is well under way, in the Gentile mission.
Yet the coming of the Lord "with all His saints" still tarries.

If we take the visions of Daniel,
the coming of the Son of Man "with the clouds" is thought of as future,
though in another aspect the Son of Man has come,
and in Mt.xxvi.64 (ἀπ' ἄρτι) and Lk.x.69 (ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν) the coming with the clouds is in some sort beginning,
and in each of these cases it is coupled with the prophecy of the Lord at God's right hand which the kerygma uniformly declares to be already fulfilled.

If Malachi belongs here,
we must say that the "messenger," who is Elijah,
who is John the Baptist,
has (according to the prevailing view) already come,
and, perhaps, that the Lord has come to His temple and cleansed it.

The mind of the early Church betrays no uneasiness about these apparent inconsistencies.
It felt no difficulty if it had to accept the prophecies as declaring that which had happened, was happening, and would happen, indistinguishably.
The tension, in fact, between realization and unfulfilled expectation is thoroughly characteristic of the early Christian outlook, for which the Fourth Evangelist found the appropriate expression:

the moment is coming and is here,
ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ὲστιν.
ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐστίν.

Page^

II. Scriptures of the New Israel

Under this head we have to consider certain prophecies of Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah.
In purport they do not greatly differ from the scriptures we have already considered, but they are less deeply coloured by apocalyptic imagery, and approach more nearly to direct description in recognizably historical terms.

In Hosea our starting point is Paul's citation in Rom.ix.25-26 (introduced by the words, "as he says in Hosea").
Here the apostle has conflated Hos.ii.23 and i.10 in that order,
the former following the LXX fairly closely,
the latter quoted more freely.
In I Pet.ii.10 we have a very dear reminiscence of the same prophecy, without direct quotation.
It is clearly not based upon the citation in Romans,
for, whereas in Romans the key-words are λαός and ἀγαπᾶσθαι (after the LXX of ii.23),
in I Peter the key-words are λαός and ἐλεεῖσθαι (after the LXX of i.6-8, ii.1).
[The difference is in the LXX,
not in the Hebrew, which has רחמח all through.]
The independence of the two authors seems certain.
Both must have followed a pre-canonical tradition which recognized this prophecy of Hosea as a testimonium.
But since their citations oblige us to refer to several different verses in chapters i and ii,
we cannot plausibly isolate any one single verse as a "proof-text."
It appears that early Christian thinkers had in mind the whole episode of Lo-ammi and Lo-ruhamah as it is developed in chapters i-ii, and understood it as a description of the way in which God, of His sheer grace, adopted as His people those who formerly were no people of His—for Hosea, repentant Israel, for Christian teachers, the Gentiles, now admitted to the true ecclesia.

In the rest of the Book of Hosea we can recognize scattered allusions, but it is not so easy to establish the use of whole contexts.
Hos.xi.1, "I called my son out of Egypt," not after the LXX, but in a version closer to the Hebrew, is quoted in Mt.ii.15, under the rubric, τό ῥηθὲν ὑπό κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου.
The citation here does not appear to have much relation to the immediate context, but I shall presently try to show that it is not so completely arbitrary as is sometimes supposed.

There is a clear allusion to Hos.i.14,

O Death, where is thy judgment?
O Hades, where is thy sting?

in I Cor.xv.55, where it is conflated with Is.xxv.8;
and there are suggestions that Hosea i may have had an influence on the formation of the tradition which lies behind the "apocalyptic discourse" in the Synoptic Gospels.
It is concerned with terrible judgments to fall upon Israel, which are described as ὠδῖνες,
and Mk.i.8 uses the same term of the impending troubles,
while Lk.xxi.22 speaks after Hos.ix.7, of "days of vengeance."
In Hos.i.16 these troubles are to fall with especial force upon nursing mothers and pregnant women, again as in Mk.i.17, though Hosea is more particular in describing how the sucking children will be "dashed to the ground" (ἐδαφισθήσονται).
This trait is added by Luke in a kindred passage, xix.44.
Although, therefore, we cannot recognize any specific testimonia in this context,
it seems more than possible that Hosea i is a significant part of the background of early Christian thought,
and that when Paul used the magnificent apostrophe

Death, where is thy sting?

as the climax of his prophetic affirmation of the resurrection of the dead,
he was not employing a casual literary reminiscence,
but referring to a passage already recognized as a classical description of God's deliverance of His people out of utter destruction.

If this be accepted,
we may consider another passage which similarly speaks of judgment and deliverance,
Hos.v.8 - vi.3.
[Some modem critics, for reasons which do not appear to me particularly cogent, prefer to treat vi.1-3 as ironical.
Whether or not this be so, we are not to suppose that any early Christian suspected it.
He would naturally take it at its face value.]
It begins with the now familiar trumpet-call, and the command, "proclaim" (κηρύξατε).
Then follows a severe condemnation of Israel's rebellion, and sentence upon them.
This leads on to an act of repentance and return to God.
The prophet puts into the mouth of the people the comforting reflection,

After two days he will revive us:
on the third day he will raise us up and we shall live before him.
And let us know, let us follow on to know the Lord.

In the LXX this runs,

... on the third day we shall both rise, and live before him, and know:
we shall press on to know the Lord.

Although this passage is never expressly quoted in the New Testament,
it seems to be echoed in the clause which Paul cites from the primitive kerygma:

He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures.

Indeed it seems impossible to find any other scripture which speaks of rising (or being raised) on the third day, and there is a fairly wide consensus to accept Hos.vi.3 as the place which Paul (or more properly those from whom he received the tradition) intended.
That its employment as a testimony to the resurrection of Christ is not so arbitrary or unreasonable as might appear, I shall try to show presently.

In the same chapter there is a verse (6)
which is cited in Mt.ix.13 and .7:

I desire mercy and not sacrifice,

but the evangelist does not seem to have taken any particular account of the context.

In addition to the passages already mentioned, we find sporadically through the book expressions which, to say the least, would be congenial to any early Christian "searching the scriptures" for light upon the kerygma or the gospel facts:
the references to God's "covenant" with His people (ii.18, x.4),
the affirmation of their "redemption" (vii.13, i.14),
Israel as a "vine" (x.1),
and, we may add, the frequent references to the "knowledge" of God as the mark of the renewed Israel,
which is Christ's gift to His people in Mt.xi.27 (= Lk.x.22),
in the Pauline Epistles and frequently in John.

I believe we are justified in concluding that the whole of this short book of Hosea was influential in early Christian thought,
while chapters i-ii and perhaps i and v.8 - vi.3 had especial significance.
These passages bring into clear relief what is a dominant theme all through:
the theme of judgment upon a sinful people as the inevitable and indispensable,
but also the certain, prelude to redemption, renewal, or resurrection.

In the Book of Isaiah we find a starting point in the prophecy of the "hardening" of Israel in vi.9-10,
repeatedly cited or echoed by New Testament writers,
to whom it appears to have been known in at least two Greek versions (see pp. 36-39).
John, as we have seen, refers to the context in which the prophecy appears—
Isaiah's vision of the glory of the Lord.
The hymn of the seraphim in vi.3 must early have passed into Christian liturgical use,
for it appears already in Rev.iv.8.
We need therefore have no hesitation in setting down the whole of chapter vi
as a scripture to which the early Church readily turned for testimony, inspiration, and instruction.

In chapter viii, again, we have the important primitive testimonium about the stone of stumbling and rock of offence (viii.14), which was early conjoined with the prophecy of the foundation stone of Zion in Is.xxviii.16 (see pp. 41-43).
But this is not the only place in this chapter to which early Christian thinkers gave attention.
Consider the following:

Further, in viii.8, 10, we have the watchword עמנואל, which the LXX here renders μεθ' ἡνῶν ὁ θεός.
The prophet is here referring back to the "sign" of Immanuel in vii.14, where the LXX transliterates without translating.
This prophecy is quoted in full in Mt.i.23 under the rubric, τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου.
The LXX is followed closely, except for two minor verbal changes, with the transliterated Ἐμμανουήλ,
to which the evangelist then adds the translation, νεθ' ἡμῶν ὁ θεός, from the LXX of viii.8, 10.
His interest in the idea of "God-with-us" is probably to be traced also in the closing verse of this gospel,
where ἐγὼ μεθ' ὑμῶν takes the place of μεθ' ἡνῶν ὁ θεός—appropriately enough,
since the Lord who is to be with His Church perpetually is "Immanuel" in the full sense.

But interest in this idea is not confined to the first gospel.
The phrase of Isaiah is echoed in Rev.xxi.3,
in a passage which describes "the holy city, New Jerusalem,"
and so might form a fit counterpart to the prophecy of mingled promise and threat
addressed to the old Jerusalem of Ahaz,
which provides the original setting for the "sign" of Immanuel.
[This echo is present, whatever reading we adopt among the variants.
I owe to Dr. Austin Fairer the attractive suggestion that if we adopt the reading of A and some other authorities, the words ὁ θεὸς μετ' αὐτῶν should be understood as a title, equivalent to "Immanuel," and we should render, "God-with-them shall be their God."]
It would therefore be unsafe to assume that the exploitation of the Immanuel prophecy as a testimony was confined to the first evangelist.

In Is.vii.3 the name Shear-jashub,
meaning "A remnant will turn,"
is the first introduction of an idea which plays a significant part in subsequent chapters of Isaiah,
and is exploited by Paul,
who cites Is.x.22-23 (Rom.ix.27-28 and i.9 (Rom.29)) ,
but not, apparently, vii.3, where the LXX renders ὁ καταλειφθεὶς Ἰασούβ.
It would therefore be precarious to infer that he had chapter vii in mind.
On the other hand,
in view of the importance of chapter vii as the original setting of the "Immanuel" idea,
it remains possible that this chapter,
lying between chapters vi and viii,
both of which are important sources of testimonial,
may have belonged to a continuous block of scripture early studied for this purpose:
I believe it is in fact probable.

Returning to chapter viii, and going forward,
we observe that ix.1-2 is quoted, under the rubric τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαἶου τοῦ προφήτου, in Mt.iv.15-16,
in a version differing from the LXX,
and in some respects nearer to the Hebrew.
Before concluding that this is one of the testimonia which we owe exclusively to the biblical learning of the first evangelist, we must note that the clause of the Benedictus,

...dawn from the height
to give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death
(Lk.i.79)

clearly echoes Is.ix.2.
[Luke's ἀνατολή, echoing Matthew's ἀνέτειλεν, might suggest that both go back to a common non-septuagintal version of Is.ix.1-2.]
Further, Matthew cites the prophecy as being fulfilled in the fact that Jesus began His ministry in Galilee;
but Jn.ii.11 similarly calls attention to the fact that the beginning of the manifestation of the glory of the Lord was in Galilee.
[I have elsewhere mentioned a suggestion which I owe to Mr. Hugh Montefiore,
that the "beginning of signs" in Galilee,
which takes the form of the provision of drink for the thirsty,
may be not altogether unconnected with the phrase of the LXX in this place,
τοῦτο πρῶτον πίς.]
This emphasis on the beginning in Galilee seems to have been integral to the pattern of the kerygma from the first.
[See Acts x.38, in a form of kerygma which more than any other appears to correspond to the pattern underlying the structure of Mark.
It is not insignificant that this element of the kerygma persisted so strongly in face of the tendency to canonize Jerusalem as the place of origin of the Christian mission;
see Lk.xxiv.47, Acts i.8, and perhaps even Rom.xv.19.]

The verses thus cited by Matthew are in Isaiah the proem of a prophecy which may properly be called "messianic,"
since it forecasts a victorious ruler of the dynasty of David who will reign perpetually in righteousness.
This prophecy however is never quoted in the New Testament, and allusions are scanty and vague.
Lk.i.32-33 echoes Is.ix.7 (with a glance also at II Sam.vii.13, 16, and Dan.vii.14).
The cheers of the crowd for "the coming kingdom of our father David" in Mk.xi.10 may be a further reminiscence.
We might have expected that the birth of the child in ix.6, and his titles, and especially the announcement of his peaceful reign, would have afforded testimonies;
but it is not so.
The most we can say is that some traits of the child born to be king in this passage have entered into the generalized picture of the Messiah Son of David which is presupposed in the develop­ment of early Christian thought, though it is not its dominant strain.
[It contended with a certain distaste for the whole conception of the Davidic Messiah;
see Mk..37, Jn.vii.41-42.]
In this sense only we may include ix.1-7 among the scriptures which afforded primitive testimonies.
The rest of chapter ix is alien.

If we now look back,
it will appear that there is some ground for believing that Is.vi.1 - ix.7
may have formed, for early Christian students of the Old Testament,
a single complex unit of prophecy.
Beginning with a vision of the glory of God,
it first pronounces the doom of rebellious Israel.
There follows a passage in which the judgment is particularized in terms which,
while they primarily refer to the perils of the time of Ahaz,
a first-century reader might readily interpret in timeless, or contemporary, reference.
But embedded in the sombre picture of judgment is the promise of "God with us,"
which sounds as a watchword through the following chapter;
and perhaps also that of the returning Remnant ("Shear-jashub"),
which for Paul at least was crucial.
In the strength of these promises,
God's people are exhorted to have no fear,
but to hallow the Lord in their hearts (viii.12-13),
while to the disloyal He will be

a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence
(viii.14).

The prophet now presents the loyal remnant as "the children whom God has given me" (viii.18)—
whom our first-century reader will understand as the nucleus of the true ecclesia,
and by no means without some historical warrant.
There now ensues a period of "tribulation and dire straits" (viii.22),
which for our supposed first-century reader will readily fall in with the general conception of the great tribulation preceding the Day of the Lord.
And so finally the Day dawns,
with light for them who sit in darkness and the shadow of death,
and the endless reign of the Son of David.
If we suppose the early Church to have read this part of Isaiah in some such sense as that, each of the brief extracts which appear as testimonia bears a far more intelligible and constructive significance than if they were cited as isolated "proof-texts."

The succeeding chapters of Isaiah yield little to our purpose.
As we have seen, the short pericope about the Remnant in x.22-23 is adduced by Paul in the course of his great argument in Rom.ix-xi (cited, along with Is.i.9, in Rom.ix.27-29), without reference to its immediate context:
its true context is rather in vi-ix, where the boy Shear-jashub is introduced as a sign.

The "messianic" prophecy of xi.1-10 has, as might be expected, found some echoes in the New Testament, which may be listed as follows:

The "Root of David" in Rev.v.5 is probably an inexact reminiscence of the same passage.

This is just enough to prove that the pericope was among the scriptures which yielded testimonies;
the wonder is that it did not attract more attention.
After this point there is a long tract of the Book of Isaiah which is barren for our purpose.

In Is.xxviii, we have already noted the verse about the foundation stone of Zion (16),
which was used in explication of the prophecy of the stone of stumbling in Is.viii.14,
but does not seem to have been used as a testimony in its own right, or related to its context.
The citation of xxviii.11 in I Cor.xiv.21 (under the rubric "It is written in the Law," and in a version widely different from the LXX, and nearer to the Hebrew) seems again quite unrelated to the context, and has no particular significance for our present purpose.

There is thus some reason to infer that this pericope was in the early Church brought together with other prophecies of the contumacy of Israel, which were employed especially in relation to the argument about the extension of the Gospel from the Jews to the Gentiles.

But it is only when we come to chapter xl that we reach again a really important source of testimonies.
Here we have, in xl.1-11, a locus classicus of the hope of redemption.
The vocabulary of the passage is such as was peculiarly congenial to early Christianity:
παρακαλεῖν σωτήριον, εὐαγγελίξεσθαι, κύριος ἔρχεται.
Over and above this, we have the following citations or reminiscences:

Clearly we need have no hesitation in adding this pericope to our list of scriptures employed for testimonies.
Other passages in the "Deutero-Isaiah" will be more appropriately placed in another group.

To these prophecies of Hosea and Isaiah it seems that we should add at least one passage from Jeremiah.
We have already noted the great importance for early Christian thought of the prophecy of the New Covenant in Jer.xxxi.31-34.
There is a further quotation from this chapter in Mt.ii.18,
where (under the rubric τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἱερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου)
the prophecy of "Rachel weeping for her children" (Jer.xxxi.15)
is given in a non-septuagintal version.
With this in mind, we observe that the preceding verses are unusually full of ideas and expressions congenial to New Testament writers: e.g., verse 10, the idea of the "gathering" (συνάγειν) of God's people, as in Jn.xi.52, Mk.i.27,
and of Israel as the flock fed by God, as in Jn.x.9 (the verb βόστειν as in Jn.xxi.17);
verse 11, the "redemption" (λυτροῦν) of Israel;
verse 12, the feeding of the hungry;
cf. Lk.vi.21, Jn.vi.35, Rev.vii.16, οὐ πεινάσουσιν ἔτι, as here, though otherwise the quotation follows Is.xlix.10;
verse 14, τῶν ἀγαθῶν μου ἐμπλησθήσεται
cf. Jn.vi.12, ὡς ἐνεπλήσθησαν
[I include these references, here and elsewhere, to the gospel narratives of the feeding of the multitude on the hypothesis, which I believe they help to justify, that those narratives are intended to represent it as an "eschatological" event.]
(and note that in the "Woe" corresponding to the beatitude on the hungry, Lk.vi.25, the same verb is used, suggesting that it is an alternative for χορτασθῆναι in such contexts).
The expression ψυχὴν πεινῶσαν ἐνέπλησα recurs in verse 25, though apart from this there is little of this quasi-Christian vocabulary between the prophecy of weeping Rachel and the prophecy of the New Covenant.
In all this, although there is nothing that could be described as a direct echo of Jeremiah, yet there is perhaps enough affinity of language to suggest that the whole passage is the kind of scripture which had influence on early Christian vocabulary.
We may therefore, with some reserve, associate Jer.xxxi.10-34,
which as a whole describes the tribulation and renewal of Israel,
with the prophecies of Hosea and Isaiah dealing with the same theme,
as a source of testimonies.

It seems possible that we ought further to add Jer.vii.1-15, a prophecy of the doom of the temple.
It is true that only one phrase out of this prophecy recurs in the New Testament,
where the temple is described as a "den of thieves" (or more properly, a "brigands' cave"), Mk.xi.17,
in contrast to its true function as defined in Is.Ivi.7, "a house of prayer for all nations."
The prophecy speaks of the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem,
as the earlier temple at Shiloh had been destroyed,
and although there is no echo of language,
in substance the forecast of the destruction of the temple in Mk.i.2 is similar.
It is possible enough that the allusion to the "den of thieves" was intended to send the hearers back to Jeremiah, where they would find reason enough for the foreboding that the temple was doomed to destruction.
This would provide a clue to the somewhat elusive connection, in the Gospels, between the cleansing of the temple and forecasts of its destruction.
But the passage scarcely qualifies for inclusion here.
At most we may say that the spirit of these prophecies of doom in Jeremiah is recognizable in several passages of the Gospels.
(Cf. echoes of the language of Jeremiah in the predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem, as set forth in my article, "The Fall of Jerusalem and the Abomination of Desolation," in Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. xxxvii (1947).)

With this group of scriptures we must place the passage of Habakkuk (ii.3-4)
which, as we have seen, is adduced by Paul and the Author to the Hebrews.
In the preceding chapter we have the single passage,

Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish ...
(i.5),

which is quoted in Acts i.41, in a form very close to the LXX, under the rubric "That which is spoken in the prophets."
In its original context it is a warning of the approaching terrors of a Chaldaean invasion.
As cited in Acts it is a warning of the divine sentence of rejection upon rebellious Israel as represented by the Jews who refuse to hear the Gospel.
There are no further echoes of this short book in the New Testament.
[Unless we should include Hab.ii.16 among the passages of the Old Testament which underlie the particularly pregnant use of the image of the "cup" in various passages of the Gospels: cf. also Is.Ii.17, 22.]
The spirit of Hab.i is different from that of most of the other prophecies we have noticed, in that the sufferings to fall upon Israel seem to be contemplated less as a divinely sent judgment upon their iniquities, than as misfortunes from which they confidently appeal to God for deliverance.
In this respect the prophecy is closer to some of the Psalms which we shall consider in the next group.
But it seems just possible that for early Christian readers Hab.1-11 fell into the same general pattern as Hosea and Is.vi-ix, chapter i depicting Israel under the divine displeasure, and the short oracle ii.1-4 announcing the certainty of deliverance, and that in this sense it was variously adduced to point to the "determinate counsel of God" carried out in the tragic exclusion of the Jewish people, in the coming of the Deliverer, and in the salvation of those who put their faith in Christ.

In this whole group of prophecies, then, which speak of the emergence of a new Israel after terrible judgments, we have a body of scripture which can be shown with a high degree of probability to have been employed by early Christian teachers in elucidating the themes of the kerygma.
The whole process of judgment and renewal is conceived as "fulfilled" in the Gospel facts.
If we ask, as before, at what point in the process the early Christian observer supposed himself to be standing, the answer is less equivocal than it was in regard to our first group.
The "hardening" of Israel,
the "stone of stumbling,"
and in general the judgment of God upon His disloyal people,
are conceived as already within the experience of those who witnessed the events of the life and death of Jesus;
and equally
the calling of the "remnant,"
the inauguration of the New Covenant,
the designation of "Lo-ammi" as "Ammi"
and the abiding presence of "God with us" (Immanuel)
are conceived as realized in the emergence of the Church,
which thus figures as the new (and true) Israel of God,
revealed through a process of πτῶσις καὶ ἀνάστασις (Lk.ii.34).
The coming of Christ
is the moment at which judgment is passed on decadent Israel
and the new people of God comes into being.

III. Scriptures of the Servant of the Lord and the Righteous Sufferer

Under this head I shall place certain passages in the latter part of the Book of Isaiah,
together with a group of psalms which seem to have a certain affinity with them.

Our starting point is the citation of Is.xlii.1-4 in Mt..18-21.
The passage in its original context introduces for the first time the figure of the Servant of the Lord.
Matthew cites it under the rubric "That which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet," with an obvious sense of its importance as pointing to the "determinate counsel of God" which was fulfilled in the programme of the ministry of Jesus.
The quotation does not follow the LXX;
indeed, at almost every point where it is possible to substitute a different verb or noun, the substitution is made.
Where the LXX most markedly differs from the Massoretic text,
in giving to the Servant the names Jacob and Israel (verse i),
Matthew's version is much closer to the Hebrew.
It seems clear that we have here an alternative, non-septuagintal version of the passage.
[On the other hand, Lk.i.54, ἀντελάβετο Ἰσραὴλ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ, appears to be a reminiscence of the LXX of Is.
(xlii.1 cf. also xli.8-9 LXX).]
It is noteworthy that where the LXX renders בהירי רצתח נפשי by ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου, προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου,
Matthew has "π ἀγαπητός μου ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου.
It seems that we are to recognize the same rendering of Is.xlii.2 behind the form of the bath-qol at the baptism of Jesus, as we have it in Mk.i.11, or, more nearly still, in Mt.iii.17:
at the moment when the Spirit rests upon Him, the divine voice declares Him to be ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἐν ὦ εὐδόκησα.
The intention to identify Jesus with the Servant of the Lord announced in Is.xlii could hardly be made clearer.

In what immediately follows there is no further passage which is expressly quoted, and this writer's manner of letting his thought play about a few key-concepts which constantly recur makes it difficult to identify particular sentences which may have been in the mind of New Testament writers who are obviously working with the same concepts.
But it may be worth while to draw attention to the following places in xlii-xliv.5:

From this point on echoes become both vaguer and far fewer.
It appears as if Is.xlii.i - xliv.5 formed a compact body of scripture about the Servant which had wide influence on early Christian thought.

In chapters xlix-li we have a further group of passages echoed in the New Testament, though it is not so clear that they belong to a continuous body of scripture.
It is noteworthy that in xlix.3, 5, we have δοῦλος for παῖς,
and this term, as we shall see,
recurs in a Pauline passage where the Isaianic idea of the Servant is in view.
The following places are worth considering:

It appears then that at least xlix.1-13 and l.4-11 constituted units of scripture which were recognized as a source of testimonia.
The intervening passages do not appear for the most part closely related to New Testament language and ideas.
Yet xlix.24-25 unexpectedly finds an echo in Mk.iii.27.
The LXX yields the following meaning:

Shall one take spoils from a giant? ...
Thus saith the Lord,
If one takes a giant prisoner, he will take his spoils,
and taking them from the strong he shall be saved.

There is no verbal resemblance in Mark to the Greek of the LXX,
but the sense is so similar that it is difficult to suppose the similarity is accidental.
We should perhaps infer that the LXX and the Greek version in Mark both represent, independently, a common tradition of the meaning of the passage, although it is not the natural meaning of the Massoretic text.

The next cluster of passages quoted or echoed in the New Testament occur in the poem of the Suffering Servant in Is.lii.13 - liii.12.
They may be set forth as follows:

Here then we have a long, self-contained passage, practically every verse of which is represented in one way or another in the New Testament, and in almost every part of it—
Synoptic Gospels, John, Acts, Paul, Hebrews and I Peter.
Its importance as a source of testimonial, is manifest,
and there is a high probability, in view of its ubiquity,
that its use as such goes back to the earliest period to which we have access.

With the scriptures of the Servant of the Lord we must associate Is.Ixi.1-2,
which is quoted as the programme of the ministry of Jesus in Lk.iv.18-19,
and echoed in Acts x.38, Mt.xi.5 = Lk.vii.22, Mt.v.4 (see pp. 52-53).
It is true that the person here described is not given the title "Servant,"
but his functions are so like those of the Servant in chapter xlii that the identification is easily made—
and is in fact not far astray.
It does not appear that the rest of this chapter was laid under contribution for testimonies,
but the ideas of the priestly people in verse 6 (cf. I Pet.ii.9, Rev.i.6),
of the "eternal covenant" in verse 8,
and of the people of God as a bride in verse 10 (cf. Rev.xxi.2, 9, II Cor.xi.2, Eph.v.25-27)
are all in one way or another directly related to the central role of Christ.
We may therefore with probability include this chapter among the scriptures determinative of the early Christian understanding of the Gospel.
But undoubtedly the chief importance of the passage lay in the fact that it enabled the Church to answer the question,
In what sense was Jesus "anointed" ("Messiah")?
Granted that He is to be recognized as the Servant spoken of in Is.xlii &c.,
and that it is as such that He is endowed with the Spirit,
for specific functions amply illustrated in the relevant scriptures,
then Is.Ixi.1-2 justifies the conclusion that this endowment with the Spirit is in fact His "anointing" (for the same functions).
It is clearly this line of thought that lies behind the formulation "God anointed him with holy Spirit" in Acts x.38.

As we noted above, Luke has (inadvertently, no doubt) interpolated into the quotation of Is.Ixi.1-2 a clause from Is.Iviii.6, and the occurrence in juxtaposition of several ideas congenial to early Christian thought in Iviii.6-10 perhaps justifies the inclusion of this passage as a supplementary item.
In chapter Ix also we have the collocation of the ideas of light,
the glory of the Lord,
the gathering of Israel,
and the description of the holy city in verse 11 which is quoted in Rev.xxi.25-26.
But there is scarcely sufficient evidence to allow us to include this chapter among the primary scriptural authorities for the interpretation of the kerygma.

For our present purpose it is fortunately not necessary to decide the much-debated question whether the Servant was conceived originally as an individual figure or as a personification of a collectivity.
[Writers of the Scandinavian school now tend to find in the Servant traits of the ancient ritual myth of the divine king, which (if the theory were to find general acceptance) would bring this figure into an aboriginal relation to other concepts with which it is associated in early Christian thought.
But it would not alter the fact that in the text of II Isaiah as we have it the individual and the corporate elements in the idea are alternative or intermingled.]
What is clear is that in the text of Isaiah as it has come down to us
there is an alternation between the corporate connotation,
where the Servant is equated with "Israel," or "Jacob,"
and the individual, where he is a quasi-prophetic figure with a mission to Israel.
There seems to be at present less unanimity among critics than formerly appeared, in solving the problem by the hypothesis of difference of authorship, and it is not impossible that the alternation of meaning is integral to the conception.
In the New Testament there is only one place where the Servant is unambiguously identified with Israel, Lk.i.54.
Elsewhere, even passages in which the original distinctly equates the Servant with Israel are directly applied to Christ (e.g. xlix.3).
Yet there are evidences that the corporate, or representative, character of the Servant-figure is not entirely out of view.
Thus xliv.1-2, which most emphatically declares Israel to be the Servant,
is echoed in passages of the New Testament where his attributes, "the beloved," "the chosen" are given to Christ;
yet the promise of water to the thirsty (verse 3) is confirmed not to Christ but to His people,
as the Spirit, even in the original, is promised to the "seed" of the Servant,
and as in xliii.1-5, xliv.21-24 the assurances "I have redeemed thee," and "I am with thee,"
are made to Israel, the Servant, and fulfilled to the Church.

There is a certain parallelism here with the treatment of the "Son of Man" figure,
which is in Daniel vii declared to be a personification of "the people of the saints of the Most High,"
but in the New Testament is applied as a title of Christ,
yet frequently in contexts where the collective or corporate aspects of the figure are clearly in view.
We shall be confronted with similar phenomena in our next group of scriptures, taken from the Psalter.

We may conveniently start our consideration of the psalms in question with Ps.Ixix,
where we found that one half of verse 22 was quoted by Paul and the other half by John,
while other verses are quoted or recalled in Mark, Matthew, John and Acts,
the almost irresistible conclusion being that the authors of all these works were aware of the psalm in its entirety as a source of testimonial (see pp. 57-59).
The psalmist appeals to God out of a situation of dire distress.
He describes his sufferings, which are endured in God's cause, and the malice of his enemies, prays for their overthrow and for his own deliverance, and ends with thankful praises to God for the certainty of salvation.
Through most of the poem we should suppose the writer to be speaking of his individual lot, but from time to time it is evident that he represents a larger unity, and in the end it is the salvation of Zion which is acclaimed.
The intention of New Testament writers is clearly to apply the whole to the sufferings and ultimate triumph of Christ.

Psalm x is similar in purport, and a whole series of its expressions are quoted or echoed in the New Testament:

All these seem to be fairly clear and direct.
Less clear and direct allusions may be discerned in other verses.
The psalm as a whole was clearly regarded as a source of testimonies to the passion of Christ and His ultimate triumph,
and probably from an early date,
since it is woven into the texture of the Passion-narrative,
and used in writings almost certainly independent of one another.
Once again, the sufferings are described as if those of an individual,
but with verse 22 interest shifts to the ecclesia,
and the poem culminates in the proclamation of the universal kingdom of God.

Ps.xxxi has a similar "plot."
Verse 13,

They took counsel together against me;
they devised to take away my life,

has helped to mould Matthew's account of the conspiracy of the Sanhedrin,
xxvi.3-4 (συνήχθησαν, συνεβουλεύσαντο; cf. LXX).
Verse 5 is adopted in Lk.xi.46 for the last words of Jesus on the cross.
The language of verse 13 seems to be echoed in the gospel accounts of the friends of Jesus gazing from afar at Golgotha,
but perhaps xxxviii.11 and Ixxxviii.8, 18 are even closer to the Gospels
(cf. LXX with Lk.xi.49, Mk.xv.40),
and both these psalms belong to the same group,
though in Ixxxviii the note of ultimate triumph sounds much less clearly.

Ps.xxxiv, on the other hand, while confessing that "many are the afflictions of the righteous," is mainly a song of praise for deliverance achieved, in which the poet treats his own case as typical of the experience of "the righteous" and those who "fear the Lord."
The following verses find echo in the New Testament:

Ps.cxviii similarly consists mainly of praise for the assured experience of divine deliverance,
while recalling the troubles out of which the Psalmist has been delivered.
Its central theme is the great reversal of fortune (περιπέτεια) announced in verse 22.
It begins with the praises of all Israel,
then gradually contracts, through the House of Aaron and "those who fear the Lord,"
to the individual sufferer—at least in appearance;
but when the psalmist declares,

All nations compassed me about;
in the name of the Lord I will cut them off,

it is clear that his attention is in no way confined to an individual case.

The following verses are quoted or echoed in the New Testament:

The importance of this psalm as a source of testimonial is manifest.
The Stone rejected,
the Stone of stumbling,
the Foundation-stone of Zion,
appear to have been associated at a very early stage as symbolic of the coming of Christ and its effects, in various related aspects. The whole psalm was evidently interpreted with reference to the sufferings and rejection of Christ, succeeded by His glorious resurrection and exaltation, all of which is "the Lord's doing, marvellous in our eyes" (23)—
to which the psalmist immediately adds,

This is the Day which the Lord has made,

which would naturally be understood as indicating that the day of Christ's coming is the prophetic "Day of the Lord."
Thus the group of psalms we are studying is linked with the "apocalyptic-eschatological scriptures" of Group I.

I add here three (two) psalms of less importance,
which nevertheless played a part in the shaping of Christian thought about Christ's Passion.
In each, the original speaks of an individual sufferer.

In Ps.xli [LXX 40], the poet first expresses his confidence in the goodness of God,
and then appeals for help in distressing circumstances.
In particular, he is the victim of a treacherous friend.
Verse 9, which contains this complaint, is quoted in Jn.i.18,
under the rubric, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῆ, with reference to the treachery of Judas.
The taunt of the enemy, "Now that he lieth he shall rise up no more,"
and the sufferer's appeal, "O Lord, raise me up" (ἀνέστησόν με),
would in this connection naturally suggest the resurrection of Christ.

Pss.xlii-xliii (properly a single psalm) have for refrain the words,

Why art thou cast down (περίλυπος εἶ), my soul? (xlii.5, 11, xliii.5).

This is clearly echoed in Mk.xiv.34, περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου,
while Jn..27, νῦν ἡ ψυχή μου τετάρακται,
equally clearly echoes xlii.6, ἡ ψυχή μου ἐταράχθη.
These twin psalms are not psalms of suffering in the same sense as those which we previously examined,
but they contain the complaint of one who is shut out from God's presence,
but confidently hopes to be restored to it.
The evangelists evidently felt that it portrayed one aspect of the Passion of Christ.

With this group I propose to associate Ps.Ixxx [LXX 79],
in which the "hero" of the "plot" is clearly no individual,
but the people of God as a collective whole.
It is an appeal to the divine Shepherd—a familiar character in the Gospels—from Israel in distress,
exposed to the mockery of their enemies
(verse 6, LXX, οἱ ἐχθροὶ ἡμῶν ἐμυκτήρισαν ἡμᾶς
cf. ἐξεμυκτήριζον οἱ ἄρχοντες, Lk.xi.35).
The poet then describes the fortunes of his people under the allegory of a vine,
brought by God out of Egypt and planted.
For a time it flourished,
but then God broke down the fences of His vineyard,
and the wild beasts entered and ravaged it.
The poet prays

Look down from heaven and visit this vine(14).

In verse 17 the terms of the prayer change:

Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand,
upon the son of man who thou madest strong for thyself.

There is here no passage expressly quoted in the New Testament,
but the figure of the Vine,
which is also the Son of Man and the Man of God's right hand, combines ideas
which in the New Testament are so organically united in the person of Christ
that it is impossible to suppose the parallel accidental.
[It might be held that the Man is the leader of God's people who are symbolized by the vine,
but if so, he is so entirely representative of the people that the two figures coalesce.]
Indeed, Ps.Ixxx.17,
which identifies "God's right-hand Man" (the one who "sits at God's right hand")
with the divinely strengthened "Son of Man,"
might well be regarded as providing direct scriptural justification for the fusion of the two figures in Mk.xiv.62.
More clearly here, perhaps, than anywhere else except in the treatment of Dan.vii,
can we see the process by which the corporate and the individual elements are united in early Christian thought about Christ.
The Vine with its branches (κλήματα, as in Jn.xv.2, 5), is the people of God;
it is also the Church, and its branches, the disciples of Christ;
yet He is Himself the true Vine, in whom alone they become branches or members of the Israel of God.
And similarly, Christ is Himself the Son of Man, the Man at God's right hand,
and yet the Son of Man is also the true Israel of God.
All this seems to be implied in the Christian use of this psalm.
It is true that the developed doctrine of the Son of Man who is also the true Vine is found only in the Fourth Gospel.
[See The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, (C. U. P.) pp. 410-412, cf. pp.246-248.]
But the title "Son of Man,"
with its twofold—individual and corporate—connotation,
is entirely at home in the Synoptic Gospels,
and in Mark and Matthew
the cup which contains Christ's "blood of the covenant"
contains equally τὸ γένημα τῆς ἀμπέλου (Mk.xiv.24-25).
The identification of the suffering Son of Man with the Vine is not far beneath the surface.

If we now survey this group of scriptures as a whole,
we observe that a single "plot" runs all through.
The "hero" suffer