p$alm 16 and the historical origin the Christian faith

By Prof. Dr. H.

w.

Boers

(Candler School of Theology^ Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322)

Since the failure of the hberal quest of the historical Jesus, the
Easter faith has gained or regained almost exclusive prominence as
the basis of the C hristian faith. Even where the relation between the
early Christian kerygma and the historical Jesus is regarded as of
decisive importance in the so-called new quest , the significance of
the Easter faith is not denied. The most unsatisfactory aspect of this
situation is the fact th at the basic question of the original quest ,
namely, how the Easter faith itself originated, has been left unanswered. Rudolf Bultmann even denied the relevance of this question: The Christian Easter faith is not interested in the h istorical
question. For it, the historical event of the origin of the Easter faith,
like the self-manifestation of the resurrected one for the first disciples, meant the act of God in which the salvation event of the
crucifixion fulfilled itself.*
But even if a contemporary interpretation of the New Testament
faith could be satisfied to remain without an answer to this question,
the historian cannot ignore it. We cannot assume th at the resurrection faith came about like a bolt from the blue. Even if, in view of
the scarcity of information, a conclusive explanation of the resureection experiences cannot be found, the historian will still have to
assume that there were sufficient causes in history for these experienees.
It is suggested in this paper th a t Psalm 16 played a major role
in reviving the messianic hopes of the disciples by suggesting to them
that Jesus was alive in heaven, and so produced in them th at state
of mind which led to their experiencing the resurrection appearances.
An analysis of the usage of this Psalm in Act 2 22-36 reveals th at
before its present function as an interpretation of the already-experienced resurrection (appearances), it functioned as an in^rpretation
of the death of Jesus, and before th at as an expression of the confidence th at the Messiah would not die. Evidence for this can be
found in Act 2 24-29, i. e., in the quoted portion of the Psalm and in
the two adjacent verses.
It has been widely recognized th at the present function of the
Psalm as an interpretation of the already experienced resurrection
* Neues Testament und Mythologie, Kerygma und Mythos (abbreviated KuM.
below), vol. I, edited by H.-W. B a r t s e h , H ^b u rg-B ergsted t: Herbert Reieh, 1948,
4th ed. 1960, p. 47. E. T. Kerygma and Myth, by Reginald Fuller, London: S.F.C.K.,
1967, p. 42.

106

H.

w.

Boers, Psalm 16 and the historieal origin of the Christian faith

was possible only in the form of the Greek translation as found in

the LX X and quoted here in Aets^. Aeeording to this reasoning it
followed from the faet th a t God raised Jesus from the ^ead as prophesied in the Psalm, th a t he was the Messiah^. The ~
(verse 9b) of the Hebrew text became , i. e., my flesh also dwells in security became
and my flesh will also dwell in hope, (cf. Act 2 26b), and
( verse 10b) became
, i. e., you do not let your pious one see the grave became
you will also not let your holy one see corruption (cf. Act 2 2?b).
Thus the confidence of the Psalmist that he would not die (prematurely),* became an expression of hope in the Messiah's resurrec
tion from death. And so also the Psalmist's confidence in the continuation of a life th a t pleased God (verse 11) could now be understood as a reference to the Messiah's ascension to the presence of the
throne of God, which made possible the understanding of the messiahship of Jesus in the sense of an identification with the Son of Man
g But the original understanding of the Psalm in the sense of a
preservation from death is stfll evident in verse 29 of our Acts passage.
The reference to David's death and burial as proof that the psalmist
was not speaking of himself, indicates th at the Psalm was initially
not conceraed with the death and resurrection of the Messiah^. It
2 So, e. g., Ernst Haenchen, Die Aposteigesehicbte, Kritiscb-exegetiscber Kommentar
ber das Neue Testament, Gttingen: Vandenhoeek und Ruprecht, 1959, pp. 144f.
Hans Conzeimann, Die Apostelgeschichte, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Tbingen: j . C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1963, P . 29.
3 So, e. g., Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, Philadelphia: Westminster,
1961, P . 41.
4 Cf. Psalms 6, 22, 28; Hans Schmidt, Die Psalmen, Handbuch zum Alten Testament,
Tbingen: j . C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1934, p. 24; Haenchen: Apostelgeschichte,
pp. 144f.
5 Thus Artur Weisers insistence that the original Hebrew Psalm could have been
understood in the sense of a resurrection from death, as is the case with the Greek
translation in Act 2 25ff. (cf. Die Psalmen, Das Alte Testament Deutsch, Gttingen:
Vandenhoeek und Ruprecht, 1955, pp. 119f.), becomes irrelevant for the initial
messianic understanding of the Psalm.
The comment about David in verse also contradicts the interpretation of j . w .
Doeve (Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, Assen: van Gorcum
en Comp., 1964), according to which the messianic interpretation of the Psalm was
specifically Christian. (Cf. pp. 168172, 175f.). According to Doeve it was determined by means of the Midrashic exegetical method of word association that the
Psalm referred to Jesus. And once one has seen that it refers to Jesus, the text
cannot really deal with anything else than the resurrection (pp. 168f.). D oeves
reasoning is well thought through, but can find no real confirmation in the text

H. w.

Boers, Psalm

16 and

the historieal origin

the

Christian faith

107

appears to have been assumed th a t the Messiah would not die, in

eontrast with David who did die. Luke apparently preserved a remnant of this early messianic commentary on the Psalm6, without
being fully aware th at what was assumed to have made the Psalm
inapplicable to David, fact also happened to Jesus. If the commentary in verse 29 had been produced in post-resurrection Christianity, it would hardly have emphasized particularly the fact th a t
David died and was buried. That Luke or his Christian tradition
was not completely unaware of the problem is indicated by the emphasis which has been placed on Davids ^ a v e , which one may
assume remained closed, by the addition of the clause:
. and his
grave is with us unto this day. However, the original mentioning
of the ^ a v e , along with Davids death, was plainly called for by the
reference to the souls being given over to Sheol and the encounter
with the grave in verse 10 of the Psalm.
There is no conclusive evidence for d etrm irihig whether this
earliest commentary which has been preserved in Acts was nonChristian or a result of the messianic expectations of the disciples of
Jesus before his cracifxion. However, there is evidence th a t the
Psalm functioned to interpret the death of Jesus w ithout the presupposition of the resurcection experiences, i. e., the Psalms second
function was to overcome the problem of the death of Jesus. In the
situation of overwhelming grief the disciples apparently sought consolation in appropriate Psalms such as 16, 18 and 22. These Psalms,
particularly 16 and 18, brought the desired relief, as it now appeared
that Scripture not only assumed th at the Messiah would in fact die,
but also prophesied th at he would not be abandoned to Sheol.
To aid them in this i^ e ^ re ta tio n there was the already eristing
messianic understanding of Psalm 16, but they now recognized th a t
the Psalm prophesied th a t the Messiah would not be abandoned to
Sheol, not th at he would not die. This rrinterpretation of Psalm 16
was made possible by post-exilic changes in the Jewish concept of
Sheol. The underworld was no longer understood to have been the
eternal lot of all who died. Relevant specifically for the death of
Jesus was the understanding th at the souls of the righteous did not
itself and would apply oniy if one has to assume that the onfy w ay in which the
messianic character of the Psalm could have been discovered is by means of the
interpretation suggested by him.

For the concept of New Testament authors quoting commentary along with quotations from the Old Testament, cf. Lindars, op. cit., w ith respect to our particular
passage, pp. 38f. Lindars, however, uncritically assumes th at Act 2 29 is part of a
post-resurrection Christian commentary.

108

H. W. Boers, Psalm 16 and the historieal origin of the Christian faith

g to Sheol, but immediately proceeded to heaven*. In the reinterpretation of Psalm 16, Psalm 18 played a decisive role.
The evidence for the reinterpretation of Psalm 16 is to be found
in Act 2 24, i. e., the verse preceding its quotation in Acts. Barnabas
Lindars correctly calls this verse a comment on the earlier part of
Psalm 168, i. e., verse 6. Lindars recognized, however, th at by means
of this comment . Psalm 16 6 was used as a commentary on the
phrase = the pangs of death of Psalm
18(17) 5 a = 116(114) 3 a9. This can be recognized only in the Hebrew
versions of the Psalms, because it is the same Hebrew word
that was translated in the LXX with = pangs in Psalm
18(17) 5a, and with = ropes, lines Psalm 16(15) 6. The
Hebrew word as such is indistinguishable as the plural of two distinct
words: = pain, pang and = cord, rope, measuring line .
That the comment in Act 2 24 was originally made with the
Hebrew text in mind is indicated by the participle ( )
= loosening (the pangs) which presupposes ~. in the sense of
bonds , not of pangs . By rendering the quotation from Ps 18 5
in terms of the LXX version ( )10, the translator of the comment obscured the original reference to Ps 16 6 and
thus also the orignal connection between the two Psalms through
the association of words () .
Thus, through a word association, Ps 16 6, and 8-11, were inter
preted by the disciples as a commentary of Ps 18 5, which was under
stood to have been a reference to the death of Jesus**. C. particularly
Ps 18 5a: The bonds of death surround me and verse 6b: The
bonds of Sheol encompass me. In this way the expressions of com
fidence of Ps 16 were understood to have been a prophecy th at Jesus
would not be abandoned in Sheol, but th a t through his death he
would enter into his glory (cf. Lc 24 26.(
Thus, Act 2 24 reveals th at Ps 16 8-11 was first used to interpret
the death of Jesus, not his resurrection. The Easter faith was based
7 For the post-exilic changes in the Jewish concept of Sheol, cf. Joachim Jeremias,
, Theologisches Wrterbuch zum Neuen Testament, edited by Gerhard
Kittel, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933ff., vol. I, p. 147; T., Theolo^cal Dietionary
of the New Testament, by G. w. Bromiley, Grand Rapids/London : Eerdmans,
vol. 1, p. 147.
8 Op. cit., p. 39.
Op. cit., p. 40, cf. p. 39.
10 The mixed metaphor is not unheard of. Cf.
Plato, Republic 574 A; Lindars, op. cit., p. 39, footnote 2.
11 It is remarkable that Doeve does not recognize the involvement of in Ps 16 6
in the word association, suggesting instead that it came about through the rendering of in verse 10 with the Aramaic by the speaker (op. cit., p. 170).

H. W. Boers, Psalm 16 and the historical origin of the Christian faith

109

on the ^ terp retatio n of the death of Jesus suggested by the Psalm,

not on the resurrection appearances. Indeed, it was the understanding of the death of Jesus suggested to the disciples by this Psalm
which produced in them the state of mind which made it possible for
them to experience the resurrection appearances^. However, once the
resureection appearances were experienced, the Psalm came to be
understood as a reference to the resureection, as an event th a t was
known independently of the Psalm, as done in Act 2 22 -3 6 . In reality,
however, the resurrection appearances themselves were products of
the interpretation of the death of Jesus suggested by the Psahn.
If Psalm 16 was used so early in Christianity, the fact th at it is
quoted only in our passage and again in Act 13 35 requires some
explanation. The apparent history of its interpretation leaves no
doubt about its primitive usage. W hat probably happened is th a t
when the resurrection became manifest in the appearances, the Psalm
as an interpretation of the death of Jesus lost its significance. Its
function was superseded by the resurrection appearances, and before
it could regain rignificance, it had to be
*
as a reference to
the event of the resurrection. Thus it appears th at the Psalm's early
understanding as a reference to the death of Jesus may have delayed
its function as a resumection Psalm, which explains its limited usage
in the New Testament.
The results of this inquiry appear to be extremely negative in
that the significance of the resurcection appearances as distinct events
on which the Easter faith was based is eliminated. Only a single
event retains its significance, namely, the crucifixion of Jesus. The
rest, including the resurrection appearances, is commentary on it.
However, the fact that this is so is of extreme theological importance.
If this fact is recognized, the cross is ensured its place as the basis
of faith.
In Ohristian theology in general, and New Testament scholarship
in particular, the resurrection of Jesus from death is widely recognized as the most decisive event in Christianity. There is considerable
evidence for this view in the New Testament itself, e. g., in the constantly-repeated confessional formula,
. th at God raised him (i.e.,
Jesus) from the dead", in Act 2 24. 32 3 15 5 30 10 40 13 30. 34. It would
seem as if the resureection of Jesus from the dead wem the basis of
12 That Lindars did not recognize that the Sitz im Leben of the comment of Act
2 24 was the situation of the disciples after the death of Jesus but before they experienced the resurrection appearances, is due to the fact that he did not inquire
into this question at all, but simply assumed that the fact of the resurrection of
Jesus was presupposed by the Christian usage of the Old Testament (cf. op. cit.,
pp. 32f.). This question was equally far from the considerations of Doeve (cf. op.
cit., pp. 168ff.).

110

H. W. Boers, Psalm 16 and the historieal origin o the Christian faith

the Christian faith. Cur analysis, hewever, has shewn th at the resurreetien faith itself may have been a preduet of the diseiples attem pt
to understand the death of Jesus. This interpretation finds aeeurate
expression in Bultm anns formulation th a t faith in the resurreetion
of Jesus is nothing other than faith in the eross as event of salvation^ .
B ut even if the New Testament is greatly responsible for the
emphasis on the resurrection of Jesus as the basis of faith and
there is more evidence for this than the confessional formula in Acts,
referred to above there are also strong counter tendencies which
draw attention back to the cross. This is evident in Paul, as is indicated by his statem ent in I Cor 2 2: I have decided to know nothing
among you, except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And Ulrich Luz^
emphasized the role played by the cross of Jesus in Marks Christology as a device with which he counteracted the danger of his miracle
tradition slipping away into docetic mythology^. Thus, contrary to
R e^nald Fuller, who regards the titles ^ v en to Jesus as tools by
means of which the Church made explicit the Christology that was
implicit in the proclamation of Jesus*, one may understand the cross
of Jesus as an instrum ent which ensured th at he was not absorbed
in a process of deification as a result of the dignity attributed to him
by means of his titles.
Thus the Christian faith can be understood to be nothing other
than a response to the cross of Jesus. The relation of Christianity to
the cross of Jesus is not arbitrary. However, then it should be recog
nized th a t Christianity is not a self-understanding, but an understanding of all of reality as it is revealed in the cross of Jesus.
(Finished 3 January 1968)
13 KuM. I, p. 46; E. T., p. 41.
14 Das Geheimnismotiv und die markinisehe Christologie, Zeitsehrift fr die neutestamentliehe Wissensehaft 65, 1965, pp. 9 30 and Entmythologisierung als
Aufgabe der Christologie , Evangelische Theologie 26, Juli 1966, pp. 349-368.
15 EvTh. 26, p. 367.
16 The Foundations of New Testament Christology, New York: Seribners, 1965.


Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.
No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endowment !).
The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.