What do you think?
Rate this book
The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament
In the wake of suggestions that the doctrine of the atoning death of Christ did not come into being in the earliest stages of Christianity, Martin Hengel forcefully argues with impeccable scholarship that the doctrine can be traced back to the earliest church, indeed to the sayings of Jesus himself. In the first part of this examination, Hengel explores a wide area of classical antiquity. Would it have made sense to Greeks and Romans of the first century to say that Jesus had died for them? Were there points of contact in their traditions? Surveying Greek and Latin literature, Hengel shows just how widespread the theme "dying for actually was, from Homer, through the Greek tragedians and orators, to Plutarch, Livy, and Caesar. The second part of the book is devoted to tracing the doctrine of atonement, moving back from the letters of Paul, through the pre-Pauline tradition, to Jesus.
- GenresTheologyNonfiction
124 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1981
70 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
December 10, 2018
Martin Hengel is a force to be reckoned with.
There is an established scholarly assumption stretching from Harnack and Bousset at the turn of the century to Hengel's own time (1970's) which drew a sharp distinction between so-called "Jewish" or "Palestinian Christian" tradition and "Hellenistic Christian" tradition. The Jewish Christian theology was rudimentary and its christology was "low." The Easter message was its simple kerygma, and the Lord Jesus was a righteous man and martyr whose life and teachings must be taken seriously. This theology was presumably held by the Twelve in Jerusalem. The Hellenists, on the other hand, philosophized the kerygma and complicated things, introducing notions of "atonement" and adding the forgiveness of sins at the cross as a central teaching along with the Resurrection at Easter. Their christology was "high," and it ended up displacing the simple and "pure" Palestinian theology. This theology was held presumably by Paul and his Greek-speaking followers in the late-first century. The result is that a trajectory was set in Christian history that has led to a great deal of misguided scholarship.
In this slim and controversial work, Hengel systematically dismantles these assumptions and refutes decades of critical continental scholarship.
His starting place is where it usually is: the letters of Paul, which represent the earliest of all Christian writings, 20-25 years after Easter.
His method is also what it usually is: taking survey of analogous ancient reflections from Hellenistic philosophy and history, Latin poetry and polemic, Jewish apocalyptic and pseudopigraphy, and Rabbinic commentary and scholia before approaching the Old and New Testament texts with his traditio-historical analysis.
His conclusions are startling. He finds that the earliest believers held no such beliefs as critical scholars have been putting in their mouths for a century. The idea of "low" Christology being the kerygma of the earliest Christians is a myth! It's not represented by any of the literature. From the earliest days of the church, as we see in the traditional material Paul "passes along" to the Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians, (material that Paul learned from the Christians in Jerusalem or Antioch), the vicarious death of Jesus the Messiah forgives sins. There is a soteriological emphasis from the beginning. This message was shocking because, according to Jewish opinion, the Messiah's death would negate his message and his status. However, the Easter miracle overturns this, and proves that God accepted the sacrifice of His Son and Messiah on behalf of the world.
During his highly condensed yet very rich survey of other analogies to atoning death in ancient literature, Hengel concludes that, though there are many examples of righteous men dying on behalf of others, these deaths are local and heroic. They are examples to be followed, rather than sacrifices that prove to be efficacious for all of humanity. The message of the cross is just familiar enough to be heard by Greeks and Romans, yet just unfamiliar enough to be mocked and rejected.
Hengel's conclusion: "[An] independent unsoteriological interpretation of the death of Jesus and his resurrection cannot be shown to be the earliest tradition" (71). The sources do not show this; they do show, rather, an immensely rich plurality of ways that early believers talked about Jesus Christ's death and resurrection.
Along with "Crucifixion" and "The Son of God," this little book forms Hengel's little trilogy that was to be the first part of a "Theology of the New Testament." Each book is scholarship at its condensed finest.
There is an established scholarly assumption stretching from Harnack and Bousset at the turn of the century to Hengel's own time (1970's) which drew a sharp distinction between so-called "Jewish" or "Palestinian Christian" tradition and "Hellenistic Christian" tradition. The Jewish Christian theology was rudimentary and its christology was "low." The Easter message was its simple kerygma, and the Lord Jesus was a righteous man and martyr whose life and teachings must be taken seriously. This theology was presumably held by the Twelve in Jerusalem. The Hellenists, on the other hand, philosophized the kerygma and complicated things, introducing notions of "atonement" and adding the forgiveness of sins at the cross as a central teaching along with the Resurrection at Easter. Their christology was "high," and it ended up displacing the simple and "pure" Palestinian theology. This theology was held presumably by Paul and his Greek-speaking followers in the late-first century. The result is that a trajectory was set in Christian history that has led to a great deal of misguided scholarship.
In this slim and controversial work, Hengel systematically dismantles these assumptions and refutes decades of critical continental scholarship.
His starting place is where it usually is: the letters of Paul, which represent the earliest of all Christian writings, 20-25 years after Easter.
His method is also what it usually is: taking survey of analogous ancient reflections from Hellenistic philosophy and history, Latin poetry and polemic, Jewish apocalyptic and pseudopigraphy, and Rabbinic commentary and scholia before approaching the Old and New Testament texts with his traditio-historical analysis.
His conclusions are startling. He finds that the earliest believers held no such beliefs as critical scholars have been putting in their mouths for a century. The idea of "low" Christology being the kerygma of the earliest Christians is a myth! It's not represented by any of the literature. From the earliest days of the church, as we see in the traditional material Paul "passes along" to the Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians, (material that Paul learned from the Christians in Jerusalem or Antioch), the vicarious death of Jesus the Messiah forgives sins. There is a soteriological emphasis from the beginning. This message was shocking because, according to Jewish opinion, the Messiah's death would negate his message and his status. However, the Easter miracle overturns this, and proves that God accepted the sacrifice of His Son and Messiah on behalf of the world.
During his highly condensed yet very rich survey of other analogies to atoning death in ancient literature, Hengel concludes that, though there are many examples of righteous men dying on behalf of others, these deaths are local and heroic. They are examples to be followed, rather than sacrifices that prove to be efficacious for all of humanity. The message of the cross is just familiar enough to be heard by Greeks and Romans, yet just unfamiliar enough to be mocked and rejected.
Hengel's conclusion: "[An] independent unsoteriological interpretation of the death of Jesus and his resurrection cannot be shown to be the earliest tradition" (71). The sources do not show this; they do show, rather, an immensely rich plurality of ways that early believers talked about Jesus Christ's death and resurrection.
Along with "Crucifixion" and "The Son of God," this little book forms Hengel's little trilogy that was to be the first part of a "Theology of the New Testament." Each book is scholarship at its condensed finest.
July 3, 2021
I just finished "The Atonement," by Martin Hengel.
I really appreciate when a theologian begins a quest from a different perspective. When Moltmann began "The Crucified God" he did so not based upon "what does the death and resurrection of Jesus mean for man?" but upon "what does the Crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus mean for God?" This shifting of the questions brings new facets into view which arent avaliable when the regular question is asked. Likewise Hengel asks "how did a Gentile audience in a Greco-Roman world hear this message of a crucified and resurrected Redeemer?"
If Hengel writes this book like he wrote The Crucifixion then it is going to be more of a historical, "Just the Facts, Ma'am" read than anything else. Also, from the intro this and other short works were written to formulate a Christology. I will have to buy the rest of his books.
The opening deals with how atoning would have been seen or what framework the death of Christ would have been placed against in the Greco Roman mind. Needless to say there was then (like now) way too many people telling one that it is admirable to die for ones country, and by extension ones family. (They are half right.) This can be seen in the Homeric narratives all the way to Romulus. Often times this "death for" is mythological.
An interesting account has one Apollonius submitting to Domitian's (so between 81 and 96 ad roughly) ruling. A friend writes to Apollonius telling his that his death is slave worthy (must have been Crucifixion) and unworthy of philosophy. It only benefits a philosopher to die for liberation of country and friends/family. And hence Apollonius needs to escape so as not to besmirch philosophy.
I find it very interesting that when surveying the Greek sagas "expiation" is used for appeasing the gods. Multiple times it seems to be either equivocation where expiation is broadened to include the concept of propionation or the translator from the German didnt understand the nuance. Later it seemed that expiation (removing sin from) was propionation (the gods are wrathful that sin is, so sin is removed for the appeasement of wrath). So the concept--a propitiated expiation--gives the idea that the gods are wrathful at sin that the people are victims of.
Hengel next covers the scapegoat motif from a Greco Roman perspective. And actually he lists many, ending at Oedipus (which really turned me off to literature).
The Greco Roman world would have understood the hero's death, vicarious death, self chosen death, all as an atoning self sacrifice out of/because of love. This message would likely seem archaic and barbaric (foolishness of the cross) to the Greek but it would correspond to his history/literature as myth and drama (I would correspond this to our Paul Bunyan, maybe).
The difference is the soteriological and eschatological categories Jesus places this archaic and barbaric practice of atoning in. Or rather the depth he made it go to. While the ancient Greeks knew about self sacrifice for family and country, Jesus did so for Israel and those grafted in, the adopted, to live in the New Jerusalem. So it is exactly the same in a very different light.
Interesting, later on Hengel points out that Jesus says about the temple that it is "a house of prayer." Wouldnt a good Jew have superseded or substituted prayer with "sacrifice and atonement?" Depending one ones reading but Jesus could have very well been removing that function from the temple and placing it on the Tabernacle (Himself). Historically speaking there has been nothing offered in the temple since Rome sacked it in 70.
Only 75 pp book and I barely scratched the surface of the second half of it.
I really appreciate when a theologian begins a quest from a different perspective. When Moltmann began "The Crucified God" he did so not based upon "what does the death and resurrection of Jesus mean for man?" but upon "what does the Crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus mean for God?" This shifting of the questions brings new facets into view which arent avaliable when the regular question is asked. Likewise Hengel asks "how did a Gentile audience in a Greco-Roman world hear this message of a crucified and resurrected Redeemer?"
If Hengel writes this book like he wrote The Crucifixion then it is going to be more of a historical, "Just the Facts, Ma'am" read than anything else. Also, from the intro this and other short works were written to formulate a Christology. I will have to buy the rest of his books.
The opening deals with how atoning would have been seen or what framework the death of Christ would have been placed against in the Greco Roman mind. Needless to say there was then (like now) way too many people telling one that it is admirable to die for ones country, and by extension ones family. (They are half right.) This can be seen in the Homeric narratives all the way to Romulus. Often times this "death for" is mythological.
An interesting account has one Apollonius submitting to Domitian's (so between 81 and 96 ad roughly) ruling. A friend writes to Apollonius telling his that his death is slave worthy (must have been Crucifixion) and unworthy of philosophy. It only benefits a philosopher to die for liberation of country and friends/family. And hence Apollonius needs to escape so as not to besmirch philosophy.
I find it very interesting that when surveying the Greek sagas "expiation" is used for appeasing the gods. Multiple times it seems to be either equivocation where expiation is broadened to include the concept of propionation or the translator from the German didnt understand the nuance. Later it seemed that expiation (removing sin from) was propionation (the gods are wrathful that sin is, so sin is removed for the appeasement of wrath). So the concept--a propitiated expiation--gives the idea that the gods are wrathful at sin that the people are victims of.
Hengel next covers the scapegoat motif from a Greco Roman perspective. And actually he lists many, ending at Oedipus (which really turned me off to literature).
The Greco Roman world would have understood the hero's death, vicarious death, self chosen death, all as an atoning self sacrifice out of/because of love. This message would likely seem archaic and barbaric (foolishness of the cross) to the Greek but it would correspond to his history/literature as myth and drama (I would correspond this to our Paul Bunyan, maybe).
The difference is the soteriological and eschatological categories Jesus places this archaic and barbaric practice of atoning in. Or rather the depth he made it go to. While the ancient Greeks knew about self sacrifice for family and country, Jesus did so for Israel and those grafted in, the adopted, to live in the New Jerusalem. So it is exactly the same in a very different light.
Interesting, later on Hengel points out that Jesus says about the temple that it is "a house of prayer." Wouldnt a good Jew have superseded or substituted prayer with "sacrifice and atonement?" Depending one ones reading but Jesus could have very well been removing that function from the temple and placing it on the Tabernacle (Himself). Historically speaking there has been nothing offered in the temple since Rome sacked it in 70.
Only 75 pp book and I barely scratched the surface of the second half of it.
April 20, 2023
Hengel successfully demonstrates that the doctrine of atonement certainly came from Jesus himself. This small book is masterfully written, and I have to wonder if Hengel here paved the way for NT Wright’s RSG. The end of this book puts forward some questions supporting the authenticity of the resurrection, the same questions which NT Wright would publish his large volume on almost 2 decades later.
This book is an important reference book for any scholar. Even though this volume is 4 decades old (at the time of my reviewing it), the concepts this book produces (which were once labeled ‘radical’) hold up astonishingly well in light of modern academia.
This book is an important reference book for any scholar. Even though this volume is 4 decades old (at the time of my reviewing it), the concepts this book produces (which were once labeled ‘radical’) hold up astonishingly well in light of modern academia.
July 30, 2018
This is a narrow scoped assessment of the Atonement. Hengel does a good job of describing the mindset and attitude of the Greco-Roman world and how their philosophers and thinkers of the time would have viewed the work of Christ on the cross, but I simply found the book to be academic and lifeless. I read both this and the Crucifixion by the same author because of several citing to his works in the bibliographies of other books I did enjoy and assumed that they were good. There is better out there.
January 23, 2018
His writing is clear, though at some points he assumes you know Greek and can appreciate the small differences between two Greek words in the Old and New Testaments. Sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish if he is relying on faith to bolster his argument, or simply reflecting the attitudes of early Christians. He clearly knows his biblical literature, and there is something here, but there is no slam-dunk argument or eye-opening explanations for me here.
February 22, 2023
Dry, but a wonderful resource and solidly researched book.
February 5, 2015
good as historical critical reference; revolutionary at its time.
December 2, 2016
I understood the first chapter but only parts of the second.
Read
August 12, 2010biblical studies,NT studies,atonement,soteriology
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews