SON OF GOD (υἱὸ̀ς Θεοῦ). (See also Christology.) This was a favorite credal affirmation of the Early Church, which rapidly became part of an early baptismal confession of faith. The subject will be treated under the following headings:
1. OT origins of the term. In the pl. form, בְּנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִימ׃֙ (sons of God) is used loosely to describe angelic beings who form a sort of “heavenly court” for Yahweh. (This is a possible explanation of the archaic passage in Genesis 6:2-4.) See also Job 1:6 and 2:1, where even Satan can be included in such a gathering. Job 38:7 seems to be an OT antecedent of the angels’ song of Luke 2:14. Psalm 82:6, which uses “sons of the Most High” as parallel to “gods,” may also mean “angels.” In Heb. the term is used of heavenly beings who, as sharers in the nature of God as spirit, may be called “sons of God,” by the common Semitism. Whatever the origins of the phrase, it certainly carries no polytheistic associations in the OT. Cullmann and some other modern scholars prefer to see the “father and son” relationship of such beings to God as that of mission and obedience respectively. A better sense would be “sender and sent one,” in view of the Heb. and Gr. words for “angel.” This has the advantage of explaining other OT instances also. E.g. Hosea 1:10 describes Israel as “Sons of the living God”; perhaps loving obedience, rather than likeness, is the thought.
For the background of NT Christology, the use of the sing. noun is more important. Hosea 11:1 records that Israel, considered collectively, is “my son” to God. Matthew 2:15 applies this v. directly to Christ. Perhaps “covenant-love” constitutes the filial bond on both sides. Alternation of the pl. and the sing. (in the sense of the collective) is typical of OT theology; although the term is sing., it does not necessarily mean that an individual relationship of sonship has been established. Not until NT times will, first Christ, then the Christian, dare to cry, “Abba, Father,” in this sense (Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15). Psalm 2:7 describes an individual relationship (see [http://biblegateway/wiki/Begotten (Begetting) BEGOTTEN]), which is applied to Christ in Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5. This is a royal psalm, and connects sonship of God with Davidic kingship. The Scandinavian school of scholars sees this as a relic of non-Israelite ideas of “divine kingship”; but of this there is no trace in the OT. Cullmann perhaps correctly thinks the reason is that the king represents Israel, already described as God’s “Son.”
In any case, this is sonship by adoption and grace, as was that of Israel. It may be linked with the Messianic nature of the king, for every king in Israel is “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam 24:6); doubly so, those of David’s line. Naturally, when the type is fulfilled in Christ, the meaning goes far beyond that of the psalm to the sonship by nature and generation. For a further example of “divine sonship,” see Psalm 89:26, 27. Another preparatory use of the sing. is the description of the mysterious figures of Daniel 3:25 as דָּמֵ֖ה לְבַר־אֱלָהִֽין (like a son of the gods). Daniel 3:28 explains this as God’s “angel”; later theology saw it as a Christophany, like other mentions of “Yahweh’s angel” in the OT.
Further than this the OT cannot go without endangering its own foundational doctrine of the unity of God; but, as in the case of “son of man,” the linguistic framework has been prepared to receive the NT content.
2. Usage in the synoptic gospels
a. Initial postulates. Mark’s gospel opens with the phrase “Jesus Christ the Son of God” (the textual evidence for the retention of the last few words is good). This is all the more remarkable in view of Mark’s general caution in the use of the title (although cf. 15:39). Luke 1:32 and 35 give Jesus the names of “Son of the Most High” and “Son of God” respectively. Matthew in 1:23 quotes the Emmanuel-prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 as having been fulfilled in Jesus and in 2:15 applies “my son” of Hosea 11:1 directly to Christ. At the beginning of all three synoptics the divine sonship of Christ is postulated. As far as explanation goes both Matthew and Luke attached great importance to the virgin birth. Matthew saw in it a fulfillment of the Emmanuel-prophecy and a token that in this Child God would live among men. In Luke 1:35 Christ’s sonship is connected directly with His virgin birth through the power of the Spirit (although the fatherhood of God must not be understood in a crude sense). It cannot be said that the virgin birth is irrelevant to Christ’s divine sonship; yet it was not merely because of His birth that Christ was hailed by this title in the Early Church. The story does not seem to have been widely told in NT days, perhaps because Jews and pagans alike would misunderstand it for totally different reasons. Later paragraphs will show what additional grounds the evangelists had for this assertion about Christ.
b. Baptismal declaration. Christ’s sonship is reiterated in the account of His baptism (Mark 1:11 with parallels). “Thou art my beloved Son,” is a combination of Psalm 2:7 (Messianic kingship) with Isaiah 42:1 (the Suffering Servant of the Lord). The context seems to associate sonship both with the possession of the Spirit, and the power to give the Spirit to others (Mark 1:8). Heretical Jewish Christology sometimes misunderstood this in an adoptionist sense, as though the man Jesus first received the Spirit at His baptism, and was thereby transformed into a Son of God. But this is impossible in the light of such a v. as Luke 1:35; and even Mark, who does not directly mention the virgin birth, accords Jesus the title of “Son of God” long before His baptism. Nevertheless the connection between sonship and the Spirit is important; cf. Galatians 4:6. The baptism, whatever its other meanings, represents the public acceptance by Jesus of the path of sonship, which will, because it is the path of obedience, lead to suffering as surely as the path of messiahship (Luke 12:50), “I have a baptism....” It can be no accident that the testimony at the transfiguration virtually repeated the wording of that at the baptism (Mark 9:7). In view of the centrality of this baptismal declaration, it is not surprising that in the Early Church, the baptism of the Christian was also associated with the confession of Jesus as “Lord,” or as “Son of God” (Acts 8:37; 1 Cor 12:3). In spite of Cullmann and Vincent Taylor, it does not seem that any distinction can be drawn between these confessions.
c. The temptation. Wherever the temptations of Christ are particularized (as in Matt 4:1-11) they are directly related to His consciousness of divine sonship; without that, they would not only lose their force as temptations, but would be meaningless. The temptation was apparently twofold, either to doubt His own sonship, or to misuse it by a spectacular and selfish display of divine power, which would be to fail to walk the path of obedience. To be a mere wonder-worker would qualify one to be a “son of God” in the pagan sense. Perhaps this partially explains Christ’s reluctance to display His miraculous powers openly. On the eve of the Cross, the temptation to avoid the Son’s path of obedience was still present (Luke 22:42).
Since the Lord Himself told His disciples of the temptation, the concept of sonship must have lain at the heart of His own understanding of His person and ministry. The baptism is the witness of the Father to the Son, but the temptation is the witness of the Son’s own self-knowledge.
d. Demonic confession. Such testimony was not accepted by Christ (although He never denied its truth) prob. because it was involuntary, and did not spring from revelation and faith, in the Christian sense. But it was at least supernatural testimony and, as such, had importance. Mark 3:11, 12, taken with Mark 1:23-25 (where “Holy One of God,” prob. has much the same meaning as “Son of God”), makes plain that this kind of “rejected testimony” was commonplace during Christ’s ministry (cf. Acts 19:15 and James 2:19 for later days). That Christ had power to expel demons was never questioned, even by His enemies; the sole question of the scribes concerned the source of His undoubted powers (Mark 3:22). There is therefore no valid reason for doubting the reality of such demonic testimony. Although rejected by Christ, it is recorded by the evangelists as yet another line of evidence for a truth which they already independently believed on other grounds.
e. Confession by the disciples. After the calming of the storm, the disciples “worshiped” Jesus, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God” (Matt 14:33). Perhaps this was a momentary or shallow recognition by men awed by such a display of supernatural power; on other similar occasions, there was no such full theological confession (8:27). Whatever the force of their testimony, it is overshadowed by the declaration of Peter at Caesarea Philippi, which followed shortly afterward (16:16). This latter is not in the context of any miraculous exhibition of power; this may be Matthew’s way of showing the inadequacy of the earlier confession. The saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” is the crisis of Matthew’s gospel. From this point onward Jesus would teach His followers the meaning of sonship, as well as messiahship, in terms of obedience to death (Matt 16:21). He accepted without question the title of Son, and acknowledged it as proof of divine revelation (Matt 16:17). This revelation did not extend to the nature of messiahship (Matt 16:22), so it can hardly have extended to the nature of sonship. The same combination of sonship and messiahship prob. appears in Peter’s confession (John 6:69) and certainly in the high priest’s question to Jesus (Mark 14:61).
The root of the combination certainly lies in the OT, where “Son” and “Messiah” are joined in the case of a Davidic king.
f. Christ’s self-confession. This already has been implied by the baptism and the temptation, but it is explicit in the so-called “Johannine” passage in Matthew 11:25-27 (with a parallel in Luke). This shows clearly that Jesus was conscious of a unique relationship to the Father, defined as sonship, which consisted of intimate knowledge and mediatorship between God and man. Such self-confession is also involved in the acceptance of the title on the lips of His followers (Matt 14:33; 16:16). Similarly, when questioned by the high priest at His trial, Jesus admitted the title at once, although to do so was to court death for blasphemy. To deny would have been impossibe, for it would have been to deny His own nature. There are also a few other synoptic passages in which Christ refers to Himself, in Johannine style, as “the Son” in contrast to “the Father.” Of these Mark 13:32 is a striking example; no critic could discredit this as being fabricated by the Church, since it poses the problem of the limitation of omniscience.
g. The confession of Christ’s enemies. Like that of the demons, this is involuntary, in the sense that it does not spring from the perception of faith. Unlike that of the demons, it is not independent supernatural testimony to the truth of Jesus’ claims; but it is the strongest possible proof of the existence of such claims. The question asked by the high priest at Christ’s trial (Mark 14:61) and the taunt of the crowd at the cross (Matt 27:43) bear this out. Unless it were well known that Christ made or at least accepted such claims, both question and taunt would have been meaningless. That neither priest nor people believed the claims, does not detract from the value of the evidence. Perhaps the testimony of the centurion at the cross (Mark 15:39) also comes under this heading. Unless the centurion knew that such claims were made for Christ, the words would hardly have sprung unbidden to his lips; it is, however, possible that he had merely heard the taunt on the lips of the crowd.
3. Usage in Acts
a. The pre-Pauline period. In Acts 1-12 there is only one certain occurrence of the term “Son of God,” and even that is in a Pauline context. This is surprising since Acts is a sequel to Luke, and that gospel contains many instances. The only explanation can be that the pre-Pauline Jerusalem church preferred not to use it; they certainly took a high view of the person of Christ (see Christology.) It may be that such a title in evangelistic preaching to Jews would provoke a direct collision, which in early days before the rise of Stephen, the church, consciously or unconsciously, sought to avoid. The first generation can hardly have been ignorant of the term, if it was in fact used by Christ of Himself. Perhaps Cullmann is right in his view that they remembered the reticence with which Jesus Himself used the term (cf. Mark throughout). Two possible references are Acts 3:13 and 3:26, if παῖς, G4090, (boy) is to be tr. “son” and not “servant.” If the idea of “Son” is inherent in the Servant Songs (as some scholars feel, with reference to “my chosen” in Isaiah 42:1), then no such problem arises. Perhaps Acts is deliberately using an ambiguous word; the eye of faith will rightly see it as “Son of God” while the unbeliever will not be offended. The confession of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:37): “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” is not in the best MS, and therefore is not, in all probability, part of the original text. The only certain instance is Acts 9:20 where Saul, upon conversion, immediately proclaimed Jesus in the Damascus synagogues as “Son of God,” joining this with scriptural proofs of His messiahship; but this properly belongs to the next section.
b. The Pauline period in Acts. This covers Acts 13-28, with the addition of Acts 9:20. The Jews fully understood the nature of the claim made by Paul as meaning full divinity for Jesus. This is shown by their plot to kill him (9:23). Paul shows no anxiety to avoid such a collision; he was always an “agitator” by reputation (17:6; 21:21; 24:5). How he may have preached in the Damascus and Jerusalem synagogues is shown by his recorded preaching in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch (13:16-41). He associated the divine sonship of Christ not primarily with His birth (as did Matthew and Luke) nor with His baptism (as did Mark) but with His resurrection, quoting the Messianic Psalm 2:7 as proof (Acts 13:33). These three aspects are complementary, not mutually exclusive; and Paul did not understand Christ’s resurrection in an “adoptionist” sense, as though the man Jesus became God’s Son only when He was raised from the dead. The resurrection has, however, an evidential value, as God’s seal to the truth of His Son’s claims (cf. Rom 1:4). The lack of further references to the title in Acts may be because Acts contains no further detailed account of Paul’s “Jewish” preaching. The concept would not enter so naturally into evangelistic or apologetic preaching to Gentiles.
4. Meaning to the pagan world. This may explain the apparent absence of the term in Paul’s Gentile preaching, compared with its frequent occurrence in the epistles. To the unbelieving Jew, the term “Son of God,” if it indeed conveyed equality with God, was a blasphemous title; but to the unconverted pagan, it was too meaningless and commonplace. In Hel. times, the title θεῖοι ἄνδρες (divine men) was freely applied to various religious teachers and supposed miracle-workers (like the Neo-Pythagorean Apollonius of Tyana, for instance). While in the minds of the educated the adjective may have been “faded,” to the credulous multitude no doubt it had its full force. In addition, Graeco-Roman mythology was full of stories of heroes and demigods, born as a result of intercourse between gods and mortals. These beings were described as “sons of the gods,” and were usually credited with miraculous powers. Such stories were utterly offensive to Jewish and Christian thought, because of the physical understanding of divine generation, and the immoral behavior thereby attributed to the gods. Any borrowing from this source is thus unthinkable, in spite of the views of Bultmann. Another area of attribution of divinity to men was that of divine kingship. The Hel. diadochoi, successor kings, who followed Alexander, regularly proclaimed themselves as divine, or at least descended from the gods. Alexander himself had been saluted as “son of the god” by the priests of the desert oracle of Amon, like any Pharaoh before him. No doubt this was more for political than religious reasons, although temples and altars were dedicated to such kings. By the time of the NT, temples were rising to “Rome and Augustus”; an emperor was divus and divi filius, god and god’s son. The concept had lost all true reli gious meaning to the pagan, but it still outraged Jewish-Christian theology; therefore, the Christian cannot have borrowed his doctrine from paganism. Conversely, the Gentile, accustomed to the faded metaphor, could hardly appreciate all that was meant by the Christian claim. Gnosticism has also been suggested by Bultmann as a possible source; but Gnosticism was itself a parasitic growth upon Judaism and Christianity. Nevertheless, if the term had in fact already been in use among such speculative heretical sects, this is yet another reason why preachers should be slow to use it in Gentile evangelism. For Christians, when the term has been given its definition and theological content by the person and work of Christ, no such restraint is necessary; this would explain its wide use in John and the epistles. In view of the ambiguities mentioned above, it is hard to be certain of the exact force of the declaration by the centurion at the cross (Mark 15:39); but certainly the Christian Church saw in it a foreshadowing of its own beliefs.
5. Usage in Paul’s epistles
a. Early. Galatians 2:20 is the earliest reference; already Paul could summarize the Christian way as “faith in the Son of God” (cf. Acts 9:20). This is not mere description of Christ’s person apart from His work; the Son of God is characterized as one “who loved me and gave himself for me.” As always in the NT, sonship is linked with soteriology. Romans 1:3, 4 defines Christianity as “the gospel concerning his [God’s] Son,” and describes Christ as “designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead.” On these and other grounds, Bultmann would restrict the use of the title “Son” to the risen Christ; but this is to ignore the evidence of the gospels; it is also to ignore Paul’s argument. Sonship entailed Christ’s resurrection, and therefore resurrection by the Spirit’s power is a proof of sonship. The connection in thought between resurrection and sonship is thoroughly Pauline (cf. Acts 13:33), as is the connection between sonship and the Spirit. “Son of God” is stressed in the Romans context, for it is put alongside of “descended from David according to the flesh,” referring to the natural aspects of Christ’s birth. It could be argued that Galatians 2:20 and Romans 1:3, 4 both spring from a background of controversy, in a Jewish milieu; but 2 Corinthians 1:19 is certainly neutral and Gentile. The content of Christian preaching is defined as being “the Son of God.” In view of the mention of “God” in the previous v., the phrase must have its full force. The clue to its meaning for Paul lies below: “all the promises of God find their Yes in him.” The “Son of God,” then, is a positive fulfillment and expression of all that God has promised and revealed Himself to be; this is virtual equality with God.
b. Late. Ephesians 4:13 represents later Pauline theology. Spiritual maturity, which is the goal of all Christian ministry, is described as “knowledge of the Son of God.” It is hard to divorce this from the “Johannine” idea expressed in Luke 10:22, that knowledge of the Son is also knowledge of the Father. This in turn means that sonship is defined in terms of oneness with God. Colossians 1:15-20 contains the most advanced Christology of the NT; and all is predicated on God’s “beloved Son,” as v. 13 makes plain. He is not only the preexistent agent of creation, but also creation’s goal; and sonship is given a new dimension in terms of headship of the new “people of God,” the Church. His chief claim to sonship is the “image of the invisible God,” in whom “all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell.”
6. Johannine evidence
a. Initial. The fourth gospel nowhere goes beyond the theology expressed clearly in Matthew 11:25-27, and hinted at in numerous other places in the synoptic tradition. That John arranges his material differently, however, and that he brings out the full meaning of latent concepts, no thoughtful reader would deny. Thus John opened his gospel with a strong statement of Logos theology; Jesus Christ is the pre-existent Word of God, active in creation, and this is firmly linked with His divine sonship (John 1:14 is an explanation of 1:1-3). For a discussion of Logos theology, see Christology; in John, sonship is always seen against this cosmic background, as in Hebrews, and in the later epistles. The task of the Son is to show the Father’s glory (John 1:14) and to make the Father known (1:18); the essence of sonship is the revelation of the Father. The uniqueness of Christ’s sonship is brought out by the use of μονογενής, G3666, (only) to describe Him (1:14, 18; 3:16). (See [http://biblegateway/wiki/Begotten (Begetting) BEGOTTEN]: The KJV “only-begotten” is a mistranslation.) Another note of distinction is that Jesus alone is υἱός, G5626, (Son) of God; others who enter a relation of sonship by believing in His name, are but τέκνα (children) of God. This usage in John is too consistent to be accidental, and must correspond to a difference of status. Nor is Christ’s position merely established by an act of generation; it is the continual enjoyment of a unique relationship (1:18; “the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father”). Like Mark, John does not directly refer to the virgin birth, although some have seen in the Western textual reading of John 1:12, 13 a reference (sing. for pl.). That the Son comes directly from above, John knows (6:41); also that the Jews believe Him to be the son of Joseph and Mary (6:42). In typically Johannine style, he does not explain the enigma, for it is no enigma to the believer.
b. Confessional. The sonship of Christ was revealed to men during His earthly ministry, and at an early stage. The testimony of John the Baptist (“this is the Son of God,” 1:34), is based on Christ’s possession and continual enjoyment of the Spirit. Nathanael’s confession follows in 1:49: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” is based on the perfect knowledge displayed by Jesus (cf. John 4:29). Some critics reject these on the grounds that in the synoptics John the Baptist bears no such full testimony, though he clearly accorded Jesus’ Messianic status (Matt 3:11, 12). They also object that, in the synoptics, such personal confession as Nathanael’s occurs only at a much later date (Matt 16:16). These objections are not valid. John also knew of a Petrine Confession much later, although he words it somewhat differently (John 6:69). Further, Nathanael’s confession is couched in very Jewish terms, unacceptable to later Gentile Christianity (“Rabbi,” “King of Israel”). Martha’s confession in 11:27 is one of the fullest in the gospel, joining the three concepts of Christ, Son of God, and Coming One; otherwise, it follows the same lines. It is interesting, as a Pauline link, that Martha’s witness is in a resurrection context.
c. Personal claims. John 10:36 is a clear instance of Christ’s deliberately claiming the title for Himself in the midst of controversy and close theological argument. It is also in the context of a claim to oneness with the Father (10:30), thus showing in what sense sonship is meant. Christ justifies His use of the title on the grounds that He is the one “whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world.” John 10:35 may be a veiled reference to Logos theology, but in any case, the words of Christ cannot be understood as less than a claim to full equality with God. There are also, as in the synoptics, numerous other passages in John where Jesus speaks of Himself as “the Son” in distinction from “the Father,” in a sense which leaves no doubt as to how He understood the uniqueness of the relationship.
d. Witness of Christ’s enemies. John 19:7 is confirmation by the Jews that Jesus “made himself the Son of God”; again, they regarded it as a blasphemy worthy of death, so that they understood sonship in terms of equality with God. This occurs in a section of John rich in “King theology” (John 18:33-19:22). It is likely therefore that John has in mind the Messianic King of Psalm 2, who is hailed as the Son of God.
e. Conclusion. Lastly the whole purpose of the Gospel, as stated in John 20:31, is to create faith, “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (the primitive baptismal confession). From first to last, John associates sonship with messiahship. Sonship thus has a soteriological goal (3:16; 5:25). The Johannine epistles reiterate these truths even more strongly, but do not demand separate treatment.
7. Usage in Hebrews
a. General principles. In Hebrews, the divine sonship of Christ is not only stated but vindicated by the author. Hebrews, even more than John, therefore comes very near to a full theological definition of sonship, all the more striking in that the book is a Jewish (even if Hel.-Jewish) production. Controversial definition is indeed demanded by the general plan of Hebrews, by which Jewish attacks are met directly. Point by point, it shows the superiority of Jesus to the “mediators” of the first covenant of Judaism. This inevitably leads to extended discussion of the nature of Christ’s sonship, for it is as Son of God that He is superior to all others.
b. Opening verses. In Hebrews 1:1, 2, Christ’s superiority to the OT prophets is stressed, since He brought a full and final revelation of God, of whom He is spokesman. This is very close to the Johannine theology. Christ is also the Son because He is heir and inheritor of God’s universe. So far, perhaps even Jewish “adoptionist” Messianism could agree; but not when He is described as the One “through whom he also created the world” (1:2). This is either the theology of preexistent Wisdom, familiar in Alexandria, or else straight Logos-theology of the Johannine type. In either case, the Son is identified as a “cosmic Christ,” as in Colossians 1:15-20. In Hebrews 1:3, Christ is “Son” because He “reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature.” This is similar to the Christological definition of Philippians 2:6 (although there is no reference to sonship, obedience is stressed).
c. Development of argument. When Christ is said to be superior to the angels because of His “name” (Heb 1:4), this is clearly His title as Son (1:5). Moreover, His is sonship by generation (cf. 1:5, quoting Ps 2:7). To safeguard against “adoptionist” thought, the author asserts Christ’s pre-existence; His birth is described as “when he [God] brings the first-born into the world” (Heb 1:6). His immortality is further asserted in 1:8-12. Comparison with Moses leads to the definition of 3:5, 6. The status of Moses was only that of a servant; the position of Christ is that of a Son. True, the essence of both is seen as lying in “faithfulness.” Hebrews 5:8 may be compared, where the essential nature of sonship is seen to consist in obedience (as in Phil 2:8). The superiority of Christ to the Aaronic high priest is shown again by proclaiming Him Son of God (4:14). Sonship is by generation; Psalm 2:7 is quoted, as well as Psalm 110:4, the latter because of the reference to the priest-king Melchizedek.
d. Sonship and soteriology. One other striking occurrence is Hebrews 6:6: “They crucify the Son of God.” This has a Pauline and soteriological ring, reminiscent of Galatians 2:20. It may well be a reference to the frequent use of the title “Son of God” by friend and foe alike, in the gospel accounts of the trial and crucifixion of Christ. It is also a final reminder that suffering and death are, to the NT, the path of the Son of God, as much as the path of the Messiah, since the essence of sonship is obedience.
Bibliography Only books published in or after 1955 are listed; for older books, see citations in Cullmann and Stauffer.
E. Stauffer, NT Theology (1955); R. Bultmann, Theology of the NT (1955); W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (1957); C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark (1959); A. Robert et A. Feuillet, Introduction à la Bible, I (1959); C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (1963); C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (1963); O. Cullmann, The Christology of the NT, 2nd ed. (1963); J. Danielou, A History of Early Christian Doctrine, I (1964); W. G. Kummel, An Introduction to the NT (1965). For further bibliography see Christology.