The 10th Nemean is attributed to the late Pindar (Snell: about 444). It is dedicated to Theaios from Argos, a victor in wrestling, and forms along with the eleventh a form of appendix to the Nemean Odes. [1]
It is a generally observed characteristic of this poem that contrary to his procedure hitherto Pindar finds a climax in the 4 and 5th triads in a mythological manner, that is with the Dioscuri. It will be shown that these final triads cast the ultimate light on the middle element of the poem. In this manner – through Pindars rearrangement – the last triads (especially the 5th) belong together with the first (equally mythological) and give to the poem a great degree of artistic finish and completion, insofar as they frame the historical middle triads.
The shift to the great final theme in triads 4 and 5 is prepared in the third triad in a quiet and discrete way, in so far as the first verse (l. 38) and Epode (ll. 49–54) introduce the Dioscuri, become the main and key topic which starts from l. 55.
As is clear from the first triad, the active communion of the Divine and heroic world is insisted upon. This impression is reinforced by the final verse of the Epode (and hence the 3rd Triad). Pindar brings this to a climax with the gnome καὶ μὰν θεῶν πιστὸν γένος (l. 54). What appears as a pregnant finish is in truth the point of transition to the real end of the poem. It shows itself with the key word πιστός, which is also the leading theme for both of the subsequent triads, excluding those dedicated to the Dioscuri. The Dioscuri must now be articulated because their meaning unlocks that of the whole poem—from the end backwards.
This occurs through Pindar’s abrupt focus upon the real nature of the Dioscuri from the first verse of the introductory stanza to the fourth triad. This stanza assumes the function of an elaborate exposition of all that follows it.
At first the particular relations of the Dioscuri are formulated in a pregnant manner (ll. 55–56) for which a general justification ἐπεί (ll. 57f) in particular in connection with Polydeuces will follow. The implied fatal destiny of Castor leads to the historical narrative, how it happened and what preceded it (τὸν γὰρ ῎Ιδας, l. 60), and so leads to the Antistanza and the Epode. The final fifith triad (ll. 73ff) is dedicated to the relationship of Polydeuces to Castor mediated through the intervention of Zeus.
The prooemium to the final concluding triads of the tenth Nemean Ode emphasizes the simultaneous nature of Above (l. 55) and Below (l. 56) in the context of the first two words of the verse: μεταμειβόμενοι δ᾽ ἐναλλὰξ (l. 55). In place of the general human unchangeable movement from ἄκρον (Pythian Ode 11.55) to sinking into the condition of μέλανος θανάτου (Pythian Ode 11.56) is instead now the regular daily motion between one sphere and the other. The Dioscuri participate in heaven as they do on earth in so far as they daily stride across in one or another direction. In their being this reciprocity is constitutive. In this way, from the beginning of the ode the recognisable reciprocity between gods (and godesses) and humans (men and women) is portayed in the form of the integral expression of the loving brothers. As the central concept of the true relationship between divine and human, the Dioscuri, in their dual-unity express precisely the coincidence of relationship and difference. What lays therein more exactly, will be expressed by the rest of the fourth and then the fifth triad. It can be predicated from this point on that the double status has something to do with the previously sworn being of the gods as πιστός (l. 54)
The subsequent verses point in the same direction. The same fate (πότμον …ὁμοῖον, l. 57), that they for ever share, results from their superficial unlikeness. And the overcoming is attributed exclusively to Ploydeuces (εἵλετ᾽, l. 59). The extreme unlikeness, from the new being in common reciprocity, was interpreted by Pindar such that the belligerent Castor comes into mortal anguish and was about to die (τοῦτόν / …αἰῶνα φθιμένου …κάστορος εν πολέμῳ, ll. 58ff). He stands for the warrior and death in battle. The reason why it has come to this, that Castor (εν πολέμω) must (φθιμένου) ‘thither’ will be explained henceforth more exactly (69ff). At present it is more important for Pindar to explain that Polydeuces has come between αἰῶνα φθιμένου and Castor εν πολέμω. In this limited expression he stands between Castor and his demise (cf. l. 59). This entry into the breech is free—it is based on a free choice of Polydeuces, who takes up the mortal lot of his brother and thus shares τοῦτον / εἵλετ´ αἴῶνα φθιμένου …κάστορος (ll. 58f). This free choice (αἵρεσιν) is clearly spoken of in ll. 82ff. Here it is presupposed that Ploydeuces had the possibility of being himself immortal (ἄφθιτος), namely, to be ‘fully a god’ (πάμπαν θεὸς ἔμμεναι, l.58). This is also explained in the last triad. How this reciprocal participation within a tight community happens is also developed in the conclusion. it is, however, clear here that Ploydeuces wants to endure the same fate as his human brother Castor (πότμον ὁμοῖον, l.57) and thus not merely remain Divine (πάμπαν θεοὶ, l.58).
This shows an extraordinary proximity to the Christian vision.
It is clear that being ὑπὸ κεύθεσι γαίας (l. 56, see also, γαίας ὑπένερθεν, l. 87) is not just an indefinite sojourn in the deepest bowels of the earth or its hidden recesses, but is to be in a specific relationship to the mortal fate of Castor. The term which Pindar takes from Homer means also specifically Hades. Polydeuces executes something akin to the descent into Hell ascribed to Christ (cf. I Peter 3.19; 4.16; Col. 2.15): καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα [μέρη] τῆς γῆς (Eph. 4.9; cf. Jhn. 3.13) and τίς καταβῆσεται εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον (Rom. 10.7; see also, Psm. 107.26). A particularly striking analogy is between the Pindarich Hymn and the Christus Hymn of Phil 2.6–11. His being παρὰ πατρὶ φίλῳ (l. 55) is based upon Ploydeuces’ nature (οἰκεῖν τ᾽ οὐρανῷ l.58; cf. l. 88; l. 84) as really divine (πάμπαν θεὸς ἔμμεναι l.58) and reminds us of the status exaltationis Chirsti (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων …εῖναι ἴσα θεῷ Phil. 2.6a-c). Line 57 (πότμον ὁμοῖον) sounds like Paul’s ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (Phil 2.7b). The τοῦτον …/ εἵλετ᾽ αἰῶνα φθιμένου (ll. 58f) reminds one of οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο (Phil 2.6b), and indeed this phrase leads to the status exinanitionis Christi ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴ δούλου λαβών (Phil. 2.7a), ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου (Phil. 2.8). This coresponds to Polydeuces’ sympathetic action in Pindar (ὑπὸ κεύθεσι γαίας) as the self humiliation of his own divinity—but even Paul brings the praise of the exalted together with those who are ‘in heaven and on earth (καταχθονίων)’ (Phil 2.10b) These resonances, along with others, are striking and should be seen as theological. At any rate, the simultaneous being in heaven and earth (in Hades) or otherwise put, being divine with accompanying solidarity with the lot of humanity in both cases cannot be overlooked. And the mutually changing participation in the divine and the human spheres (μεταμειβόμενοι δ᾽ ἐναλλὰξ, l. 55) reminds one – however remotely – of the communication idiomatum.
After the dramatic occurence of guilt and expiation the last triad is occupied exclusively with the relationship of the Dioscuri, of which the poet had hinted in verses 55–59. It is like a peripeteia in this hymn, and it is executed by Polydueces in so far as he immediately goes forth to his brother wounded in battle (φθιμένου Κάστορος ἐν πολέμῳ, l. 59; ταχέως δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀδαλφεοῦ βίαν πάλιν χώρησεν, l. 73). Polydeuces’ relationship to his mortally wounded brother – he himself is called here ὁ Τυνδαρίδας because of his fraternal kinship (otherwise first ll. 80f) – is determined by sympathy and aid: ταχέως. He finds Castor in extremis, still alive but already semimortuus: οὔπω τεχναότ᾽ (l. 74). Castor is about to breathe his last and die: ἄσθματι δὲ φρίσσοντα πνοας (ibid.). Polydeuces makes the pain of the death rattle of his brother his own and shares, groaning and weeping his brother’s agony: θερμὰ δὴ τέγγων δάκρυα στοναχαῖς (l. 75). His cry of help (ὄρθιον φώνασε, l. 76) to the highest God who alone can help in death arises from the mortal peril of the brothers. The desperate cry for salvation (τίς δὴ λύσις, ibid.) refers directly to the mortal agony of Castor but also the chain of violence and revenge, atrocity and retaliation in the midst of which Castor finds himself as victim. Zeus will arrange salvation through his son, namely Polydeuces. This is hinted at in so far as Polydeuces is prepared, in ultimate sympathy with his brother, to vicariously take upon himself the mortal lot of his brother: καὶ ἐμοὶ θάνατον σὺν τῷδ᾽ ἐπίτειλον, ἄναξ (l. 77). Thus he preempts the subsequent offer of Zeus for him to be θάνατόν τε φυγὼν (l. 83).
In so far as Polydeuces pleads with Zeus for his help and proclaims his fidelity to him, he proves himself as faithful; as one prepared to die for his brother. The θεῶν πιστὸν γένος (l. 54) is here a πιστοὶ βροτῶν (l. 78) in the case of Polydeukes, who did not want to become god preceisely because of so much πιστοι. The Divine faithfulness evinces itself in the faithfulness of Polydueces to his dying brother.
This faithfulness, as an exception among the mortals (cf. ll. 78f), is the particular change of fate among the Dioscuri represented by verses 55f. Admittedly, it is in the singular activity of Polydeuces in καμάτου μεταλαμβάνειν (l. 79a) that the μεταμειβόμενοι as the mode of being of both Dioscuri is grounded and which is liguistically alluded to. For this μεταλαμβάνειν is fundamentally nothing other than to suffer θάνατον σὺν τῷδ᾽) for the sake of his brother (l. 77). The reciprocal relationship of the brothers is based upon the reciprocal relationship between Zeus and Polydeuces, which occupies the subsequent Antistrophe and Epode.
Zeus’ answer to the plea for salvation (λύσις, l. 76) begins with Polydeuces holding fast to his present: ἀντίος ἤλυθέ οἱ (l. 79b). The advent of the God forms itself as an address: καὶ τόδ᾽ ἐξαύδαό ἔπος (l. 80a). The word is a festive word of revelation and declaration of adoption, hence it is emphasized repeatedly in verse 89. What Zeus says to him relates profoundly to the being of Polydeuces: ᾿Εσσί μοι υἱός (l. 80b). With this the truth of sonship is revealed and determined. For the first time when he hear this he is really (for himself) what he already was and fills himself with the celebrated Pindaric γένοἰ, οἷος ἐσσὶ μαθών (Pythian Ode 2.72).
With the performative formula: ᾿Εσσί μοι υἱός (l. 80) Polydeuces is declared to be a son of God and Castor through σπέρμα θνατὸν (l. 81) is seen as a mere son of man. This festive formula reminds us in a striking manner of Christ’s adoption in the baptism. In Polydeuces and Castor the real son of God and the real (son of) Tyndareos different natures are closely linked, albeit within the community of reciprocal participation. Christ, by contrast, is in one Person son of God and son of Man. In relation to him as the Son of God: κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (as μονογενὴς παρὰ πατρός John 1.14b; 1.18) stand all others, who can be called sons of God in a derivative sense υἱοὶ θεῶν, quite other than the Dioscuri (υἱοὶ θεῶν, Pythian Ode 11.62).
Polydeuces is given the choice between life and death (Castor’s and his own) by his father: τῶνδέ τοι ἔμπαν αἵρεσιν παρδίδωμ᾽ (ll. 82ff). This is the alternative which stands before him. On the one side there is the possiblility to sieze his fate: πάμπαν θεὸς ἔμμεναι οἰκεῖν τ᾽ οὐρανῷ (l. 58). What this would mean for him, to be completely, that is, only Divine, is described in a twofold manner. Firstly, the escape from death (θάνατόν τε φυγὼν, l. 83 and with that the hated old age: καὶ γῆρας ἀπεχθόμενον, ibid.) and secondly to dwell exclusively in Olympus in the company of Zeus his father (πατὰ πατρὶ φίλῳ, l. 55) and the Gods Athena and Ares.
The other side of the choice, namely the alternative of maintaining the pure immortality of the gods for themselves means a divided lot, namely participation in the fate of his brother εἰ δὲ κασιγνήτου πέρι μάρνασαι (ll. 85–86), that is partly (ἥμισυ) the sacrifice or loss of immortality in order to share the λάχος (l. 85) of mortality in total likeness: πὰντων ἀποδάσσασθαι ἴσον (l. 86). This means for Ploydeuces to accept the lot of death for the sake of his brother. Only in so far as he remains faithful to him into Hades (ἥμισυ μέν κε πνέοις γαίας ὑπένερθεν ἐών, l. 87) does he accept him with unconditional giving love, whose destiny he is to make entirely his own πάντων ἀποδάσσασθαι ἴσον (l. 86) so that he is entirely πότμον ἀμπιπλάντες ὁμοῖον (l. 57). As a countermove he can at the same time, that is alternately (l. 55), also with his brother and taking him with him, be ἥμισυ δ᾽ οὐρανοῦ εν χρυσέοις δόμοισιν (l. 88). Polydeuces’ wish: ἐμοὶ θάνατον σὺν τῷδ᾽ ἐπίτειλον (l. 77) is filled by God so that both by taking upon themselves the descent into death, at the same time are taken up into the Divine life.
Castor is the one saved, and he is the one through whom his neighbour becomes saved, like the merciful samaritan of the Gospel (Lk 10.36), and who in this way is made ‘half’ of his immortal brother and son of God. Polydeuces does not return to the realm of heavenly light but because of his brother goes into the darkness of Hades (σκοτία) and takes a part with him, takes it upon himself.
Pindar illuminates this salvation from the power of death with his characteristic ambiguity and open endedness as the reopening of the eyes and the voice. So the poem leaves much open and unarticulated. ᾿Ανα δ᾽ ἔλυσεν μὲν ὀφθαλμόν, ἔπειτα δὲ φωνὰν χαλκιμίτρα Κάστορος (l. 90).
The resuscitated or rather reawoken Castor gains through the descent of the immortal Polydeuces to mortality and his participation access to the celestial being of his divine brother. This is a gay change and exchange. Polydeuces takes the mortal lot upon himself so that his brother can gain heavenly λάχος (l. 85). In this way the reciprocal exchange of attributes (communicatio idiomatum) amidst the Dioscuri (55), which arises out of the overcoming of death is achieved.
It is correct that ‘change as such occurs in almost all Pindars Odes,’ namely, the change between drudgery, woe, guilt and bane on the one side and wealth, luck success and blessing – embodied by the charities – on the other. This is as much the case in the life of individuals just as in the historical development of generations. So here in the tenth Nemean Ode, the change is simultaneously a potential and reconciled figure: μεταμειβόμενοι δ᾽ ἐναλλὰξ (l. 55). This is a key formulation of the poem—the dual unity of the dioscuri twins, their highs and lows. Divine and human, celestial and terrestial are so closely knitted to each other, that the relation gains a qualitative new and particular form and, opposing the infinite change of up and down, represents a living unity and so reconciles the change with itself.
Where the heights fall to the depth (Polydeuces) and misery is taken up in the heavens (Castor) here one finds the end of woeful self perpetuating change and thus all conflict and emnity (πόλεμος) is resolved. This living unity of the opposites in the dual unity of the Dioscuri is ‘Versohnung mitten im Streit’—Holderlin’s ‘Renconcilation in the midst of conflict’.
The historically dominant antagonism of human violence and the revenge of Zeus, or the baneful chain of atrocity and punishment is resolved when God and Man are unified—in reciprocal belonging, or rather giving belonging.
The λύσις of Polydeuces creates a peace between men and Gods, the expression of which is the games, which are sublimations of the bloody πόλεμος. In this way, the tenth Nemean Ode is a celebration of peace. Behind all of this with changing degrees of clarity is the highest God with his love. Zeus changed death into life, and the paradox of death which produces new life is a basic figure of the tenth Nemean Epinikion. Upon the heels of the revenging and punishing Zeus—and opposed to him, is the Zeus as warden of Divine favour who in particular donates the favour of victory. His favour is emphasized at the end of second antistrophe: χάρις (l. 30). Χάρις (gratia), the divine, is the τέλος of all the works of Zeus!
With this one can see that the two comprehensive changes form the tenth Nemean Ode and constitute its expressive content. The substition of πόλεμος through ἀγὼν and the binding sublimation of the agonistic victory in the ϒμνος of the Poet (whereby also the υμνος can resolve the battle. The tenth Nemean Ode sings of a celebration of peace as a cuturally constitutive event. Thus the beautifully painted pots filled with olive oil, and the soft cloaks, the pious Hera sacrifices (l. 23) and the celebratory songs about the victorious in battle (l. 34; and passim.). This transformation of battle into peace is recognisable from a number of individual formulations—these subtle points are characteristic examples of the refinement of Pindars art.
In the place of war, death destruction, death pangs (l. 74) loneliness, hades (l. 67) one has the sporting agon and his luggage—honour (τιμὰ, l. 38) gifts, feasts (τελεταί, l. 34) , to which the Graces (ll. 1 and 38) and the muses (l. 26) contribute, from whom ultimately the clebratory hymns of the Poet are derived (ἁδεῖαί …ὀμφαί ll. 33f; ὑμνεῖτε, l. 2). The desperate cry to Zeus in moral desperation (l. 75) is changed—in Pindar’s tongue, into a peaceful hymn to God. (ἀείδω θεῷ, l. 31)
There is a direct link from πόλεμος to ψμνος. The waking action of Polydeuces upon Castor (ἔλυσεν, l. 90) provokes (like an echo) the voice of the singer: εὔχορδον ἔγειρε λύραν (l. 21) This means that the word of the poet grounds that which lives longer and more forcefully than past deeds, when the graces help: ῥῆμα δ᾽ ἐργμάτων χρονιώτερον βιοτένει (Nemean Ode 4.6).
A. Firstly the question as to whether the (possibly pre-Paulinian) hymn of Phil 2.6–11 dating from around 30 or 40 of the First century might not be in tradition influenced by texts like the tenth Nemean Ode. Indeed a trace can be proved. The Hellenistic ideal of brotherly love can be found in Philo (25 BC–50 AD) and a direct reference to the Dioscuri tradition in de Legatione ad Gaium 84f. Since it is widely assumed that the Philippian hymn was rooted in Hellenistic Jewish-Christian culture, it is not unlikely (or cannot be excluded) that there was a (perhaps only vague) influence of the Pindaric form of the Dioscuri myth via Philo of Alexandria to Christian circles, in which the hymn arose which Paul uses. Whether Paul was aware of this cannot be determined but it has to be unlikely. Indeed, the fact that there is a striking affinity and contact between the Pindaric Dioscuri myth and the pre-Paulinian Philippians hymn (Phil 2.6–11) provokes the systematic question about the theological significance. Here I wish to conclude with some aspects.
B. Firstly, in Pindar the tradition which he inherited about the Dioscuri, which in his existing work plays no particular role, is developed in a unique way and the existing cult of the brothers (e.g. as Star, which provides orientation for sailors) is deepened in a religious way and intensified. In particular Pindar’s particular idea of Polydeuces’ freely chosen solidarity with the mortal lot of his brother Castor is a creative interpretation of the given myth. At the same time Pindar has an ingenuous new conception of the Dioscuri myth and the synoptic expression of a range of other inherited – in different context situations of reconciliation linked to the image of Argos – traces of the ultimate reconciliation (Cf. In the first stanza of the tenth Nemean Ode, Hypermestra, Athene and Diomedes, Zeus with Alcmene, Heracles and Hebe, and others). Many of these precedents contain the ambivalence – reconciliation and potential for conflict (e.g. Danaus, Lynkeus and, perhaps Kastor) – and cannot stand for a final reconciliation. Pindar had probably understood these different motifs in the light of his new interpretation of the Dioscuri myth as a form of predecessor structure and was able to organise it in terms of the poetic representation. In any case in Pindar we have a poetic imagination in the tenth Nemean Ode which shows an innovative trace for the structure of a genuine universal reconciliation (as the constitution of peace).
C. Judged theologically, Pindar’s Dioscuri hymn is itself not a revelation because it is not an expression of Divine action or condescension. Rather, it is the expression of a knowledge of how real saving revelation must look like, if it really occurs. Only this knowledge or sense as such (that is as conception in the religious conception of the poets) can be brought in connection with Revelation. The Dioscuri are not revelation but mythic forms which on the basis of their poetic conception are possible bearers of reconciliation and can be thought of as a newly understood myth and a prophetic reference to a really reconciling revelation. They are as it were a poetic image of a still possible reconciliation. Of course, Pindar sees the myth structure which he has reinterpreted as having happened and yet being effective in the present. Considering the striking affinity to the Phillipians hymn, one would have to say, in so far as Pindar shifts the poetically imagined constitutive experience into a mythic archaic period, he speaks factually of that which, with certain profound modifications in Christian faith, is known as a historical event, in the Phil. hymn as the incarnation, crucifixion, and exaltation of Christ. In so far as Pindar writes of a poetic past he prophesies in truth, without knowing it, a future new religion.
D. The peculiar affinity of the Pindaric Dioscuri hymns to the New Testament Phillipans hymn can only be correctly judged in the light of the substantial differences. These can be listed briefly. Fundamentally, the difference is the enormous and throughly unique Judeo-Christian concsiousness of the God-man relationship, which blocks any polytheistic confusion of the categorical difference. This basic difference of the presupposed subject in each case (biblically God himself, the creator and Lord of the world) relativises that which might as phenomena seem comparable. In individual cases theologically the following differences are important.
i. For Pindar, a son of God takes on his human brother, saves him from death and lets him share in his heavenly destiny, in so far he also shares his subterranean being. According to the New Testament, the son of God becomes man and suffers – in a person at once God and Man – the fate of death for the sins of others, who in ‘gay exchange’ can share in his eternal life.
ii. With Pindar the highest God is in a sense in the background, while in Christ God has become man and thus as his son (as second person) of the Trinity the process of the salvation (λύσις) is not just made possible but involves him. God involves his own deity in order to make what happens happen. The mythologem of a Divine son begotten through a virgin is in the New Testament re-formed, deepened, radicalised, and detached through the Trinitarian self differentiation of the Trinitarian Godhead.
iii. This deepening in the understanding of the baneful collusion of atrocity and Divine punishment corresponds to the Bibilical idea of radical sin (one against God himself), which can only be sublimated by the cross of Christ. This means that the Christian exclusiveness of the one Christian God become man corresponds to a sharper dualismus – on the one hand, the abysmal difference of God and Man through sin, on the other, the reconiliation through the faithfulness of the Divine – understood as the creator—whose love turns to the fallen creation.
This is closely linked to Polydeuces’ relinquishment to become ‘under the earth’ as only a partial moment of the transforming events, of which the other half is on Olympia. The relinquishment (κένωσις) of the Son of God in real humanity until death (on the cross) correpsonds to a final exaltation. And Castor is only saved before death. He will be saved from it—but not stricto sensu from real death, in the sense of a raising through God. Indeed his mortal fate is profoundly changed, in so far as it is partially retained in his celestial being.
For Pindar it is primarily an occurrence between two people, which only secondarily has a significance for Greece. Christianity from the beginning onwards was concerned with the relationship of a God-man to the whole of humanity. The Dioscuri had for Pindar a meaning for Greek culture; Christ’s fate is decisive for the foundation of the Church.
iv. From the demonstrated differences between the poetic intuition of Pindar and the Christian view of salvation, it follows that the Christ event is a crisis for the ‘mythological,’ by a radical development and outdoing. The mythos contains an element of Christian truth, and hence it must be a real activity of Divinity in the history of religion (as history of the religious consciousness) which is perfected in Christianity. But then Christianity cannot be seen as mythological (Enlightened critique of religion—also Bultmann’s demythologising programme). Otherwise the historical Christ event bestows upon the mythological precedents religious meaning and seriousness, and a poem like that of Pindar is to be seen as the distillation of revelation out of the mythic.
v. Pindar’s Dioscuri hymn can be compared to an Old Testament prophecy—in so far as these are presentiments of how salvation must appear (cf. Jes 53, 1–12 and the deutero Isaiah suffering servant). What Pindar presents in mythic past, these prophets see in the future, that is, a final reconciliation of God and man. The prophets knew more decisively than Pindar that such a reconciliation and salvation could only come from God; that He would indeed bring it about and be present (e.g. Jer. 31, 31–34).
The question of how Pindars backwards prophecy was possible (religiously) and how it might be interpreted theologically is not unconnected to the question of how we interpret pre-Christian prophecy. How it (from a Chirstian perspective) might be undestood and what it means that it was fulfilled (even if radically differently from the manner envisaged by the pious of the Old Covenant).
If the pre-Christian (heathen) poet Pindar in some sense – and in a broad sense of the word, was a prophet – so we must think about how Old Testament prophecy might be thought (beside other perspectives) also as poetry. At any rate, for Pindar and the Old Testament prophets, if they are in any way Christologically relevant, then the formulations and figures of thought they produced and in the light of which the appearance, fate and faith created by Jesus appears, can be understood from the perspective of God himself. By way of reversal, it is clear that the experience of the disciples and the primitive community with Jesus from the previous history of religion – insofar as it came into view – was theologically loosely linked to the revelation event, in which one could (retospectively) find traces of truth, which when realised were clear to all as traces of the activity of the Divine Spirit in the religious history of mankind prior to Christ, particularly in the Old Covenant in which Christ was brought to a perfect manifestation. For this one might reflect upon the traditional doctrine of the logos spermatikos—‘For each of these (sc. Philosophers, poets and historians) made excellent utterances according to the amount of the semainally distributed Divine Logos and were able to see related truths’.