^{page 183 note 1} ‘Eine urchristliche Taufliturgie’, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960) 34–51.Google Scholar Käsemann is followed by Wilckens, U., Weisheit und Torheit (BHT 26; Tübingen: Mohr, 1959) 200–2.Google Scholar

Already Lohmeyer, E., Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon (Meyer 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1930) 46–7Google Scholar, thought that the figure of the Urmensch had influenced the representation of Christ in Col 1. 15–20. Dibelius, M., An die Kolosser, Epheser. An Philemon (HNT 12; 3rd ed. Greeven, H.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1953) 16Google Scholar, would see an influence from an amalgam of the Gnostic Urmensch and the Jewish Sophia. An echo of this view is found in the commentary of Conzelmann, H., ‘Der Brief an die Kolosser’, in Becker, J., Conzelmann, H. and Friedrich, G., Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser, Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher und Philemon (NTD 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976) 183–5.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 2} Gnilka, J., Der Kolosserbrief (HTKNT 10/1; Freiburg-Basel-Vienna: Herder, 1980) 54, n. 22Google Scholar, enumerates seven scholars who want to delete the phrase. He could have added Martin, R. P., Colossians and Philemon (The New Century Bible; London: Attic Press, 1974) 56–7, 61Google Scholar, 63, and Conzelmann, , ‘Kolosser’, 183, 185.Google ScholarGnilka, , Kolosserbrief 58Google Scholar, also wants to delete the words. See now also Lindemann, A., Der Kolosserbrief (Zürcher Bibelkommentare 10; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1983) 25, 27, 29.Google ScholarGnilka, , Kolosserbrief 54, n. 21Google Scholar, counts six additional scholars who consider the preceding word, είρηνοποιήσας was part of the gloss.

^{page 183 note 3} E.g., Lohse, E., Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon (Meyer 9/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968) 83.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 4} The myth of a pre-Christian Urmensch-Erlöser of eastern origin was exposed as a scholarly phantasm by Colpe, C., Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule (FRLANT 87; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961).Google Scholar See also Schenke, H.-M., Der Gott ‘Mensch’ in der Gnosis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962).Google Scholar In an important article in Eranos-Jahrbuch 22 (1953)Google Scholar, G. Quispel turned against the History of Religions School and tried to derive the Gnostic Urmensch figure from Jewish traditions about Adam and Sophia; see ‘Der gnostische Anthropos and die jüdische Tradition’, Gnostic Studies 1 (Uitgaven van het Nederlands historisch-archaeologisch instituut te Istanbul 34/1; Istanbul, 1974) 173–95.Google Scholar See already Dodd, C. H., The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935) 141Google Scholar, n. 1, 147, et passim.

^{page 184 note 1} E.g., Bergmeier, R., ‘Quellen vorchristlicher Gnosis?’, Tradition and Glaube. Festgabe für K. G. Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Jeremias, G.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 200–20Google Scholar; Yamauchi, E., Pre-Christian Gnosticism. A Survey of the Proposed Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans & London: Tyndale, 1973).Google Scholar As a counterbalance to these rather apologetic works, see the sober considerations of MacRae, G. W., ‘Nag Hammadi and the New Testament’, Gnosis. Festschrift für Hans Jonas (ed. Aland, B. et al. ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 144–57.Google Scholar See also the review of Yamauchi's book by Quispel, G., BO 32 (1975) 260–2.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 2} Pearson, B. A., ‘Jewish Sources in Gnostic Literature’, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Compendia Rerum Judaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section II/2; ed. Stone, M.; Philadelphia: Fortress & Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984) 443.Google Scholar The article is reprinted in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Paper Series 25 (ed. Richards, K. H.; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986)Google Scholar, where the quotation can be found on p. 422.

^{page 184 note 3} The fact that Gnosticism and Christianity had the same parentage goes a good part of the way in explaining the rivalry which developed between them and occasioned the vehement attacks by the Church Fathers upon the Gnostics.

^{page 184 note 4} Following Norden, E., Agnostos Theos (Berlin & Leipzig, 1913; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1956) 250–4Google Scholar, the vast majority of scholars arrange the hymn under two heads. Cf. already Schleiermacher, F., ‘Über Koloss. 1, 15–20.’, TSK 5 (1832) 502–3Google Scholar, who pointed out the parallelism between v. 15 and v. 18b, both beginning with ὂς έστιν … πρωτότοκος and being followed by a ὂτι-sentence (v. 16 and v. 19). If v. 18c is a later addition, the last ὂτι-sentence in the original hymn would have followed immediately upon the sentence beginning with ὂς έστιν, as in w. 15–16. Gnilka, , Kolosserbrief 53, n. 19Google Scholar, enumerates nine scholars who propose to delete v. 18c. See also now Lindemann, , Kolosserbrief 25, 27, 29.Google Scholar

Some take vv. 17–18a as a kind of middle stanza, while Pöhlmann, W., ‘Die hymnischen All-Prädikationen in Kol 1, 15–20.’, ZNW 64 (1973) 56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, even finds three strophes in vv. 15–18a. In either case it is realized that something new begins with v. 18b.

With the exception of the words ‘the Church’ in v. 18a, no words or phrases in vv. 15–18a can positively be identified as additions to the original hymn; see Gnilka, , Kolosserbrief 57–8.Google Scholar A rearrangement of the text cannot but be a subjective undertaking and is actually not necessary; see Lohse, , Briefe 81–2.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 1} E.g., Schlatter, A., Die Theologie der Apostel (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1922) 299Google Scholar; Kittel, G., ‘εἱκών’, TDNT 2 (1964 and reprints) 395–6Google Scholar; Black, M., ‘The Pauline Doctrine of the Second Adam’, SJT 7 (1954) 174–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scroggs, R., The Last Adam. A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966) 97–9.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 2} It is true that there are some texts which describe Adam as the divine image itself, but this conception has the same derivation as the idea of Christ as the image of God; see below, p. 196 with n. 1.

^{page 185 note 3} Irenaeus, , Adu haer 1. 24. 1Google Scholar, says that Satornil took his inspiration from Simon and his successor, Menander, and that he taught similarly to the latter. If we assume that Simon and Menander were active until about 60 or 70 A.D., we should not date Satornil later than around the turn of the century.

^{page 185 note 4} Hippolytus, , Ref omn haer 7. 28. 2Google Scholar, where the Greek original of Irenaeus has been pre-served.

^{page 186 note 1} NHC 2. 5, 108. 7–9.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 2} NHC 2.5, 111. 29–30; 117. 28–30.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 3} NHC II.5, 112. 25–113. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 4} Scholem, G., Von der mystischen Gestalt der Gottheit (Zürich: Rhein, 1962) 21.Google Scholar Cf. Ginzberg, L., ‘Adam Kadmon’, Jewish Encyclopedia 1 (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls 1901) 183, col. aGoogle Scholar; Scholem, G., ‘Adam Kadmon’, Encyclopaedia Judaica 2 (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971) 248.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 5} Ezek, 1. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 6} Ezek, 1. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 7} E.g., Scholem, G., On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York: Schocken, 1965; paperback 1969 and reprints) 96–100.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 1} MacRae, , ‘Nag Hammadi and the New Testament’, 153–5Google Scholar, finds ‘an example of Gnostic influence on Christology itself’ in 1 Cor 2. 6–8. where it is related that ‘the rulers of this age’ did not know the true identity of the saviour and therefore had him killed. The same motif is found in a couple of Nag Hammadi texts completely devoid of Christian influence, thus suggesting ‘strongly that in 1 Cor 2:8 Paul is picking up a theme widely used in Gnosticism and applying it to the passion and death of Jesus’. What claims our special interest in this connection is that Paul here calls Jesus the ‘Lord of the Glory’ as well as the ‘Hidden Wisdom of God’. In 1. 24 Jesus is called the ‘Power and Wisdom of God’, the former name being a synonym of the ‘Glory of God’; see below, pp. 191–3.

^{page 187 note 2} E.g., Eltester, F.-W., Eikōn im Neuen Testament (BZNW 23; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1958) 76et passimGoogle Scholar; Lohse, , Briefe 86Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., Der Brief an die Kolosser (EKK 12; Zürich-Einsiedeln-Köln: Benzinger and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1976) 57.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 3} In Leg all 1. 43Google Scholar Sophia is called the image of God. For the Logos as the divine image, see Conf ling 147Google Scholar; Det pot ins 83–4Google Scholar; Fug et invent 101Google Scholar; Somn 1. 115; 239; II. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 4} Conf ling 62–3.Google Scholar For ‘Man of God’ as a name of the Logos, see Conf ling 41.Google ScholarKäsemann, , ‘Taufliturgie’, 40–1Google Scholar, and others take these texts and Conf ling 146Google Scholar (see next note) as evidence for a merger of the Gnostic Anthropos and the Logos. This theory goes back to the History of Religions School, according to which Philo's Logos was explained as an echo of the Gnostic Anthropos; see already Reitzenstein, R., Poimandres (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904) 110.Google Scholar Although we have to dismiss the theory on chronological grounds, we cannot simply reverse the argument and see Philo's intermediary as the ancestor of the Gnostic Anthropos, as has been conjectured by Meyer, E., Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums (3 vols.; Stuttgart: Cotta, 1921–1923) 2. 377Google Scholar, and others. Philo's Logos, although often described in personal metaphors (e.g. being called God's ‘Son’), is a philosophical concept and cannot account for the development of the Gnostic Anthropos, who is a mythological figure of considerable plasticity and vitality.

^{page 187 note 5} Op mundi 134Google Scholar; Leg all 1. 31; 53–5; 88–94. II.4Google Scholar; Quaest in Gen 2. 54.Google Scholar In Conf ling 146Google Scholar the Logos is called ό κατ' είκόνα ἃνθρωπος. In Quaest in Gen 1. 4Google Scholar the ‘Man made in accordance with God's eidos’ is a copy of the Logos and the incorporeal model of the earthly man whose creation is related in Gen 2. 7.

^{page 188 note 1} Op mundi 25; 69; 139Google Scholar; Leg all 3. 96Google Scholar; Quis rer 230–1Google Scholar; Quaest in Gen 2. 62.Google Scholar For reference of Gen 1. 26–7.to the earthly man without mention of the Logos-Image, see Conf ling 175Google Scholar; Mut nom 30–1.Google Scholar In Fug et invent 68–71Google Scholar Philo takes Gen 1. 26 to refer to the earthly man and the next verse to speak of the Logos.

^{page 188 note 2} Socrates answers that he is not sure, but later Platonists affirmed the belief in the idea of Man; see e.g. Seneca, , Epist Mor 65. 7Google Scholar; -Justin, Ps., Cohort ad Graec 30.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 3} Quispel, G., Review of Frickel, J., Hellenistische Erlösung in christlicher Deutung (Nag Hammadi Studies 19; Leiden: Brill, 1984)Google Scholar, VigChr 39 (1985) 198.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 4} Quaest in Gen 2. 62Google Scholar; Op mundi 69.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 1} Lines 68–72. quoted by Eusebius, Praep ev IX.28. 2. Quispel, G., ‘Gnosis’, Die orientalischen Religionen im Römerreich (EPRO 93; ed. Vermaseren, M. J.; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 417Google Scholar, takes this text to be an allusion to Ezekiel's vision of the Glory. Certain elaborations upon the theophany vouchsafed to Moses and the elders in Exod 24. 10 – which actually is represented as a throne vision in Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan – were also apparently important antecedents of the throne vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist. Thus the Samaritan theologian Marqah, referring to the floor of sapphire stone under the feet of the ‘God of Israel’ in Exod 24. 10, speaks of the ‘throne for His Kabod’ (The Samaritan Liturgy [ vols.; ed. Cowley, A. E.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1909] 1. 25, line 15).Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 2} Fragment 5; quoted by Eusebius, Praep ev 13. 12. 9–11.Google ScholarPhilo, , Somn 1. 75Google Scholar, identifies the light in Gen 1. 3 as the Logos.

^{page 189 note 3} In Pesikta Rabbati 36.Google Scholar 1 the primordial light in Gen 1. 3 is said to be the light of the Messiah which God keeps concealed under his throne. The strange and apparently archaic Christological epithet ήμέρα may be derived from Gen 1. 5a, ‘And God called the light “day”.’ On this epithet, see Daniélou, J., The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964) 168–72.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 4} The description of Christ in Col 1. 15a is usually taken to mean that he is the locus of revelation, as is Wisdom; see e.g. Lohse, , Briefe 87Google Scholar, who dismisses as ‘obsolete’ the discussion in the early Church as to whether the image of an invisible God is visible or not. But it must be underlined that ‘image’ in the Bible and the literature related to it has a distinctly material connotation and even can be used in association with or as synonymous with ‘glory’, especially in descriptions of an epiphany vision; see the survey by Kim, S., The Origin of Paul's Gospel (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe, 4; Tübingen: Mohr, 1981) 195–222.Google Scholar A scholar who has sensed that Col 1. 15a implies that Christ is the divine Glory is Rowland, C. C., The Influence of the First Chapter of Ezekiel on Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Diss.; Cambridge, 1974) 291–2.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 1} Conf ling 62–3; 146Google Scholar; Agr 51Google Scholar; Somn 1. 215.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 2} Already Windisch, H., ‘Die göttliche Weisheit der Juden and die paulinische Christologie’, Neutestamentliche Studien für G. Heinrici (Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 6; Leipzig, 1914) 225Google Scholar, n. 1, saw the significance of this text for the interpretation of Col 1. 15b, but he took it as revealing influence from Sophianology.

^{page 190 note 3} Comm in Joh 2. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 4} Conf ling 146.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 1} Dial, 125. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 2} Daniélou, , Theology 133.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 3} Daniélou, , Theology 134.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 4} Kropp, A. M., Ausgewählte koptische Zaubertexte (3 vols.; Bruxelles: Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth, 1930–1931) 1. 48.Google Scholar Barbaraoth appears as a name of the highest God also in the Greek magical papyri; see PGM 4. 1008–10.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 5} Wertheimer, S. A., (2 vols.; 2nd ed. A. J. Wertheimer; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Cook, 1954) 2. 129.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 6} Schäfer, P., Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 2; Tübingen: Mohr, 1981) 204, §545.Google ScholarScholem, G. G., Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1960) 67Google Scholar, suggests that Matt 26. 64 and Mark 14. 62, ‘[…] you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right of the Power’, allude to a vision of the Son of Man at the right hand of the Glory. The addition of the genitive ‘of God’ in the Lukan parallel is commonly taken to be an elucidation of ‘the Power’, in which case, however, it must be said to obscure the meaning which it intends to convey; see e.g. Klostermann, E., Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; 2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1929) 220.Google Scholar J. Fitzmyer tries to overcome the difficulty by arguing that the genitive eliminates the personification, and that ‘the Power’ is ‘something with which the Son of Man will be invested’ (The Gospel according to Luke [2 vols.; The Anchor Bible 28 and 28A; New York: Doubleday, 1981–1985] 2.1467).Google Scholar But in Acts 8. 10, the only other place in Luke-Acts where we find this phrase, there is a real personification of ‘the (Great) Power’ (see below, p. 193, n. 2). That ‘the Power’ in rabbinism is no mere circumlocution for the proper Name of God has been shown by Goldberg, A. M., ‘Sitzend zur Rechten der Kraft’, BZ 8 (1964) 284–93Google Scholar (note especially the pertinent remarks on p. 291), and it is thus possible that the genitive in Luke 22. 69 is possessive and meant to indicate that ‘the Power’ is a divine hypostasis. In the Ascension of Isaiah the visionary says that he ’saw him [i.e. Christ] sit down at the right hand of that Great Glory’ (11. 32).

^{page 192 note 1} Zandee, J., ‘“The Teachings of Silvanus” (NHC VII, 4) and Jewish Christianity’, Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (EPRO 91; ed. van den Broek, R. and Vermaseren, M. J.; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 498–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 192 note 2} NHC VII.4, 112.8–10Google Scholar.

^{page 192 note 3} Fossum, J., ‘Jewish-Christian Christology and Jewish Mysticism’, VigChr 37 (1983) 260–87.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 4} NHC III.3, 76. 19–47.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 5} Some strange traditions about the patriarch Jacob may be explained in this light. Rowland, C. C., Influence 141–50Google Scholar, and ‘John 1.51, Jewish Apocalyptic and Targumic Tradition’, NTS 30 (1984) 498–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar, argues that the Rabbinic tradition that the of Jacob was engraved upon the throne of glory implies that Jacob's features are identical with the form of God upon the heavenly throne. This may be right. In Jewish mysticism the name of Akatriel Yah is said to have been engraved upon the throne; see Scholem, , Jewish Gnosticism 53–4. Akatriel Yah, however, was a name of the Glory; seeGoogle ScholarFossum, J. E., The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 36; Tübingen: Mohr, 1985) 276.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 1} 3.23; 8.4.

^{page 193 note 2} Acts 8. 10. The genitive τοû θεοû is frequently taken as genitivus appositivus, in which case, however, it must be regarded as ‘misleading’ (Haenchen, E., Die Apostelgeschichte [Meyer 3; 7th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977] 293).CrossRefGoogle Scholar But the genitive may be possessive here as well as in Luke 22. 69 (see above, p. 191, n. 6). The only phrase in Luke-Acts which corresponds to the description of Simon as ή δύναμις τοû θεοû ή καλουμένη μεγάλη is found in Acts 3. 2, τἔν θύραν τοû ἱεροû τἔν λεγομένην ώραίαν. Here the genitive ‘of the temple’ has been added to the name ‘the beautiful gate’, so that people who did not know so much about the temple should understand that the gate referred to was a certain gate of the temple. On this analogy, it would seem right to take the genitive in Acts 8. 10 to be possessive and indicate that ‘the Power’ is not God himself, but a divine hypostasis.

^{page 193 note 3} ‘They [i.e. the Elchasaites] hold illusory ideas, calling him [i.e. Elxai or Elchasai] ‘Hidden Power’ (δύναμιν άποκεκαλυμμένην), since λ means ‘power’ and ξαί ‘hidden’ (Epiphanius, Pan XXX.2.2).

^{page 193 note 4} Fossum, , ‘Christology’.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 5} The phrase in Peshitta reads ‘Firstborn of all creatures’, thus offering an even closer parallel to the expression in the Prayer of Joseph.

^{page 193 note 6} Gnilka, , Kolosserbrief 53, n. 13Google Scholar, counts twelve scholars who want to delete v. 16c, ‘whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities’.

^{page 194 note 1} NHC IV.2, 61. 8–11 and III.2, 49.10–12.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 2} The New Testament on uses the preposition έν with the dative case to express instrument. The passive does not have to mean that God is the real creator; see the passive constructions in Rom 11. 36 and Heb 2. 10, where God is the direct creator.

^{page 194 note 3} §§ 12–13.

^{page 194 note 4} For the equivalence of /είκων and μορφή, see the survey by Kim, , Origin 195–8.Google Scholar In Greek Old Testament texts μορφή is used interchangeably with δόξα, the translation of , ‘glory’. In Job 4. 16 the , ‘form’ or ‘appearance’, of the divine spirit which revealed itself to Eliphaz is rendered by μορφή in the LXX. In Num 12. 8, however, the LXX translates God's , which is seen by Moses, by δόξα. In Isa 52. 14 the , ‘form’ or ‘shape’, of the Servant is rendered by μορφή by Aquila and by δόξα by the LXX. See also Fossum, ‘Christology’, 263–4. 265, 267–9. Name 283–4.

^{page 194 note 5} Jonas, H., The Gnostic Religion (2nd ed.; Boston: Beacon, 1963) 156.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 1} Tosefta Sanh 8. 7Google Scholar; b Sanh 38a.

^{page 195 note 2} Ch. 39 (Schechter, S., [Vienna, 1887; reprinted New York: Philipp Feldheim, 1945] 111).Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 3} 10. 1–2.

^{page 195 note 4} Dupont-Sommer, A., ‘Adam. “Père du Monde” dans la Sagesse de Solomon (10, 1.2)’, RHR 119 (1939) 182–91.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 1} For the assimilation of Adam to the heavenly Man, see Fossum, , ‘Christology’, 276–9Google Scholar; Name 271–8.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 2} For the Magharians, see now the full discussion in my article, ‘The Magharians: A Pre-Christian Jewish Sect and Its Significance for the Study of Gnosticism and Christianity’, Henoch 9 (1987) 303–44.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 3} Al-Qirqisani, , Kitāb al-Anwār wa'l Marāqib, Book I, ch. 7 (ed. Nemoy, L.; New York, 1939, 42)Google Scholar; see Nemoy, L. ‘Al-Qirqisani's Account of Jewish Sects and Christianity’, HUCA 7 (1930) 364.Google ScholarPhilo, Both, Somn 1. 236Google Scholar, and Martyr, Justin, Dial ch. 114Google Scholar, attack Jews who aver that God has a body. Philo and Justin assert that all the anthropomorphisms in Scripture are to be referred to the Angel of the Lord (whom, of course, they identify differently). The angel in the Magharian teaching was also the Angel of the Lord; see Fossum, ‘Magharians’, 328–33.

^{page 196 note 4} Ash-Shahrastani, , Kitāb al-Milal wan-Nihal, Book I (ed. Badrān, M.; Cairo, 1910, 510–11)Google Scholar; see Haarbrücker, T., Abu-'l-Fath Muhammad asch-Schahrastâni's Religionspartheien und Philosophenschulen (2 vols.; Halle, 1850) 1. 256.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 1} Cohen, M. S., The Shi‘ur Qomah. Liturgy and Theurgy in Pre-Kabbalistic Jewish Mysticism (Lanham-New York-London: The University Press of America, 1983) 111.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 2} Gnilka, , Kolosserbrief 53, n. 18Google Scholar, counts fifteen scholars who delete ‘the Church’. He could have added Wagenführer, M.-A., Die Bedeutung Christi für Welt und Kirche. Studien zum Kolosser- und Epheserbrief (Leipzig, 1941) 66–7Google Scholar, Houlden, J. L., Paul's Letters from Prison (Pelican New Testament Commentaries; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970) 171Google Scholar, Martin, , Colossians, 56, 59, 64Google Scholar, and Conzelmann, , ‘Brief’, 183.Google ScholarGnilka, , Kolosserbrief 58Google Scholar, also wants to delete the words. See also now Lindemann, , Kolosserbrief 25, 27, 29.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 3} See Lohse, , Briefe 93–4Google Scholar; Schweizer, , Brief 53, 60, 62, 125, n. 415.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 4} But see Stroumsa, G. G., ‘Form(s) of God: Some Notes on Metatron and Christ’, HTR 76 (1983) 284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 197 note 5} Cohen, M. S., The Shi‘ur Qomah: Texts and Recensions (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 9; Tübingen: Mohr, 1985) 87Google Scholar, lines 94–96.and 98–102. A parasang is a Persian mile, ca. 3/4 of an English mile.

^{page 198 note 1} Origen, Hom in Gen 1. 13Google Scholar, says that some Jews in substantiation of their doctrine that God has a body cite Isa 66. 1. This would seem to be a piece of evidence for the high age of the Shi‘ur Qomah traditions. See Cohen, , The Shi‘ur Qomah. Liturgy and Theurgy 40, n. 65.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 2} Scholem, G., Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (3rd ed.; New York: Schocken, 1954 and reprints) 66.Google Scholar For the text from the Lesser Hekhalot, see now Schäfer, Synopse 148, § 352.Google Scholar

Chernus, I., ‘Visions of God in Merkabah Mysticism’, JSJ 13 (1982) 143–6Google Scholar, has challenged Scholem's view that the mystics did not claim to see God himself. But Chernus is mistaken when saying that the text from the Lesser Hekhalot, ‘which Scholem cites as a crucial piece of evidence’, reads and not . Chernus has mixed up n. 92 and n. 93 on p. 365 of Scholem's book, where the former note contains the text from the Lesser Hekhalot, while the latter gives the text from a much later Shi‘ur Qomah fragment where the enigmatic term is used in place of . On the former term, see now Cohen, , The Shi‘ur Qomah. Liturgy and Theurgy 221, n. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 3} See above, p. 189, n. 4 and p. 194, n. 4. In the Shi‘ur Qomah the term , ‘likeness’, a synonym of , ‘image’, can be used for the divine body; see Cohen, , The Shi‘ur Qomah: Texts and Recensions 113.Google Scholar In the Peshitta translation of Phil 2. 6, the divine μορφή in which Christ existed before the incarnation is rendered by ‘likeness’. Cf. also the quotation from Aboth de R. Nathan above, p. 195.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 4} All analogy to Wisdom of course breaks down on this point. It is true that there is a passage in the Philonic corpus which says that the Logos is the ‘head’ of the world, and that under the intermediary, ‘as if it were his feet or other limbs, the whole world is placed […]’ (Quaest in Exod 2.117Google Scholar). However, the term ‘body’ is not used. Moreover, there is a strong possibility that the passage is part of a Christian interpolation.

^{page 198 note 5} Quispel, G., ‘Hermetism and the New Testament, especially Paul’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2. 22 (ed. Haase, W.; Berlin & New YorkGoogle Scholar [appearing – it is It [i.e. Elchasai's book] had been revealed by an angel whose height was 24 schoenoi, which make 96 miles, and whose breadth was four schoenoi, and from shoulder to shoulder six schoenoi, and the tracks of his feet in length hoped – in the foreseeable future]); ‘Ezekiel 1:26 in Jewish Mysticism and Gnosis’, VigChr 34 (1980) 1–13.Google Scholar Quispel has amended his former appeal to the figure of Adam (see above, p. 183, n. 4). We would be right in seeing an influence from the figure of the heavenly Man upon the earthly protoplast in the notion of the cosmic body of Adam, for which see Barc, B., ‘La taille cosmique d'Adam dans la littérature juive rabbinique des trois premiers siècles après J.-C.’, RSR 49 (1975) 173–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 199 note 1} Gruenwald, I., Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 14; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 142.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 2} Pan. 30. 17.Google Scholar 6. Cf. Ps.-Clem Hom 17.16Google Scholar, which speaks of the ‘incorporeal’ (ἃσαρκος) divine μορφή or δύναμις which paradoxically can be seen by the just. In support of his contention of the high age of the Shi‘ur Qomah theology, Scholem, , Jewish Mysticism 41Google Scholar, cites Ps.-Clem Hom 17. 7Google Scholar, where it is related that God has a ‘shining’ μορφή or σμα. See especially Fossum, , ‘Christology’, 264–5.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 1} Ref omn hoer 9. 13. 2–3.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 2} Smith, M., ‘Observations on Hekhalot Rabbati’, Biblical and Other Studies (Brandeis University Studies and Texts 1; ed. Altmann, A.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1963) 151Google Scholar; Fossum, , ‘Christology’, 260–3.Google ScholarBaumgarten, J., ‘The Book of Elkesai and Merkabah Mysticism’, JSJ 17 (1986) 212–23Google Scholar, notes some additional affinities between Elchasai's teaching and early Jewish mysticism.

^{page 200 note 3} Vaillant, A., Le livre des secrets d'Hénoch (Textes publiés par l'Institut d'Études Slaves 4; 2nd ed.; Paris, 1952) 38.Google Scholar The idea of the enormous dimensions of God in the Shi‘ur Qomah mysticism implies that God actually is immeasurable; see Dan, J., ‘The Concept of Knowledge in the Shi‘ur Qomah’, Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History presented to A. Altmann (ed. Stein, S. and Loewe, R.; The University of Alabama, 1979) 67–73.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 4} Scholem, G., Kabbalah (Library of Jewish Knowledge; Jerusalem: Keter, 1974) 17.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 5} The question of the terminus ad quem of the short version of 2 Enoch appears to me to be settled by the admonition in ch. 13 to pray in ‘the temple of the Lord’ three times a day. For this Jewish custom, see Dan 6. 11 and Acts 3. 1.

Vaillant and others opt for a Christian authorship in a later period, arguing that the Melchizedek story in the last chapter shows influence from the legend of the virgin birth of Jesus and the Melchizedek speculation in Hebrews. But, apart from the possibility that the last chapter may not have formed an integral part of the work, the evidence may be assessed differently. Would a Christian claim virgin birth for a person belonging to the old dispensation? Moreover, the chapter knows the name of Melchizedek's mother as well as that of her husband and his parentage, and this does not square well with Heb 7. 3. Finally, it must be noted that there is no prophecy of Christ in the chapter, and that God's promise that Melchizedek is to become the high priest of the new age runs counter to the teaching of Hebrews, where this office belongs to Christ (see 5. 6; 7. 17, 21).