^{page 418 note 1} The view is closely connected with the name of Bultmann, Rudolf, Das Evangelium des Johannes (16th ed.Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), pp. 8–9Google Scholar, also p. 8 n. 9; R.C.C., 3rd ed. III, 847Google Scholar; Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner's, 1955), 11, 6, 12–13Google Scholar, 66.

^{page 418 note 2} Attempts to find a gnostic anthropos figure in Philo have failed. Cf. Wedderburn, A. J. M., ‘Philo's “heavenly man”’, Nov.T. xv (1973), 301–26.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 3} Wisse, Frederik, ‘The Redeemer figure in the Paraphrase of Shem’, Nov. T. XII (1970), 130–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 418 note 4} MacRae, George W., ‘The Coptic Gnostic Apocalypse of Adam’, Hey. J. VI (1965), 27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, J. M., ‘The Coptic Gnostic Library Today’, N.T.S. XII (1968), 377.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 5} Gibbons, J. A., ‘A Commentary on the Second Logos of the Great Seth’, Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale, 1972.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 6} One can agree with Robinson, J. M., ‘World in Modern Theology and in New Testament Theology’, in Soli Deo Gloria (ed. Richards, J. McD.; Richmond: John Knox, 1968), p. 104Google Scholar, that the gnostic redeemer myth is not in origin a perversion of christology. It does not follow, however, that christology is thereby an appropriation of the gnostic myth.

^{page 418 note 7} Schmithals, W., The Office of Apostle in the Early Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969), p. 116Google Scholar; Grillmeier, A., Christ in Christian Tradition (London: Mowbray, 1965), p. 98Google Scholar. In addition to the groups mentioned in the text, Grillmeier refers to the Nicolaitans, the Archontics, and the Antitactae.

^{page 418 note 8} Irenaeus, , Against Heresies, I. 25. 1–6.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 9} Against Celsus, 7. 8–9.Google Scholar

^{page 419 note 1} Schmithals, W., Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), pp. 138–41Google Scholar, seems to have the better of the argument against Wilckens, U., Weisheit and Torheit (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1959).Google Scholar

^{page 419 note 2} Colpe, Carsten, Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule. Darstellung and Kritik ihres Bildes vom gnostischen Erlösermythus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961Google Scholar); ‘New Testament and Gnostic Christology’, in Religions in Antiquity (ed. Neusner, J.; Leiden: Brill, 1968), pp. 227–42Google Scholar; Schenke, H. M., Der Gott ‘Mensch’ in der Gnosis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962Google Scholar). Since J. M. Robinson's negative review of Colpe's book ( J.B.L. LXXXI [1962], 287–9Google Scholar), scholarly opinion has seemed to confirm Colpe's and Schenke's conclusions. E. Käsemann's shift is indicative (‘The Problem of a New Testament Theology’, N.T.S. XIX [1973], 238Google Scholar). Pannenberg, W., Jesus – God and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), p. 151Google Scholar, sums up the situation: ‘After Carsten Colpe's book…it must be considered very questionable whether in the pre-Christian period there had been a complete redeemer myth that was then merely transferred to Jesus.’

^{page 419 note 3} Meeks, Wayne, ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, J.B.L. XCI (1972), 44, 68Google Scholar; Brown, Schuyler, a review of Der Vater, der mich gesandt hatGoogle Scholar by Miranda, Juan Peter, C.B.Q. XXXVI (1974), 421–2Google Scholar. This objection has usually been answered by saying that John was demythologizing the gnostic myth.

^{page 419 note 4} Meeks, Wayne, The Prophet-King (Leiden: Brill, 1967), p. 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 419 note 5} Metamorphoses, 8. 626–721.Google Scholar

^{page 420 note 1} Histories, 4. 83–4Google Scholar. For further examples cf. Nock, A. D., Conversion (Oxford University Press, 1933), pp. 85–91.Google Scholar

^{page 420 note 2} Hebrew Myth and Christian Gospel (London: SCM, 1973), p. 158.Google Scholar

^{page 420 note 3} I regard the issue as a purely historical question. There are no theological-confessional advantages to either position. In this regard see the relevant comments of Koester, H., ‘The Theological Aspects of Primitive Christian Heresy’, in The Future of Our Religious Past (ed. Robinson, J. M.; London: SCM, 1971), p. 69.Google Scholar

^{page 421 note 1} The insights of Pannenberg, W., The Idea of God and Human Freedom (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), pp. 1–79Google Scholar, must be taken seriously. In the biblical tradition we are dealing not so much with the demythologizing of myth as with the interpretation of historical events and persons by means of myth.

^{page 421 note 2} The Qumran Hodayot seem to speak of wisdom as agent of creation (Ps. i, col. I, lines 7, 14, 19) and redeemer (Ps. xiv., col. 9, line 23). See Holm-Nielsen, Svend, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960), pp. 17–18, 146.Google Scholar

^{page 421 note 3} Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribner's, 1965), p. 74Google Scholar, thinks that this is the myth that underlies each successive stage of the development of the wisdom concept in Judaism.

^{page 421 note 4} Wilckens, U., ‘σοφıα’, TDNT VII, 508Google Scholar. On the problem in general, see Murphy, R. E., ‘Assumptions and problems in Old Testament Wisdom Research’, C.B.Q. XXIX (1967), 110–11.Google Scholar

^{page 421 note 5} Knox, W. L., ‘The Divine Wisdom’, J.T.S. XXXVIII (1937), 230–7Google Scholar; Reese, J. M., Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), pp. 45–9Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., ‘The Mother of Wisdom’, in The Future of Our Religious Past, pp. 230–43.Google Scholar

^{page 421 note 6} Mack, B. L., ‘Wisdom Myth and Mytho-logy’, Int. XXIV (1970), 46–60Google Scholar, especially pp. 51–3; Logos and Sophia: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie im hellenistischen Judentum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973).Google Scholar

^{page 421 note 7} Five Stages of Greek Religion (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor, 1951Google Scholar). Hengel, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism (2 vols., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 1, 212Google Scholar, speaks of the widespread tendency in Hellenistic times towards the irrational and the mysterious which could only be known by means of supernatural revelations.

^{page 422 note 1} Schmithals, W., The Office of Apostle in the Early Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969), p. 126.Google Scholar

^{page 422 note 2} Cf. Kolenkow, Anitra, ‘The Coming and Ascent of a Heavenly Revealer – Tobit and Mark’, Working Paper for Mark Seminar, S.B.L. 1973.Google Scholar

^{page 422 note 3} For a discussion of the mal'ach cf. Knight, G. A. F., A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1953Google Scholar) and From Moses to Paul (London: Lutterworth, 1949).Google Scholar

^{page 422 note 4} Rad, Gerhard von, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper, 1962), 1, 287.Google Scholar

^{page 422 note 5} We have here a pre-Israelite tradition which has been taken over and adapted by Israel, making the numen the appearance of the mal'ach ( Rad, von, OT Theology, 1, 286Google Scholar). Verses 1 ab, 2–4a, 5, 7–8 are J material ( Hyatt, J. P., Commentary on Exodus [London: Oliphants, 1971], pp. 48, 71Google Scholar). Both in J and in the present JE synthesis, the angel is indistinguishable from Yahweh (v. 2 = the angel; vv. 4, 7 = the Lord). Since the two are interchangeable, it seems legitimate to take the ‘coming down’ of the mal'ach, as well, as Yahweh.

^{page 422 note 6} See above, n. 5.

^{page 422 note 7} Knight, Trinity, p. 28Google Scholar, thinks it is the mal'ach. Dix, G., ‘The Seven Archangels and the Seven Spirits’, J.T.S. XXVIII (1927), 233–85Google Scholar, thinks the angel of the presence is one of the archangels but one superior to the others.

^{page 423 note 1} On the archangels generally see Kuhn, H. B., ‘The Angelology of the Non-canonical Jewish Apocalypses’, J.B.L. LXVII (1948), 211–19.Google Scholar

^{page 423 note 2} So Kilpatrick, G. D., ‘The Last Supper’, Exp.T. LXIV (1952), 5Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., ‘The Last Supper’, Exp.T. LXIV (1952), 91–2Google Scholar; Burchard, Christolph, Untersuchungen zu joseph and Aseneth (Tübingen: Mohr, 1965), pp. 143, 146Google Scholar, 151. The Greek text with a French translation can be found in Philonenko, M., joseph et Aseneth (Leiden: Brill, 1968).Google Scholar

^{page 424 note 1} Collins, J. J., ‘Structure and Meaning in the Testament of Job’, Society of Biblical Literature 1974 Seminar Papers, I, 49–50Google Scholar; H. C. Kee, ‘Satan, Magic, and Salvation in the Testament of Job’, Ibid. II, 55.

^{page 424 note 2} The angel came (έλθών, iii. 5b [5]) and departed (άπελθόντες, v.2). That this language is intended to convey descent-ascent is determined by the document's general thought world (heaven-earth). That this is so is supported by the interchangeable use of ‘came’ (viii. 2 [3]) and ‘came down’ (κατηλθεν- xvi. I [3]) for another heavenly being, Satan. There is a question whether the angel is simply an anonymous archangel (so Kee) or whether the apparent identification of the angel with the Lord in li. 1–2 points to his being the mal'ach. Either way, the evidence is relevant for our purposes.

^{page 424 note 3} Collins, ‘Structure’, p. 41.

^{page 424 note 4} Bamberger, , IDB I, 45Google Scholar; also Charles, R. H., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), II, 127–9.Google Scholar

^{page 424 note 5} The Talmud of Jerusalem, Volume One: Berakoth, trans. Schwab, M. (London, 1886; New York: Hermon Press, reprinted 1969), p. 153.Google Scholar

^{page 425 note 1} Goldin, Judah, ‘Not by means of an Angel and not by means of a Messenger’, in Religions in Antiquity, pp. 412–24Google Scholar. At Qumran, 11QMelch presents Melchizedek as an angelic redemption figure. III Macc. vi. 18–31 shows angelic deliverance did not necessarily involve worship of angels.

^{page 425 note 2} Bamberger, , 1DB 1, 21.Google Scholar

^{page 425 note 3} The Testament of Abraham, trans. Stone, M. E. (S.B.L. 1972), p. 71.Google Scholar

^{page 425 note 4} Smith, M., ‘The Account of Simon Magus in Acts 8’, in Harry Austin Wolfson Jubilee Volume, English Section (2 vols.; Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1965), 11, 748Google Scholar, thinks first century; Smith, J. Z., ‘The Prayer of Joseph’, in Religions in Antiquity, p. 291Google Scholar, thinks first or second century.

^{page 425 note 5} With J. Z. Smith, I take the first person singular of κατέβην έπί τήν γην καί κατεσκήνωσα έν άνθρώποıς καίοτı έκλήθην όνόματı to refer to the angel Israel and not to Uriel. This fits with line 29, in Brooke, A. E., The Commentary of Origen on S. John's Gospel (2 vols.; Cambridge University Press, 1896), I, 97.Google Scholar

^{page 426 note 1} The Melchizedek Fragment in Sokolov's manuscript of the early first century II Enoch (cf. Morfill, W. R. and Charles, R. H., The Book of the Secrets of Enoch [Oxford: Clarendon, 1896], pp. 85–93Google Scholar) has usually been regarded as Christian in origin (so Charles, , p. 85Google Scholar; Rubinstein, A., ‘Observations on the Slavonic Book of Enoch’, J.J.S. XIII [1962], 1–22Google Scholar); though it has also had defenders of its early, Jewish character (e.g. Greenfield, Jonas C., ‘Prolegomena’ to 3 Enoch by Odeberg, H. [New York: KTAV, 1973], pp. xx and xlvGoogle Scholar, n. 21). From my point of view, Rev. xii argues for a non-Christian origin for the pattern of an infant's being caught up to heaven by God to escape the chaos of the evil powers and at least a first-century date for it, as does the conjunction of names like high priest – word of God – power in Hellenistic Judaism of Philo's time. Of course, that the pattern and its ingredients existed early does not prove the fragment did or that Melchizedek was linked to them this early. In the fragment, the child born by divine conception and after his mother had died is delivered from the flood by the chief captain, Michael. He comes down, takes the child, and places him in Paradise. Again an archangel descends and ascends in connection with his redeeming activity.

^{page 426 note 2} The mal'ach remains separate in such writings as Sus. Iv, lix; Bel xxxiv.

^{page 426 note 3} Dix, G., ‘The Seven Archangels and the Seven Spirits’, p. 243.Google Scholar

^{page 426 note 4} E.g. Philo, , On Dreams, 1. 157Google Scholar, where the mal'ach who appeared to Jacob in Gen. xxviii. 13 is understood as the archangel. This tendency is continued in later Christian circles, e.g. Aphrahat in his tract on fasting who refers to Exod. xxiii. 20–3 and Jos. v. 14, saying the angel is Michael (cf. Bakker, A., ‘Christ an angel? A study of Early Christian Docetism’, Z.N.W. XXXII [1933], 258Google Scholar).

^{page 426 note 5} Dix, G., ‘The Heavenly Wisdom and the Divine Logos in Jewish Apocalyptic’, J.T.S. XXVI (1925), 5Google Scholar; Knight, G. A. F., From Moses to Paul, p. 100.Google Scholar

^{page 426 note 6} Cf. Sirach xxiv. 3.

^{page 427 note 1} See the instructive discussion of Wolfson, H. A., Philo (2nd ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948), I, 253–66.Google Scholar

^{page 427 note 2} For identification of son and angel, cf. also Prayer of Joseph; LXX of Isa, . ix. 5–6Google Scholar; and Dan. iii. 25.

^{page 427 note 3} LCL.

^{page 427 note 4} E.g. On Dreams 1. 230Google Scholar, where the logos is theos.

^{page 427 note 5} Wisdom is many-named ( Allegorical Interpretation i. 14Google Scholar) just as logos is.

^{page 427 note 6} Williamson, Ronald, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 1970), pp. 415–19, 426Google Scholar (cf. On the Creation 17 and 146Google Scholar); Drummond, James, Philo Judaeus (2 vols.; London: Williams & Norgate, 1888), II, 226–7, 235.Google Scholar

^{page 427 note 7} Williamson, , Philo, p. 418.Google Scholar

^{page 427 note 8} Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Chrislology, p. 81.Google Scholar

^{page 428 note 1} Wisd. Sol. ix. 4, X. 6, xviii. 15–16, xi. 17 and ix. 1–2. This is not to deny that already in Wisd. Sol. an allegorizing of the myth is found.

^{page 428 note 2} Shroyer, M. J., ‘Alexandrian Jewish Literalists’, J.B.L. Lv (1936), 261–84Google Scholar, points out that whereas most treatments of Philo aim at reconstructing a picture of liberal Judaism, Philo can also be used as a source of knowledge of conservative Judaism in Alexandria. For an example of Philo's interpretation which reduces personal beings to abstractions, see On the Cherubim 1. 138–40Google Scholar; On Dreams 1. 40–1.Google Scholar

^{page 428 note 3} Aristobulus (about 170 B.C.E.), like Philo, believed that if men are to understand the real meaning of the Pentateuch they should not be victims of the mythological conceptions as were conservative Jews. Rather they should employ allegorical interpretation of the myth (Eusebius, P.E. 8.10.2). In Aristobulus, logos is already identified with wisdom and regarded as a saviour figure that imparts knowledge of truth (P.E. 13. 12. 13–16). Philo stood almost at the end of a long tradition of allegorization ( Hanson, R. P. C., Allegory and Event [Richmond: John Knox, 1959], pp. 41–5Google Scholar), one which had its Greco-Roman equivalent ( Sowers, S., The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews [Zürich: EVZ Verlag, 1965], pp. 13–18).Google Scholar

^{page 428 note 4} Baer, Richard A. Jr, Philo's Use of the Categories Male and Female (Leiden: Brill, 1970), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

^{page 428 note 5} Kleinknecht, , ‘λόγος’, TDNT IV, 89.Google Scholar

^{page 428 note 6} ‘Eine jüdische Gebetssammlung im siebenten Buch der apostolischen Konstitutionen’, Nach-richten von der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (1915), pp. 435–85.Google Scholar

^{page 429 note 1} Goodenough, , By Light, Light (Amsterdam: Philo Press, reprint 1969), pp. 306–57.Google Scholar

^{page 429 note 2} Ibid. pp. 334–5.

^{page 429 note 3} Nock, A. D., Conversion, 92.Google Scholar

^{page 429 note 4} Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 7. 135.Google Scholar

^{page 429 note 5} LCL. For Isis as many-named, cf. also Pap. Oxy. 11. 1380.Google Scholar

^{page 431 note 1} Saint Justin Martyr, trans. and ed. Falls, T. B. (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1948), p. 244.Google Scholar

^{page 431 note 2} In contrast to the Prayer of Joseph where the angel Israel is the archangel, in Justin the angel Israel is the mal'ach.

^{page 431 note 3} Cf. I Apol. 6 where Christ seems to be one of the angels (also the note in Saint Justin Martyr, p. 39 n. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 432 note 1} Danielou, J., The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964), p. 121Google Scholar; Moxnes, Halver, ‘God and His Angel in the Shepherd of Hermas’, Studia Theologica XXVIII (1974), 50.Google Scholar

^{page 432 note 2} Moxnes, , p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 432 note 3} So Werner, M., The Formation of Christian Dogma (New York: Harper, 1957), p. 134.Google Scholar

^{page 432 note 4} So Bakker, , ‘Christ an Angel? A Study of Early Christian Docetism’, pp. 257–8.Google Scholar

^{page 432 note 5} This identification is reinforced by the fact that both the Holy Spirit and the Son are pre-existent (Parable 5.6. 5; 9. 12. 2) and associated with creation (Parable 5.6. 5; 9. 12. 2). In this connection, cf. Vision 1.3.4, where it is Word and Wisdom that are involved in creation. Hermas apparently knew the synthesis Word-Wisdom-Son-Holy Spirit-Angel though he used only Angel-Son-Holy Spirit for the redeemer in his saving activity.

^{page 432 note 6} Hennecke, E., New Testament Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), II, 707.Google Scholar

^{page 433 note 1} Ibid. II, 740.

^{page 433 note 2} James, M. R., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), p. 485Google Scholar, locates it in Asia Minor about 160 C.E.

^{page 433 note 3} Grillmeier, A., Christ in Christian Tradition, p. 59.Google Scholar

^{page 433 note 4} E.g. Against Hermogenes 18Google Scholar, in the context of his argument against Hermogenes' claim that matter was eternal. Against Praxeas 7, 19Google Scholar, in the context of his pro-trinitarian argument. In both documents it is primarily with reference to creation, a use dictated by the context.

^{page 433 note 5} E.g. Against Marcion 9Google Scholar; Against Praxeas 16Google Scholar; On the Flesh of Christ 6.Google Scholar

^{page 434 note 1} E.g. On the Flesh of Christ 6Google Scholar; cf. also Against Marcion 9.Google Scholar

^{page 434 note 2} On the Flesh of Christ 14Google Scholar. For the six possible relationships between Christ and angelology in early Christianity, of which this is one, cf. Barbel, Joseph, Christos Angelos (Bonn: Hanstein, 1941, reprinted 1964), p. 286.Google Scholar

^{page 434 note 3} Jewish angelology was certainly docetic: e.g. Tobit xii. 19; Philo, , Abraham 22. 18Google Scholar; II Enoch lvi. 2; Josephus, , Ant. 1. 11. 2Google Scholar §197; Targum on Genesis 19.3; Pesikta, 57aGoogle Scholar; Justin, , Dial. 57.Google ScholarDavies, J. G., ‘The Origins of Docetism’, Studia Patristica VI (1962), 13–35Google Scholar, rightly argues that this was one source of early Christian docetism.

^{page 434 note 4} The pattern could be broken up even further, with Logos being used for the Son and Wisdom for the Holy Spirit, as for example in Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 1. 7Google Scholar; Irenaeus, , Demonstration 9–10.Google Scholar

^{page 434 note 5} Charlesworth, J. H., John and Qumran (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972), p. 109Google Scholar, regards the Odes as contemporaneous with the Fourth Gospel, i.e. about 100 C.E. For our purposes, such an early date is not necessary.

^{page 434 note 6} Harris, Rendel and Mingana, A., The Odes and Psalms of Solomon (Manchester University Press, 1920), II, 402.Google Scholar

^{page 434 note 7} Charlesworth, J. H., The Odes of Solomon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), pp. 127–8Google Scholar, argues that the Son of Man is a christological title in the Odes. This has been challenged by Brock, S. P. in his review in J.B.L, XCIII (1974), 623–5.Google Scholar

^{page 435 note 1} This contention finds support on other grounds in the arguments of Charlesworth, J. H., ‘The Odes of Solomon – Not Gnostic’, C.B.Q. XXXI (1969), 357–69.Google Scholar

^{page 435 note 2} Cf. the Romulus tradition in Plutarch's Lives where the pattern is: (a) came from the gods; (b) life of virtue; (c) taken up to heaven; (d) given a new name or status with benefits resulting for the Romans, his people.

^{page 436 note 1} For what follows, cf. Kramer, W., Christ, Lord, Son of God (Naperville: Allenson, 1966), pp. 112–22, 127–8, 183–5.Google Scholar

^{page 436 note 2} Schweizer, , ‘Zur Herkunft der Präexistenzvorstellung bei Paulus’, in Neotestamentica (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1963), pp. 105–9Google Scholar; ‘Aufnahme and Korrektur Jüdischer Sophiatheologie im Neuen Testament’, Ibid. pp. 110–21; TDNT VIII, 375–6.Google ScholarRoon, A. Van, ‘The Relationship between Christ and the Wisdom of God according to Paul’, Nov. T. XVI (1974), 207–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, argues unsuccessfully that wisdom christology is not found in Paul.

^{page 436 note 3} Longenecker, R. N., The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (Naperville: Allenson, 1970), p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 437 note 1} ‘Zur Herkunft der Präexistenzvorstellung bei Paulus’, p. 109.

^{page 437 note 2} Sowers, S. G., The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews, p. 66Google Scholar.

^{page 437 note 3} Williamson, R., Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 411Google Scholar, says that Hebrews i. 2 ff. describes Jesus in terms at least similar to those of the Alexandrian Wisdom-Logos theology. Since Williamson's thesis is that Hebrews and Philo have no direct connection, this is significant.

^{page 438 note 1} Hamerton-Kelly, R. G., Pre-existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man (Cambridge University Press, 1973), p. 244CrossRefGoogle Scholar, says that this emphasis can be explained only by assuming that the author found it necessary to combat an angel christology. Worship of angels was a problem for early Christianity (e.g. Col. ii. 18; Kerygma Petrou; Asc. Isa. 7. 21, etc.).

^{page 439 note 1} Meeks, Wayne, ‘The Man From Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, p. 46Google Scholar, says: ‘It is now commonly agreed that the Jewish Wisdom myth in some form lies behind…the Johannine christology…’

^{page 439 note 2} Haenchen, E., ‘Probleme des johanneischen Prologs’, Z.T.K. LX (1963), 305–34.Google Scholar The parallels with Torah (cf. Kittel, , ‘λόγος’, TDNT, IV, 135–6Google Scholar) are derivative. Because the Wisdom tradition identified Wisdom and Law, eventually the characteristics of Wisdom were transferred to Torah. Cf. Copeland, E. L., Studia Theologica XXVII (1973), 53, 60.Google Scholar T. E. Pollard's attempt to link the prologue with ‘knowledge’ in IQS xi. 11 is farfetched ( Johannine Christology and the Early Church [Cambridge University Press, 1970], pp. 10–11).Google Scholar

^{page 439 note 3} Schweizer, , ‘Zur Herkunft der Präexistenzvorstellung bei Paulus’, p. 108Google Scholar; Kramer, , Christ, Lord, Son of God, pp. 113, 116.Google Scholar

^{page 439 note 4} Higgins, A. J. B., Jesus and the Son of Man (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964), pp. 153–7.Google Scholar

^{page 439 note 5} Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge University Press, 1958), p. 243.Google Scholar

^{page 439 note 6} This also seems to be the position of Colpe, Carsten, ‘New Testament and Gnostic Christology’, in Religions in Antiquity, pp. 235–6.Google ScholarDodd, , Interpretation, pp. 248–9Google Scholar, takes the same position but maintains that the Heavenly Man of Judaism was a metaphysical abstraction while the Fourth Gospel speaks of a real person. Dodd's problem was that he read Philo for Philo's position rather than for the myth Philo was interpreting.

^{page 439 note 7} Fawcett, Thomas, Hebrew Myth and Christian Gospel, p. 159.Google Scholar Rev. xix. 10 and xxii. 8–9 show that the Johannine circle faced the problem of angel worship.

^{page 439 note 8} Cullmann, O., Early Christian Worship (Naperville: Allenson, 1953), p. 86.Google Scholar It is a dubious argument because the best text omits the angel of v. 4.

^{page 439 note 9} Johnston, G., The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John (Cambridge University Press, 1970), p. 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar, contends that John safeguarded the primacy of Jesus by his use of language about the Spirit, rejecting the pre Johannine identification of the angel Michael with the true spirit of God. Johnston is reacting against Betz, O., Der Paraklet (Leiden: Brill, 1963Google Scholar), who takes the fact that in heterodox Judaism (Test. Jud. xx. 5; IQS iii. 18–25; cf. Hermas, Command, 3.4) we find the concept of an angelic spirit of truth who bears witness and accuses to mean that in the Fourth Gospel the Paraclete is Michael ( Betz, , 64–6Google Scholar) Quispel, G., ‘Qumran, John and Jewish Christianity’, in John and Qumran, pp. 137–55Google Scholar, thinks the background for the notion of two Paracletes in the Johannine circle is the Jewish Christian concept of two angels, Christ and the Holy Spirit (e.g. Asc. Isa.; Elkesai). If so, Johnston's contention still holds.

^{page 440 note 1} I owe this insight to Professor Charles H. Giblin, S.J.

^{page 440 note 2} The closest are the Odes of Solomon which Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St John (New York: Herder, 1968), I, 145Google Scholar, thinks are dependent on John. Charlesworth, J. H., ‘Qumran, John and the Odes of Solomon’, in John and Qumran, p. 135Google Scholar, contends the parallels cannot be explained by literary dependence of the Odist on John or vice versa. ‘The most likely explanation for the similarities…is that the Odist and John shared the same milieu…’ Cf. also Charlesworth, and Culpepper, R. A., ‘The Odes of Solomon and the Gospel of John’, C.B.Q. xxxv (1973), 298–322.Google Scholar Generally neglected are the similarities between Philo and the Odes. Cf. however Marshall, J. T., ‘The Odes and Philo’, Exp. Ser. 8, 1 (1911), 385–98, 519–36.Google Scholar

^{page 440 note 3} At present, the evidence seems to point in the direction of a dependence of both Christianity and gnosticism on Judaism. Cf. for example MacRae, G. W., ‘The Jewish Background of the Gnostic Sophia Myth’, Nov.T. XII (1972), 86–100.Google Scholar