^{page 211 note 2} II Sam. vi. 14, 17 f.; I Kings viii; ix. 25; xii. 33; II Kings xvi. 12 ff.

^{page 211 note 3} Job. v. 1; xxxiii. 23; Zech. i. 12.

^{page 211 note 4} E.g. I Enoch xv. 2; xlvii. 2; xcix. 3; civ. I.

^{page 211 note 5} Test. Levi iii. 5 f.; cf. I Enoch xl. 6 (Gabriel); lxxxix. 76 (Michael); Test. Dan vi. 2 (Michael is μεσίτης θεο⋯υ και άνθρώπων).

^{page 211 note 6} Lueken, W., Michael (1898), pp. 30–2Google Scholar, cites, among other passages, three from the Babylonian Talmud (Hagigah 12b; Zebahim 62a; Menahoth 110a).

^{page 212 note 1} Art. Ένώχ, T.W.N.T. II (1935), 554.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 2} The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II (1913), 429.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 3} Odeberg, H., 3 Enoch (1928), I, 62 f.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 4} Le livre des Secrets d'Hénoch, texts slave et traduction française (1952).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 5} ‘The Eschatology of the Similitudes of Enoch’, J.T.S. new series III (1952), 1–10.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 6} See Martin, F., Le Livre d'Hénoch traduit sur le texts éthiopien (1906), lxxxiiiGoogle Scholar (cited by Black, op. cit. p. 4, n. 2), 158.

^{page 213 note 1} A Companion to the Bible ² (1963), ed. Rowley, H. H., p. 82.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 2} The new Peake's Commentary on the Bible (1962)Google Scholar, 608d. Cf. Barr, J. in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible ² (1963), ed. Grant, F. C. and Rowley, H. H., p. 651Google Scholar: the Similitudes probably represent ‘syncretistic Judaistic Christianity’.

^{page 213 note 3} Cf. Rowley, H. H., The Relevance of Apocalyptic ³ (1963), p. 60 n.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 4} Also in Targ. Jerus. I, Gen. v. 24.

^{page 213 note 5} Odeberg, H., 3 Enoch (1928), I, 82, 188 ff.Google Scholar, compares ‘the little YAO’, a title of the gnostic Anthropos. Here it may be remarked that the only way in which the messianic and high-priestly functions could be united in a single figure would be to regard both as predicates of the oriental Urmensch or Anthropos redeemer, in its different manifestations as Elijah, Melchizedek, Metatron, etc. (cf. Käsemann, E., Das wandernde Gottesvolk (1939), pp. 128–30Google Scholar). But this is highly speculative.

^{page 213 note 6} Bab. Talmud, Hagigah 15a.

^{page 213 note 7} Odeberg, , 3 Enoch (1928), 1, 115.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 8} Num. R. xii. 15.

^{page 213 note 9} Odeberg, , 3 Enoch, I, 79, 188Google Scholar, assigns the rise of the conception to the first century A.D. It may be added that consciously polemical imitation of Christian ideas may be present.

^{page 213 note 10} SB III (1926), 696.

^{page 214 note 1} See also SB IV (1928), 457, 460 ff.

^{page 214 note 2} SB ibid. 789–92; Jeremias, J., art. 'Hλ(ε)ίας, T.W.N.T. II (1935), 935.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 3} Targ. Jerus. I, Exod. xl. 10, translated by Etheridge, J. W., The Targums on the Pentateuch, I (1862), 577.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 4} Targ. Jerus. I, Deut. xxx. 4, Etheridge, op. cit. II (1865), 653.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 5} SB IV, 463 f. Klausner, J., The Messianic Idea in Israel (1956), p. 515.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 6} On Jewish expositions of the psalm see SB IV, 461 f.

^{page 214 note 7} Aboth de Rabbi Nathan xxxiv deduces from Ps. cx. 4Google Scholar that the Messiah will be more favoured than the eschatological high priest; cf. SB III, 696; IV, 457, 461.

^{page 215 note 1} Cf. Michel, O., art. Мελχισεδέκ, T.W.N.T. iv (1938–1940), 574.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 2} Lohse, E., Die Texte aus Qumran hebräisch und deutsch (1964).Google Scholar CD: Damascus Document; IQS: Manual of Discipline; IQSa: Rule of the Congregation; IQSb: Blessings; IQM: War Scroll; 4Qpatr: Patriarchal Blessing; 4Qtest: Testimonies. On the rarity of the term ‘anointed’ in Qumran literature (as elsewhere), see de Jonge, M., ‘The use of the word “anointed” in the time of Jesus’, Nov. Test. VIII (1966), 132–48.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 3} In this absolute form otherwise first in 2(4) Esdras vii. 28 f.; xii. 32; II Baruch xxix. 3; xxx. 1; cf. John i. 41; iv. 25 (⋯) Мεσσια. On IIQMelch see the two articles discussed in the Addenda (3). In the second article the reading ‘the Messiah’ is abandoned in favour of ‘the anointed by the Spirit’, denoting a prophet.

^{page 215 note 4} Not in the Old Testament; occasionally in the Targums, e.g. Targ. Isa. xvi. 1, 5 (ed. Stenning, J. F. (1949), pp. 53, 55).Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 5} Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, I, ed. Barthélemy, D. and Milik, J. T. (1955), 132.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 6} Millar Burrows's translation, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1958), p. 401.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 1} Kuhn, K. G. in The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. Stendahl, K. (1958), pp. 58–60Google Scholar, and earlier J. T. Milik (see p. 257, n. 27).

^{page 216 note 2} Milik, J. T., Ten years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (1959), p. 125.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 3} Millar Burrows's translation, The Dead Sea Scrolls (1956), p. 383.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 4} Bruce, F. F., Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (1960), pp. 44 ff.Google Scholar; Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel (1963), p. 146.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 5} The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (1962), p. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 6} The Scrolls and Christian Origins (1961), pp. 156 f.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 1} Vermer's translation, p. 104.

^{page 217 note 2} Cf. Cross, F. M., The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (1958), p. 165.Google ScholarGnilka, J., ‘Die Erwartung des messianischen Hohenpriesters in den Schriften von Qumran und im Neuen Testament’, Revue de Qumran, II (1959–1960), 405Google Scholar: the different names denote different functions, and also probably reflect development of ideas or differences among the writings or branches of the sect.

^{page 217 note 3} Black, M., op. cit. p. 105Google Scholar; cf. IQS vi. 2–8.

^{page 217 note 4} Here, as in IQM xi. 4–6, the star and the sceptre both refer to one and the same figure, and are not dissociated as in CD vii. 18–21.

^{page 217 note 5} Cf. Rowley, H. H., The Zadokite Fragments and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1952), p. 41Google Scholar; ‘The Qumran Sect and Christian Origins’, B.J.R.L. XLIV (1961), 123Google Scholar (reprinted in From Moses to Qumran (1963)). Black, M., op. cit. pp. 147 ff.Google Scholar, stresses the influence of Ezekiel's prophecy of a hierocracy under a prince (nāśî'), not a king, of Davidic lineage.

^{page 218 note 1} Vermes's translation, p. 97.

^{page 218 note 2} Burrows's translation, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 381.

^{page 218 note 3} As suggested by Brownlee, W. H., The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline (Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Supplementary Studies nos. 10–12 (1951)), pp. 35 f., 50Google Scholar; see van der Woude, A. S., Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumran (1957), pp. 78 f.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 4} I am not here concerned with the question of the identity of the Teacher of Righteousness with the prophet.

^{page 218 note 5} ⋯ προφήτης is also read at vii. 52 by ⁶⁶ and ^75vid (cf. Fee, G. D. in J.B.L. LXXXIV (1965), 68.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 6} On Samaritan messianism cf. Macdonald, J., The Theology of the Samaritans (1964), pp. 362 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} Cf Smith, Morton, ‘What is implied by the variety of Messianic figures?’, J.B.L. LXXVIII (1959), 66–72Google Scholar; Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (1964), pp. 147 ff.Google Scholar; Russell, D. S., The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (1964), p. 321Google Scholar; Weiss, K., ‘Messianismus in Qumrān und im Neuen Testament’, Qumran-Probleme, ed. Bardtke, H. (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin: Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft, 42 (1963)), pp. 353–68.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 2} Cf. de Jonge, M. in Nov. Test. IV (1960), 190Google Scholar: ‘it is even likely that the Messianic ideas of the Qumran sect underwent a gradual change in the course of time, or that there were differences of opinion on this point between various groups within the Essene movement’. For suggestions of development in the sect's messianic thought as an explanation of the uncertainty of the status of the priestly figure, cf. Wcela, E. A., ‘The Messiah(s) of Qumran’, C.B.Q. XXVI (1964), 340–9.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 3} Milik, J. T., op. cit. pp. 123 f.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 4} ‘Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumrân,’ R.B. LXX (1963), 481–505.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 5} The Manual of Discipline may simply have been current in two forms at this point. 4QSe omits not only the messianic reference, but a whole section, viii. 16b–ix. 11; cf. Milik, J. T., R.B. 67 (1960), 413.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 6} Gen. xlix. 10; Num. xxiv. 17; Isa. xi. 1 ff.; Amos ix. 11; II Sam. ii. 11b; vii. 13 f.; Ps. ii. 1 f.; see Hahn, , op. cit. p. 147Google Scholar, n. 5. Since completing this study I have found that Laurin, R. B., ‘The Problem of two Messiahs in the Qumran Scrolls’, Revue de Qumran, IV (1963), 39–52Google Scholar, has argued correctly for one Messiah in Qumran expectation on the basis of Jewish usage of the term elsewhere.

^{page 219 note 7} The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908), ix.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 8} Ibid. xliii; The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908), xv, lii f.Google Scholar, xcvii f.

^{page 220 note 1} J.T.S. XLVIII (1947), 1–12.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 2} Ibid. p. 11.

^{page 220 note 3} The Dead Sea Scrolls (1952), p. 94Google Scholar; The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes (1954), pp. 38 ff.Google Scholar; The Essene Writings from Qumran (1961), pp. 301–5, 354–7.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 4} ‘The Two Messiahs of Aaron and Israel’, The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. Stendahl, K. (1958), pp. 54 ff., especially p. 58.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 5} Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumran (1957).Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 6} Les interpolations chrétiennes des Testaments des Douze Patriarches et les manuscrits de Qoumrân (Cahiers de la Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses, no. 35 (1960)), p. 3Google Scholar: ‘La parenté entre les Testaments et les textes du désert de Juda est, en effet, d'une aveuglante évidence’; everything points to a common Essene origin.

^{page 220 note 7} de Jonge, M., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1953), p. 119.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 8} ‘The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the New Testament’, T. U. (Studia Evangelica, I), LXXIII (1959), 550.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 1} Nov. Test. IV (1960), 182–235Google Scholar; also v (1962), 311–19.

^{page 221 note 2} Op. cit. pp. 214 f.

^{page 221 note 3} Cf. Milik, J. T., Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (1959), p. 34Google Scholar; de Jonge, M., Testamenta XII Patriarcharum, edited according to Cambridge University Library MS Ff I. 24 (1964), pp. x f.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 4} Op. cit. pp. 34 f.

^{page 221 note 5} Op. Cit. pp. 57 f. Cf. Liver, J., ‘The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs’, Harvard Theological Review, LII (1959), 149–85 (183).Google Scholar Dupont-Sommer achieves a synthesis by identifying the Messiah in the Testaments with the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness, The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes (1954), pp. 38 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 1} Cf. Milik, J. T., op. cit. pp. 82 f.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 2} Cf. Mowinckel, S., He That Cometh (1956), p. 289.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 3} Op. cit. p. 216. The hostility of the Qumran sect to the Hasmonaeans because of their usurpation of the priesthood as non-Zadokites, and of the kingship as of non-Davidic family, their combination of the two offices contrary to scripture and tradition, and the subordination of the priesthood to the kingship, is expressed, according to van der Woude p. 227, in the separation of the two offices and in the emphasis on the superiority of the priesthood to the kingship in both the Qumran writings and the Testaments. But there remain the difficulties of this view involved in differences of terminology.

^{page 223 note 1} See p. 221, n. 3 above, especially p. xv.

^{page 223 note 2} άρχıερέως χρıστο⋯.

^{page 223 note 3} In ‘Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, Nov. Test. IV (1960), 209–12Google Scholar (henceforth cited as Christian Influence).

^{page 224 note 1} The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 89Google Scholar (henceforth cited as Testaments). Cf. Christian Influence, p. 210.

^{page 224 note 2} Op. cit. pp. 195 f.

^{page 224 note 3} Reading έκλειψει ή ίερωσ⋯νη with α γ d Armenian Slavonic (S₁).

^{page 224 note 4} The bracketed words are omitted by b k through homoioteleuton; see de Jonge's text edition, p. 21.

^{page 224 note 5} The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908), p. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 6} Op. cit. pp. 27 f.

^{page 224 note 7} Op. cit. pp. 210–14.

^{page 225 note 1} Christian Influence, p. 208.

^{page 225 note 2} Testaments, p. 89; Christian Influence, p. 206.

^{page 225 note 3} Testaments, pp. 89 f.

^{page 225 note 4} Christian Influence, p. 206.

^{page 225 note 5} Reading πνε⋯μα instead of πνε⋯ματος (b).

^{page 225 note 6} Reading προστάγμασıν with h i e f g instead of προστάγματı in b.

^{page 225 note 7} The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908), pp. 95, 97.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 8} Op. cit. pp. 8–12.

^{page 225 note 9} Christian Influence, p. 204.

^{page 225 note 10} Op. cit. pp. 206–9.

^{page 226 note 1} Christian Influence, p. 201.

^{page 226 note 2} Jonge, De, Testaments, p. 90.Google Scholar Test. Levi viii. 12–15 is also attributed by de Jonge ( Testaments, pp. 45 f.; Christian Influence, p. 211 n.) to Christian sources, and is regarded by him as an interpretation of the three offices promised to Levi's descendants in verse 11. Verse 14 reads, ‘The third shall be called by a new name, because a king shall are from Judah and shall establish a new priesthood, after the fashion of the Gentiles, for all the Gentiles’. The view that this is Jesus Christ as king and priest is far more convincing than Charles's explanation that the reference is to the Hasmonaeans ( The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908), pp. li, 45Google Scholar) who took the title ‘priests of the Most High God’ (Assumption of Moses vi. 1; Josephus, , Ant. XVI. 6, 2Google Scholar; Bab. Talmud, Rosh ha-Shanah 18b) held by Melchizedek (Gen. xiv. 18), or than that of Manson, T. W. (J.T.S. XLVIII (1947), 60 f.Google Scholar) that the reference is to the Zadokite priesthood dating from the time of Solomon.

^{page 226 note 3} Jonge, De, Testaments, p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 4} Testaments, pp. 86 ff.; Christian Influence, pp. 208 ff.

^{page 226 note 5} Cf. Jonge, de, Christian Influence, p. 213.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 1} οὕτως; all others (except the Slavonic) read οῡτος.

^{page 227 note 2} Op. cit. p. 8.

^{page 227 note 3} Op. cit. pp. 199 f.

^{page 227 note 4} Op. cit. p. 43.

^{page 227 note 5} Christian Influence, pp. 213 f.

^{page 227 note 6} The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908), p. 130.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 1} Philonenko, , op. cit. p. 10Google Scholar, however, sees a reference to one Messiah, like the Messiah of Aaron and Israel in CD, as in Test. Simeon vii. 2; Test. Levi ii. 11; Test. Gad viii. 1.

^{page 228 note 2} Op. cit. p. 10. He finds a parallel to this ‘double messianisme’ in the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel in IQS ix. 11, just as (see last footnote) he sees a close similarity to the supposed fusion of the two in the Messiah of Aaron and Israel in CD. On the present passage he remarks: ‘…ici encore, le “Sceptre”, c'est, en tant que Messie issu de Juda, le Maître de justice (cf. Juda 24. 5)’ (ibid. p. 35).

^{page 228 note 3} Cf. der Woude, van, op. cit. pp. 200 f.Google Scholar; Jonge, de, Testaments, p. 87.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 4} Christian Influence, pp. 215–17.

^{page 230 note 1} I have tried to show that this does not apply to the Qumran writings.

^{page 230 note 2} Christian Influence, p. 218.

^{page 230 note 3} As is done by Jeremias, J., art. Ώλ(ε)ιας, T.W.N.T. II (1935), 934 f.Google Scholar According to Mowinckel, S., He That Cometh (1956), p. 288Google Scholar, the ideas about the Messiah from Levi in the Testaments ‘are concerned not with a single, specific, ultimate individual, but with the founder of a dynasty and his sons after him’.

^{page 230 note 4} Cf. Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel (1963), p. 283, n. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 5} Cf. Rowley, H. H., The Relevance of Apocalyptic ³ (1963), pp. 149 ff.Google Scholar; Hahn, , op. cit. p. 356Google Scholar, n. 1. Taxo may be included among the forerunners of the Messiah, cf. Mowinckel, op. cit. pp. 290, 300 f.

^{page 230 note 6} Cf. Macdonald, J., The Theology of the Samaritans (1964), pp. 362 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 7} Macdonald, , op. cit. p. 361.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 8} Cf. Bickerman, E. J., ‘The Date of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, J.B.L. LXIX (1950), 252Google Scholar: ‘…the doctrine of the Messiah from the tribe of Levi, allegedly professed by the author, is a figment, created by modern readers of the work.’ Our conclusions, if accepted, also invalidate the view, diametrically opposed to that of Charles, that the original teaching of the Testaments was focused on the Messiah from Judah (so Kohler, K., Jewish Encyclopedia, XII (1906), 113–18).Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 1} Cf. Lueken, W., Michael (1898), p. 148Google Scholar: ‘…im Judentum wenigstens scheint die Vorstellung nicht vorzukommen, daß der Messias Hohepriester im himmlischen Heiligtum ist’.

^{page 231 note 2} Scripta Hierosolymitana, IV (1958), 36–55.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 3} Ibid. p. 52, n. 45.

^{page 231 note 4} Hebräer-Essener-Christen (Stadia Post-Biblica, I, 1959), pp. 76 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 5} Ibid. pp. 81–91.

^{page 232 note 1} ‘Qumran und das Neue Testament: ein Bericht über 10 Jahre Forschung (1950–1959): Hebräer’, T.R. xxx (1964), 1–38.Google Scholar Cf. Montefiore, H. W., The Epistle to the Hebrews (1964), pp. 16–18Google Scholar, and especially the very thorough survey by Grässer, E., ‘Der Hebräerbrief 1938–1963’, T.R. xxx (1964), 138–236Google Scholar; on Hebrews and Qumran see pp. 171–7, rejecting theories of connexions between Hebrews and the beliefs of the Qumran group, and of dependence of the epistle on its literature.

^{page 232 note 2} ‘“To the Hebrews” or “To the Essenes”?’, N.T.S. IX (1963), 217–32.Google ScholarCoppens, J., ‘Les affinités qumrâniennes de l'èpître aux Hébreux’, Nouvelle Revue Théologique, LXXXIV (1962), 128–41, 257–82Google Scholar, has both surveyed ‘l'état de la question’ and drawn his own conclusions. The doctrinal contacts between Hebrews and Qumran he finds to be few and unspecific, and not such as to compel the belief that they are due to close acquaintance with Essene thought on the part of the author of the epistle. In particular Coppens is not persuaded that Qumran provided the material for the Christology of Hebrews (pp. 270 f.).

^{page 232 note 3} The Epistle to the Hebrews (1951).Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 4} Op. cit. p. 232; cf. also Bruce's commentary, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1964 (The New London Commentary on the New Testament), pp. xxviii–xxx.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 5} Art. cit. p. 223.

^{page 233 note 1} On the earliest occurrence of a high priest alongside the messianic king in Zechariah, cf. Hahn, , op. cit. p. 139Google Scholar; Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (1965), p. 27Google Scholar; Driver, G. R., The Judaean Scrolls (1965), p. 464.Google Scholar The two anointed ones (Zech. iv. 14) are Zerubbabel the Davidic ruler, the Branch, and Joshua the high priest, who ‘shall be a priest by his throne, and peaceful understanding shall be between them both’ (Zech. vi. 13).

^{page 234 note 1} Cf. Hahn, , p. 233 and n. 4 there.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 2} Gärtner, B., The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Society for New Testament Studies, Monograph Series, I (1965)), 138.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 3} ‘The Old Testament and Some Aspects of New Testament Christology’, Promise and Fulfilment: essays presented to Professor S. H. Hooke, ed. Bruce, F. F. (1963), p. 137.Google Scholar In what follows I have drawn to some extent upon this paper.

^{page 234 note 4} On the idea outside Hebrews see below.

^{page 234 note 5} Rom. viii. 34, ὂς και έντυγχάνεı ὑπέρ ήμ⋯ν; Heb. vii. 25, πάντοτε ℑ⋯ν είς τò έντυγχάνεıν ὺπέρ αὐτ⋯ν.

^{page 234 note 6} Cf. T. W. Manson's suggestion that Hebrews, so far from being original, is anticipated by Rom. iii. 21–6: ‘IΛAΣTHPION’, J.T.S. XLVI (1945), 1–10Google Scholar; Ministry and Priesthood (1958), p. 48, n. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 1} Moe, O., ‘Das Priestertum Christi im NT ausserhalb des Hebräerbriefs’, T.L.Z. LXXII (1947), 335–8Google Scholar, would add Rom. v. 2; Eph. ii. 18; v. 2; I Pet. ii. 24; iii. 18. Of these, however, Eph. v. 2 alludes to the death of Jesus, as also does the disputed I Pet. ii. 24, as well as Rom. iii. 25. These three passages, and perhaps especially Eph. v. 2, raise the question whether Jesus was sometimes regarded as performing the work of a priest while still on earth, as well as in heaven. The main emphasis is undoubtedly on Jesus as the heavenly high priest. On the position in Hebrews see below. Hahn, pp. 233 ff., does not find any clear evidence in the New Testament outside Hebrews of the high-priest Christology; cf. Grässer, , op. cit. pp. 214–23Google Scholar, especially p. 218.

^{page 235 note 2} Cf. vi. 9; vii. 15; viii. 3–5; ix. 13; xi. 19; xiv. 15–18; xv. 5–8; xvi. 1, 7, 17.

^{page 235 note 3} Moreover, as some of the references in section II indicate, the idea of a heavenly intercessor would not in itself have appeared as completely novel or revolutionary to Jews.

^{page 235 note 4} Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (1961), p. 51 (italics mine).Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 1} Cf. SB IV (1928), 452; Ps. cx was not so understood in rabbinic literature until the second half of the third century A.D., ibid. p. 457; Schoeps, H. J., Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (1949), p. 90, n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 2} Mark xvi. 19; Acts ii. 34 f.; vii. 56; Rom. viii. 34; I Cor. xv. 25; Eph. i. 20; Col. iii. 1; Heb. i. 3, 13; viii. 1; x. 12; xii. 2; I Pet. iii. 22; cf. Mark xii. 36 parr.; xiv. 62 parr.

^{page 236 note 3} See my discussion in the article cited in n. 3, p. 234 above (pp. 139–41); the principal text is Luke xii. 8. The origin of the idea of intercession is therefore not Hellenistic, as Hahn, p. 240, holds.

^{page 236 note 4} See the same article, pp. 138 f., for a refutation of the argument of Cullmann, O., The Christology of the New Testament (1959), p. 88Google Scholar, and cf. also Hahn, p. 240, n. 6.

^{page 236 note 5} In Philo the θεīος λ⋯γος as άρχıερε⋯ς in the temple of the κ⋯σμος mediates between man and the world of ideas ( De Somniis I, 215).Google Scholar But there is no description of the Messiah as a high priest. The most that can be said is that Philo's idea that the high priest in the Holy of holies is more than human, sinless, and the θεīος λ⋯γος (De Fuga, 189; De Somniis II, 189Google Scholar) testifies to the enhancement of the high-priestly office which may have contributed to the desire of the author of Hebrews to elaborate the doctrine of the heavenly ministry of Jesus the Messiah. Coppens, however, op. cit. pp. 277–9, appears to find in Philo's logos doctrine a primary source for the Christology of Hebrews. So did H. von Soden; see Bruce, F. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (1964), p. lvii, n. 135.Google Scholar