^{page 528 note 1} Danélou, J., ‘Trinité et Angélologie dans la Théologie judé-chrétienne’, Rech. Sci. Rel. XLV (1957), 5–41; Idem, Theology of Jewish Christianity (1964), pp. 117–46.Google Scholar

^{page 529 note 1} De Carn. Christi 14. 5; see entire 14th chapter.

^{page 529 note 2} Haer. xxx. 16. 4.

^{page 529 note 3} On the identification of Michael with Christ in early Christian angelomorphic Christology, see, e.g., Hermas, Sim. VIII. 3. 3; II Enoch xxii. 4–9. On the correspondence of Melchizedek and Michael in Qumran thought, see 11 QMelch.

^{page 529 note 4} Cf. Hermas, Vis. v. 2; Com. V. 1.7; Sim. V. 4. 4, VII. 1–3, 5, VIII. 1. 1–2, 2. 1, and IX. 1.3, 12. 7–8.

^{page 529 note 5} Princ. 1. 3. 4.

^{page 530 note 1} Dial.126.1–2. Cf. also Justin's Christological understanding of the ‘angel of the Lord’ in Dial.55. 10, 58. 3, 126. 4–5.

^{page 530 note 2} םיהִלאֱ ד׃לַלְמְ: Gen.xxi. 17, xxxi.11; Exod. xiv. 19; Judg. vi. 20, xiii. 6, 9; הוָׄהיְ ד׃לַלְמְ: Gen. xvi.: 7–11, xxii. 11, 15; Exod. iii. 2; Num. xxii. 22–35; Judg. ii. 1, 4, v. 23, vi. 11–22, xiii. 3–21;ד׃אׇלמ Gen. xlviii. 16.

^{page 530 note 3} Montefiore, C. G. and Loewe, H., A Rabbinic Anthology (1938), p. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 530 note 4} J. Ber. 13 a: ‘If a man is in distress, let him not call on Michael or Gabriel, but let him call directon me, and I will hearken to him straightway.’ Cf. also IV Ezra vii. 102–15, where mediation of any kind is explicidy denied.

^{page 531 note 1} Shab, B.. 12b, b. Scot. 33 a. The prohibition against prayer in Aramaic is ascribed to R. Judah the Prince, and, as R. A. Stewart points out, ‘may be pro-Hebraic rather than anti-angelic’ (Rab- binic Theology [1961], p. 57).Google Scholar

^{page 531 note 2} G. F. Moore, Judaism, I, 411.

^{page 531 note 3} Kennedy, H. A. A., Philo's Contribution to Religion (1919), p. 162.Google Scholar

^{page 531 note 4} De Conf. Ling. 146.

^{page 531 note 5} War 11. 8. 7 (11. 142).

^{page 531 note 6} Note, for example, the discussions of the Angel of Truth or Light helping man to be acceptable in spite of all that the Angel of Darkness or Hostility can do to the contrary in IQS 3. 18 ff., IQM 13. 9–10. Cf also II QMelch.

^{page 531 note 7} E.g. IQH 6. 13; Tob. xii. 12–15; III Bar. 11–17.

^{page 531 note 8} E.g. I Enoch ix. 10, xv. 2, xcix. 3, 16; II Bar. vi. 7 (also I Enoch xl. 9, xlvii. 2; Test. Levi iii. 5, V. 6–7, though here methodologically ruled out). On the angelic liturgy and angels having priestly characteristics at Qumran, see J. Strugnell, ‘The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran—4Q Serek Sirot ‘Olat Hassabbat’, Vetus Test. Sup. VII (1960), 318–45. Only in Zech. i. 12 is there anything similar in the Old Testament.

^{page 532 note 1} The assertion of the Preaching of Peter, as preserved by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, that the Jews worship angels (cf. E. Hennecke, N.T. Apocrypha [1965], 11, 100–1) probably stems from Col. ii. 18.

^{page 532 note 2} II QMelch. ‘illustrates the type of thinking about angels and other heavenly beings which the author of Hebrews is up against’ (de Jong, M. and van der Woude, A. S., ‘II QMelchizedek and the New Testament’, N.T.S. XII [1966], 317).Google Scholar

^{page 533 note 1} W. Michadis has argued ‘daß das Urchristentum keine Engelchristologie gekant hat’ (Zur Engelchristologie im Urchristentum [1942], p. 187 Passim). But that judgement was leveled against the very extreme thesis of M. Werner that late Jewish apocalypticism (i.e. Dan. vii. 13, Test. Of Levi, and the ‘Similitudes of Enoch’) had an Angel-Messianology, and that this was carried over into Christianity so that the earliest Christology was essentially an Angel-Christology (Die Entstehung des christlichen Dogmas [1941], pp. 302–49). Both methodologically and theologically the material presented above finds little parallel with Werner's treatment, and thus is not really affected by Michaelis's wholly negative review.

^{page 533 note 2} Gospel of Truth 38. 6–41. 3.

^{page 533 note 3} Gospel of Philip, Logion 12; cf. also 19.

^{page 533 note 4} J. Daniélou, Theol. of Jewish Christianity, pp. 151–7.

^{page 533 note 5} Quispel, G., ‘The Jung Codex and its Significance’, The Jung Codex, trans, and ed. F. L. Cross (1955), pp. 68–78. I Enoch Ixix. 14 may be questioned as to provenance.Google Scholar

^{page 533 note 6} Scholem, G., Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (1941), pp. 212–17;Google Scholarcf Odeberg, H., 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (1928), p. 144.Google Scholar

^{page 534 note 1} E.g. Deut. xii. 11, 21; xiv. 23–4; xvi. 2, 6, 11; xxvi. 2; Neh. i. 9; Ps. Ixxiv. 7; Is. xviii. 7; Jer. iii. 17; vii. 10–14, 30.

^{page 534 note 2} Cf Barthélemy, D., ‘Le Grand Rouleau d'Isaïe Trouvé près de la Mer Morte’, Rev. Biblique, LVII (1950), 548 n. 2;Google ScholarChamberlain, J. V., ‘The Functions of God as Messianic Titles in the Complete Qumran Isaiah Scroll’, Vetus Test. v (1955), 369–70.Google Scholar

^{page 534 note 3} CDC 15. 3 (xix. 4); T. H. Gaster fills in the lacuna of line 2 to read: ‘for the name of God is spelled out in that law’ (The Dead Sea Scriptures [1964], p. 95). Also see IQM 11. 2–3; 18. 6, 8; IQH 11. 6; 12. 3.

^{page 534 note 4} Of the Logos, Philo says: ‘And many names are his, for he is called “the Beginning”(⋯ρχ⋯), and the Name of God(⋯νομα θεο⋯), and His Word(λ⋯γος), and the Man after His image(⋯ κτ᾽ εἰκ⋯να ἂνθρωπος) and “he that sees” (⋯ ⋯ρ⋯ν), that is Israel’ (De Conf. Ling. 146).

^{page 534 note 5} Matt. i. 21–5; cf. Luke i. 31, ii. 21.

^{page 534 note 6} Matt, xviii. 20.

^{page 534 note 7} Mark x. 29.

^{page 534 note 8} Luke xviii. 29.

^{page 534 note 9} Matt. xix. 29.

^{page 534 note 10} Matt. x. 22; though in a later apocalyptic section the warning is repeated, and all three Gospels include δι⋯ τ⋯ ⋯νομ⋯ μου (Matt. xxiv. 9, Mark xiii. 13, Luke xxi. 17; cf. Luke xxi. 12).

^{page 535 note 1} Matt. vii. 21–3, cf. Luke vi. 46.

^{page 535 note 2} Cf Matt. xxviii. 18–20. Kosmala, H., ‘The Conclusion of Matthew’, Annual of the Swedish Theol. Inst. IV (1965), 140–1, with whom I agree though without accepting his exclusively Christological treatment of the passage.Google Scholar

^{page 535 note 3} John i. 12, ii. 23, iii. 18.

^{page 535 note 4} John xx. 31.

^{page 535 note 5} John xiv. 13–14, XV. 16, xvi. 23–6.

^{page 535 note 6} Acts xix. 13–17.

^{page 535 note 7} Acts xxii. 16. This may also be a Christological ascription.

^{page 535 note 8} Rev. ii. 17, iii. 12.

^{page 535 note 9} I Cor. i. 10.

^{page 535 note 10} I Cor. i. 13.

^{page 535 note 11} I Cor. V. 3–5, though with which clause ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’ is to be associated is problematic.

^{page 535 note 12} Acts xvi. 18.

^{page 535 note 13} Col. iii. 17, Eph. v. 20.

^{page 535 note 14} Perhaps T. W. Manson's suggestion of a wider destination for Romans may be invoked here as well (cf. ‘St Paul's Letter to the Romans—and Others’, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles [1962], pp. 225–41).

^{page 535 note 15} E.g. Torrey, C. C., The Composition and Date of Acts (1916), pp. 14–16; F.J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake, Beginnings, 11, 142.Google Scholar

^{page 535 note 16} Jas. ii. 7.

^{page 535 note 17} Phil. ii. 9–10 a.

^{page 536 note 1} John xii. 28; xvii. 6, 26.

^{page 536 note 2} John vi. 35; viii. 12; x. 7, 9; x. 11, 14; xi. 25; xiv. 6; xv. 1; cf. also viii. 23–4, 28; xiii. 19. For a denial of dominical status set in a context of a high view of Johannine historicity generally, see A. J. B. Higgins, Historicity of the Fourth Gospel (1960), pp. 73–4. In defence of the absolute ‘I am’ on the lips of Jesus and its correlation with the divine Name, see H. Zimmermann, ‘Das absolute “Ich bin” in der Redeweise Jesu’, Trierer Theol. Zeitschrift, LXIX (1960), 1–20; Idem, ‘Das absolute ⋯ώωειμι als die neutestamentliche Offenbarungsformel’, Biblische Zeitschrift, IV (1960), 54–69, 266–76.

^{page 536 note 3} E.g. Acts iii. 16; iv. 7, 10; xvi. 18; xix. 13–17.

^{page 536 note 4} Contra Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament (1952), 1, 40.Google Scholar

^{page 536 note 5} Matthew xxi. 42; Mark xii. 10–11; Luke xx. 17–18.

^{page 537 note 1} J. Jeremias,‘κεφαλ ⋯γων⋯ας — ‘Aκρογωνιαῖος’, Z.N.W. XXIX (1930), 264–80; Idem, ‘Eckstein—Schlußstein’, Z.N.W. XXXVI (1937), 154–7; Idem, ‘“γων⋯α, ⋯κρογνιαῖος, κεφαγ⋯ γων⋯ας’,T.W.N.T. I, 792–3; Idem, ‘λ⋯εθος’, T.W.N.T. IV, 275–83.

^{page 537 note 2} Cf. also Symmachus’ translation of II Kings xxv. 17 (⋯κρογωνιαῖος), and the Peshitta rendering of Is. xxviii. 16 as ‘head of the wall’.

^{page 537 note 3} See bibliography in McKelvey, R. J., ‘Christ the Cornerstone’, N.T.S. VIII (1962), 352–3. Note the translation ‘keystone’ in the Jerusalem Bible at Acts iv. 11 and I Pet. ii. 7, and in the N.E.B. in the text of Acts iv. 11 and the footnote to Eph. ii. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 537 note 4} Cf. also IQS 5. 6, 9. 5–6; j. Sanh. 29a; Exod. R. 15. 7. See R.J. McKelvey, op.cit., as a corrective to Jeremias. In fairness, however, Jeremias’ one-paragraph qualification on Isa. xxviii. 16 should be noted (T.W.N.T. IV, 279), though it is far too reserved.

^{page 538 note 1} On the rabbinic legend, see Ellis, E. E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (1957), pp. 66–70.Google Scholar

^{page 538 note 2} Dial. 126. 1–2; Sim. IX, esp. 12. 1 ff.; Barn. vi. 2ff.

^{page 538 note 3} Ad Autolycum II. 10.

^{page 538 note 4} Dial. 61. I, 62. 4.

^{page 538 note 5} Strom. VI. 7. 58.

^{page 538 note 6} Comm. on Isa. IV, on Isa. xi. 2; cf. Hennecke, N.T. Apoc. 1, 163–4.

^{page 539 note 1} Even these might not prove too significant in rebuttal to this thesis, especially if the body of the Epistle to the Romans be viewed in the light of a wider destination than just Rome; the problems of II Corinthians recalled for Paul an earlier judaizing conflict, and Ephesians can be associated temporally and logically with Colossians.

^{page 539 note 2} W. H. Brownlee has suggested that the Aleph of IQS 10. I should be understood as an abbreviation for Elohim, forming an acrostic with Mem and Nun of the following lines (The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline, B.A.S.O.R. Sup. Studies 10–12 [1951], 50–1; ‘Messianic Motifs’, op. cit. 201—3). Cf. also T.H. Gastcr's translation (op. cit. P. 126). If so, the use of Alpha for Christ in the Apocalypse has a Palestinian foundation as well as Hellenistic parallels. The problem in reading IQS 10. 1 is that the Aleph has no space before it, thus possibly connecting it to the preceding word as a 3rd pers. Sing. Suffix.

^{page 539 note 3} E.g. R. Bultmann, op. cit. 1, 132–3, 177–8.

^{page 539 note 4} They were common to Philo in his descriptions of the Word; cf. esp. De Conf. Ling. 146. Similarly I Enoch XV. 9 speaks of evil spirits born of men and the Holy Watchers as ‘the beginning of creation and primal origin’ (ἠ ⋯ρχ⋯ τ⋯ς κτ⋯σεως [cf.Rev. iii. 3, 14] κα⋯ ⋯ρχ⋯ θεμελ⋯ου)—a tautology, employing ⋯ρχ⋯ twice. Wisd. of Sol. vii. 22–6 attributes to wisdom the terms ‘unique’ (μονογε⋯ς), ‘effulgence’ (⋯πα⋯γασμα), and ‘image’ (εἰκών).Cf also I Enoch cvi. 10 on the use of εἰκών in connexion with an awesome apocalyptic figure.

^{page 540 note 1} Note, e.g., Exod. iv. 22; Jer. xxxviii. 9 (M.T.: xxxi. 9); I Enoch xv. 9, cvi. 10; Wisd. of Sol. vii. 22–6.

^{page 541 note 1} C. F. Burney has argued that in Col. i. 16–18 Paul is giving an elaborate midrashic exposition of the first word of Genesis, bereshith, and interpreting the reshith of Gen. i. I and Prov. viii. 22 as referring to Christ (‘Christ as the APXH of Creation’, Journ. Theol. Studies, XXVII [1926], 160–77; cf. also W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism [1955], 150–2). What is said above is not meant to oppose Burney's highly significant thesis, but only to point out in addition that Paul's argument, while possibly following a rabbinic pattern exegetically, was circumstantially determined.

^{page 541 note 2} As has been often pointed out, the ascription λóγος in the Prologue differs from the rest of the Gospel. Probably, as V. Taylor suggests, ‘if we infer that the Prologue was written last, as a summary of St John's apprehension of the significance of the incarnation of the Son of God, we account better for the traditional element combined with interpretation present in the Gospel. The same inference is warranted if, as some have thought, he took over and adapted in i. 1–18 a pre-Johannine hymn’ (The Person of Christ in New Testament Teaching [1958], p. 21). This connexion of ⋯πχ⋯ and its cognates with λ⋯γος and its cognates is continued in such passages as Justin, Dial. 61. I, and Clement of Alexandria, Strom, IV. 7. 58.

^{page 542 note 1} E. Schweizer suggests: ‘It is probably Paul himself who, interpreting, adds the thought important to him “yea, the death of the cross”. In the old text death is simply the last stage of obedience’ (Lordship and Discipleship [1960], pp. 61–2).

^{page 542 note 2} Possibly the text-form of Ps. lxviii. 18, as well, was traditional within pre-Pauline Christian circles.

^{page 543 note 1} Other portions in the Pauline corpus where this theme is sometimes found cannot with sufficient certainty be so credited. I Cor. xv. 3–5 may fit in and reflect an earlier consciousness, but its limited correspondence is probably incidental. I Cor. ii. 8 and Col. ii. 15 can be credited only by first classing katabasis–anabasis as a distinctly gnostic theme, and then identifying any terminology that remotely savours of gnosticism as based on a katabasis–anabasis concept. I have already indicated a circumstantial rationale for the gnostic features of Colossians, and would deny that ‘ignorance’ (as in I Cor. ii. 8) is an exclusively gnostic note. The polarity of ‘richness’ and ‘poverty’ in II Cor. viii. 9 may reflect an earlier ‘descent’- and ‘ascent’-conceptualization. But, if so, it also indicates are-working of the theme in the Pauline message. The work of E. Best on the Markan soteriology tends to negate any discovery of a katabasis–anabasis theme in Mark (The Temptation and the Passion [1965]).

^{page 543 note 2} On Patristic, Augustinian, Catholic, Reformation, and modern Protestant interpretations, with a detailed treatment of considerable merit in advocacy of the view that I Pet. iii. 18–20 teaches Christ's proclamation of triumph to spirits in the transcendental sphere, see Bo Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism (1945). For similar treatments, see E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St Peter (1946), pp. 314–62; Jeremias, J., ‘Zwischen Karfreitag und Ostern’, Z.N.W. XLII (1949), 194–201; J. Daniélou, Theol. of Jewish Christianity, 233–5;Google ScholarStibbs, A.M., The First Epistle General of Peter (1959), 138–52.Google Scholar

^{page 543 note 3} E.g. R. Bultmann, op. cit. 1, 175–7; Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel (1964), pp. 126–32;Google ScholarFuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (1965), pp. 234, 257.Google Scholar

^{page 543 note 4} J. Daniélou, Theol. of Jewish Christianity, pp. 205–63.

^{page 544 note 1} ‘Note also Irenaeus’ citation of traditional material from the teaching of ‘the Elder’ in Adv. Haer. IV. 27. 2; the passage from the Apocryphon of Jeremiah quoted by Justin, Dial. 72. 4, and by Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. 20. 4, IV. 22. 1, IV. 33. 1, V. 31. 1; Similitude ix. 16. 5–7 of the Shepherd of Hermas; and Test. Levi iv. 1.

^{page 544 note 2} Mention could also be made of the ‘humiliation–exaltation’ theme in Jewish thought regarding the pious man (cf. E. Schweizer, op. cit. pp. 23–8, passim); though, while evidencing a similar pattern, the ‘humiliation–exaltation’ of the pious is not as far-reaching as katabasis–anabasis Christology.

^{page 544 note 3} Esp. Phil. ii. 10: ‘that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth’.

^{page 544 note 4} ‘There is no need to assign this teaching to a late date; it is the kind of reflection which might arise at any time in the first generation of Christianity when questions connected with Christ's resurrection and ascension were considered and when baptism, which is expressly mentioned in [I Pet.] iii. 21 in connexion with the deluge and the story of Noah, was in mind’ (V. Taylor, op. cit. pp. 87–8). In response to the problem of the fate of pre-Christian worthies, which undoubtedly concerned the earlier generations of Christians, evidently some Jewish Christians developed a doctrine of a pre-incarnation proclamation or of a proclamation in hades. Gentile Christians, on the other hand, tended to employ the Johannine Prologue to develop a pre-Christian Logos-enlightenment theme.