^{page 2 note 1} Cf., however, Jeremias, , Theobgischts Wörterbuch zum Noun Testament, Band V, p. 685.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 1} Das Evangelium its Johannes, p. 61.

^{page 3 note 2} Cf. Young, F. W., ‘Jesus the Prophet’, in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 68, pp. 285 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 3} Cf. Keim, , Jesus of Nazareth, 4, pp. 197 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 1} See Jeremias' article in TWzNT on , Band IV, p. 867.

^{page 4 note 2} Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1952 (7), p. 409.

^{page 4 note 3} Oudtest. Studien VIII, p. 192.

^{page 4 note 4} Expository Times, LXIII, No. 12, p. 382.

^{page 5 note 1} In his monograph Aperç;us preliminaires sur les Manuscrits de la Mére Morte (L'Orient Ancien Illustré, No. 4, Paris, 1950)Google Scholar, translated into English by Margt, E.. Rowley as The Dead Sea Scrolls. (Blackwell, 1952.)Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 2} See especially pp. 34 and 99.

^{page 5 note 3} It is not at all surprising to find a Jewish scholar (Dr J. L. Teicher of Cambridge), who accepts the same premises as Schechter and Sommer, drawing the conclusion which G. Margoliouth had drawn many years ago about the Zad. document, that it was in fact a document of primitive Christianity. Margoliouth did not, however, go so far as Teicher and identify the Wicked Priest and ‘the man of lies’ with St. Paul.

^{page 5 note 4} Band IV, p. 865.

^{page 6 note 1} An exact parallel (both to grammar and sense) is Zad. 8.2, rightly rendered by Israel Levi as par Moise et son oint saint (i.e. Aaron) (Revue des Études Juives, Tome. 61, p. 182). (I read the Hebrew in both cases as meshiho, constr. with Todh compaginis, Ges. K., p. 264 n.) The regular expression is ‘Messiah of Aaron and Israel’ (Zad. 2.10, 8.2, 9.10, 39 (B), 15.4, 18.8). Is the passage based on an interpretation of Dan. 9.24? Aquila and the Peshitta understood the last three words of the Messiah (and are followed by both Jewish and Christian commentators). The reference to the martyrdom of an Anointed one in the following verses must also surely have influenced the sect's beliefs? Perhaps the Teacher was (also like Moses) ‘an anointed one’, without being the Anointed One expected at the end of the days.

^{page 6 note 2} See Jeremias' article on Moses, Band IV, p. 868, lines 1–15.

^{page 7 note 1} op. cit., p. 381.

^{page 8 note 1} In a recent paper read before the Society for New Testament Study, entitled ‘The Theme of Vindication in the New Testament’, Bulletin III, p. 40 ffj Mr C. H. Moule, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, argued that at Dan. 7.21, 25, suffering is already affirmed of the Son of Man. Since these verses too describe the sufferings of the saints symbolised by the Son of Man, there is force in Professor Moule's point. (He might have added Dan. 9.35, describing the martyrdom of the ‘learned’, the instructors of the ‘many’ (rabbim, incidentally the name given the Zadokites as a whole) where (as Montgomery points out, Comm. ad loc.) suffering and death are no longer represented as in the earlier Old Testament theology as judgment on wickedness, but as a means of vicarious purification for Israel.) See also Taylor, Comm. on Mark, p. 542. Does Isa. 53 itself lie behind Dan.? At 12.3, ‘And they that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever’, the phrase in italics, lit. ‘the justifiers of the many’ comes from Isa. 53.12. Here at any rate eternal life is affirmed of the ‘justifiers of the many’ (cf. Mark 9.31) and at Dan. 9.35 they certainly suffer the fate of the Servant.

^{page 9 note 1} See the suggestion in my article on The Messiah in the Testament of Levi xinii in Expository Times, Vol. 60, p. 321.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 2} Dr Vincent Taylor writes (Commentary on St. Mark, in loc.) on the words ‘This is my beloved Son, hear ye him’: ‚Mark has in mind Deut. 18.15, ‘A prophet from the midst of thy brethren, like unto me, shall the Lord thy God raise up unto thee; him ye shall hear…’ (italics mine).

^{page 10 note 1} Steindorff, G., Apokalypse des Elias in Texte und Untersuchungen, Band XVII, NF. 2, p. 163Google Scholar. Cf. Jeremias', article on Moses, op. cit., p. 867Google Scholar. As the passage is also drawing on Rev. II, it is difficult to say which parts are Jewish, which are Christian. Jeremias maintains that the introduction of Enoch for Moses is Jewish. He would be a bold interpreter, indeed, who would say that we have here the (apocalyptic) scriptures to which Jesus refers at Mark 9.12 and 13, namely that the second Elijah as well as the Son of Man should be put to death. But it has to be put on record that, according to 1 Enoch 71, which I have elsewhere argued (Journal of Theol. Studies, N.S., Vol. III, Pt. 1, April 1952) is the oldest Jewish part of the Similitudes, it is Enoch who is the Son of Man.

^{page 10 note 2} Cf. Duncan, G. S., Jesus Son of Man, pp. 92 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 3} I have had the great privilege of being allowed to see the proof-sheets of the rest of the article.