¹ The clearest schematic statement is in Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, Vol. I, SCM Press, 1952, pp. 166f.Google Scholar

² See e.g. Manson, W., Jesus the Messiah, Hodder & Stoughton, 1943, pp. 174–190Google Scholar; Colpe, C., Die religionsgeschichtliche, Göttingen, 1961Google Scholar; Munck, J., ‘The New Testament and Gnosticism’, Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, Festschrift, O. A. Piper, ed. W. Klassen & G. F. Snyder, Harper & Row, 1962, pp. 224–238Google Scholar; Yamauchi, E., Pre-Christian Gnosticism, Tyndale, 1973; and below n. 14.Google Scholar

³ See Rudolph, K., ‘Stand und Aufgaben in der Erforschung des Gnostizismus’ (1964) reprinted in Gnosis und Gnostizismus, hrsg. K. Rudolph, Darmstadt, 1975, pp. 510–553, particularly pp. 547–9; and those cited below in nn. 9–12.Google Scholar

⁴ Hippolytus, , Refutatio V.10, following the translation in Foerster, W., Gnosis, Vol. I, Oxford 1972, p. 282.Google Scholar

⁵ The Acts of Thomas 108–113 (Foerster, , Gnosis Vol. I, pp. 355–358).Google Scholar

⁶ Ascension of Isaiah 10–11 in Hennecke, E., New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. II, ed. Schneemelcher, W., ET and ed. Wilson, R. McL., Lutterworth, 1965, pp. 659–661Google Scholar. See also e.g. Clement Alex., Excerpta ex Theodoto 1.1, and The Paraphrase of Shem among the Nag Hammadi codices.

⁷ Bultmann, , Theology I, p. 175.Google Scholar

⁸ Bultmann, R., John, Blackwell, 1971, pp. 251–253.Google Scholar

⁹ Wengst, K., Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums, Gütersloh, 1972, p. 154.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Schulz, S., Johannes, NTD, 1972, p. 28.Google Scholar

¹¹ Sanders, J. T., The New Testament Christological Hymns, Cambridge, 1971, p. 96.Google Scholar

¹² Borsch, F. H., The Son of Man in Myth and History, SCM Press, 1967, pp. 251f.Google Scholar

¹³ Young, F. in The Myth of God Incarnate, ed. Hick, J., SCM Press, 1977, p. 112.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Hengel, M., TheSon of God SCM Press, 1976, pp. 33–35.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism, SCM Press, 1974, Vol. I, p. 155Google Scholar; citing Bousset, W. & Gressmann, H., Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter, HNT 21, ⁴ 1966, p.319.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Unlike some of their successors, Bousset and Gressmann at least recognized the consequences of their findings for our understanding of Jewish monotheism: ‘Wir sehen den Monotheismus von allerei Rankenwerk umzogen. Und dieses Rankenwerk ist nicht ganz ungeährlich. Hier und da beginnt es den reinen Gottesglauben zu überwuchern.’(Religion, p. 319)

¹⁷ Lindars, B., ‘Re-enter the Apocalyptic Son of Man’, NTS 22, 1975–1976, pp. 52–72 (here p. 54).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ See further Jeremias, J., TDNTU, pp. 931–934, 936Google Scholar. Mark 15.35f. also reports the speculation of the crowd round the cross as to whether Elijah would come and rescue Jesus. This may be an early hint of the later rabbinic legends of Elijah's frequent interventions on earth (Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews, Jewish Publication Society, Vol. IV, 1913, pp. 202–235Google Scholar; Vol. VI, 1928, pp.325–342), but it is not clear whether Mark's tradition presupposes such legends or that such an intervention was at that time conceived of as a real possibility.

¹⁹ Cf. Talbert, C. H., What is a Gospel?, SPCK, 1978, pp. 49f, n. 80.Google Scholar

²⁰ Since the Baptist is identified with Elijah (see below), but is not thought of as having pre-existed before his birth or as having descended from heaven full grown, it may be doubted whether the hope of Elijah's return actually envisaged the personal return of the historical figure. Did this earlier stage of Elijah speculation envisage simply the raising up of another prophet ‘in the spirit and power of Elijah’ (Luke 1.17), a prophet like Elijah = a prophet like Moses? And is this partly the reason for the appearance of just these two in the account of the transfiguration (Mark 9.2.8 pars.)?

²¹ Following the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 speculation that particular heroes from the past were being kept in heaven until the end of the age was extended to include others, particularly Ezra and Baruch (IV Ezra 14.9; II Baruch 13.3; 25.1; 43.2; 46.7; 48.30; 76.3). It is probably significant that they were remembered more as scribes (like Enoch) than as prophets.

²² The Jewish Vorlage of II Enoch may go back before AD 70 (Charlesworth, J. H., The Pseudepigrapha and Modem Research, SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 7, 1976, pp. 103f.Google Scholar), but III Enoch 3–16 is certainly much later — Alexander, P. S., ‘The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch’, JJS 28, 1977, dates it between c. AD 450 and c. 850 (pp. 164f).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ See also Odeberg, H., TDNT II, pp. 557f.Google Scholar

²⁴ Jeremiah's appearance in a dream (II Mace. 15.12–16) was probably understood simply as a dream's recalling of figures from the past (Jeremiah is described better as dignified and venerable than as glorified and exalted; and Onias appears as well). Matt. 16.14 may imply speculation about the possible return of particular prophets, but alternatively may simply be a way of expressing the belief that Jesus was a prophet in the line of Elijah, Jeremiah and John the Baptist. Cf.Jeremias, J., TDNT III, pp. 219–221.Google Scholar

²⁵ See further Holladay, C. H., Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism, SBL Dissertation Series 40, 1977, chap. III, particularly p. 163, n. 287Google Scholar. Philo's treatment of Moses is usefully collocated and summarized in the Index to Philo, Loeb Classical Library, Vol. X, pp. 379–90. On Philo's application of Ex. 4.16 and 7.1 in reference to Moses (‘You shall be to him (Aaron) as God;’ ‘I will make you a God to Pharaoh’) see Holladay, Theios Aner, pp. 108–55.

²⁶ Despite his death, Moses is associated with Elijah in the account of the transfiguration (Mark 9.2–8 pars). Presumably then the idea was that they had both become like angels (according to Luke they ‘appeared in glory’ — Luke 9.31) and could at least visit the earth. Cf. Rev. 11.3–12. But see also Dunn, J. D. G., Christology in the Making (= CiM), SCM Press, 1980, p. 277, n. 63 and p. 304, n. 141.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Milik, J. T., ‘Milkî-ṣedeq et Milkî-reša’ dans les anciens écerits juifs et chrdtiens’, JJS 23, 1972, pp. 126–137Google Scholar; Vermes, G., The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Pelican² 1975, pp. 253,260.Google Scholar

²⁸ See e.g. von Rad, G., TDNT I, p. 78Google Scholar; Caster, T. H., IDB I, p. 131.Google Scholar

²⁹ See e.g. Kuhn, H. B., ‘The Angelology of the non-canonical Jewish Apocalypses’, JBL 67, 1948, pp. 217–232Google Scholar; Russell, D. S., The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, SCM Press, 1964, chap. IX.Google Scholar

³⁰ See further CiM, pp. 150f.

³¹ The Apocalypse of Abraham is generally dated to about the end of the first century AD (see Charlesworth, , Pseudepigrapha, pp. 68f).Google Scholar

³² See Strugnell, J., ‘The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran’, VT Supp. 7, 1959, pp. 318–345Google Scholar; text also in Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 211–3. Strugnell dates the work as pre-50 BC. Scholem, G. G. suggests that the beginnings of Merkabah mysticism may go back to the Essenes (Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Thames & Hudson, 1955, p. 43). Cf. Sir. 49.8.Google Scholar

³³ Rowland, C., ‘The Vision of the Risen Christ in Rev. 1.13ff.: the Debt of an Early Christology to an Aspect of Jewish Angelology’, JTS 31, 1980, pp. 1–11 (here pp. 4f)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is doubtful however whether the language of Dan. 10.5f. is deliberately dependent on Ezek. 1.26f. to a significant extent. The differences between Ezekiel's vision of ‘a likeness as it were of a human being’, with a bronze-like top half and fire-like bottom half (Ezek. 1.26C) and Daniel's vision of ‘a man clothed in linen’ with a beryl-like body and bronze-like arms and legs (Dan. 10.5f.) are more significant than what may be no more than accidental or unconscious echoes of Ezekiel's complete vision (against Rowland, pp. 3f.). And though I Enoch 14.18–23 shows some possible influence from Ezek. 1 (more directly from Dan. 7.9–10), it is hardly clear that 14.21 is intended to indicate ‘that God resembled human form’ (against Rowland, C., ‘The Visions of God in Apocalyptic Literature’, JSJ 10, 1979, pp. 137–154, here p. 141).Google Scholar

³⁴ Mowinckel, S., He that Cometh, Blackwell, 1956, p. 425.Google Scholar

³⁵ Higgins, A. J. B., The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus, Cambridge, 1980, p. 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For others who support this view see Higgins, p. 3.

³⁶ See particularly Emerton, J. A., ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery’, JTS 9, 1958, pp. 225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Colpe, C., TDNT VIII, pp. 415–419Google Scholar. But see also Ferch, A. J., ‘Daniel 7 and Ugarit: A Reconsideration’, JBL 99, 1980, pp. 75–86.Google Scholar

³⁷ See more fully CiM, §9.1. And for further details in what follows see §§9.2 and 9.3. See also particularly Casey, P. M., The Son of Man: the Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, SPCK, 1980.Google Scholar

³⁸ Though the identification of Enoch as the Son of Man in I Enoch 71.14 probably implies that the pre-existence of the Son of Man in the Similitudes is an ideal rather than a real pre-existence — denoting God's purpose ‘from the beginning’ that Enoch hould play a decisive role in the final judgment (see CiM, 296 n. 64).

³⁹ The fact that the Son of Man's role is one of judgment (1 Enoch 45.4; 49.2–4; 52.6–9; 55.4; 61.8f.) tells us nothing at this point, since involvement in judgment is a feature of all such speculation about the end (see e.g. above regarding Enoch, Elijah and Abel).

⁴⁰ Fragments of eleven separate manuscripts have been found; see particularly Milik, J. T., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4, Oxford 1976.Google Scholar

⁴¹ A post-AD 70 date is argued for by, among others, M. Black, M. A. Knibb (editor of the recent critical text of I Enoch), B. Lindars (below n. 63), J. T. Milik and G. Vermes (see CiM, p. 297 n. 79).

⁴² See particularly Segal, A. F., Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, Leiden, 1977.Google Scholar

⁴³ Perhaps thinking of I Chron. 29.23 — ‘Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father.’

⁴⁴ Note the rabbinic polemic against angelology which probably goes back to this same period; see Alexander, P. S., ‘The Targumim and Early Exegesis of “Sons of God” in Genesis 6’, JJS 23, 1972, pp. 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ Segal, Two Powers, has shown that the earliest form of the heresy was more Christian in character than Gnostic — that is, it envisaged two complementary rather than opposing powers.

⁴⁶ E.g. Mowinckel discusses ‘this oriental, cosmological, eschatological myth of Anthropos’ under the heading of ‘the origin of the conception of the Son of Man’ (He that Cometh pp. 420–37).

⁴⁷ .See particularly Scroggs, R., The Last Adam, Fortress and Blackwell, 1966, pp. ixxxiii.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See particularly Wedderburn, A. J. M., ‘Philo's “Heavenly Man”’, Nov. T. 15, 1973, pp. 301–326.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Wisdom of God and Word of God are largely overlapping concepts, often virtually synonymous (see particularly Wisd. 9.1–2; and cf. Ps. 33.6 with Prov. 3.19; Philo, Fuga 97 with 108f.; and Som. 11.242 with 245).

⁵⁰ See Stead, G. C., ‘The Valentinian Myth of Sophia’, JTS 20, 1969, pp. 75–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Macrae, G. W., ‘The Jewish Background of the Gnostic Sophia Myth’, Nov. T. 12, 1970, pp. 86–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵¹ See e.g. Dalman, G., The Words of Jesus, T. & T. Clark, 1902, pp. 229–231Google Scholar; Moore, G. F., ‘Intermediaries in Jewish Theology’, HTR 15, 1922, pp. 41–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Strack-Billerbeck II, pp. 302–33; Urbach, E. E., The Sages: their Concepts and Beliefs, Jerusalem, 1975, chap. IIIGoogle Scholar; Sanders, E. P., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, SCM Press, 1977, pp. 212–215.Google Scholar

⁵² Goldberg, A. M., Untersuchungen über die Vorstellung von der Schekhinah in der frühen rabbinischen Literalur, Berlin 1969, pp. 535fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. (against Volz, P., Der Geist Gottes, Tubingen 1910, p. 169).Google Scholar

⁵³ Marböck, J., Weisheit im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei ben Sira, Bonn, 1971, pp. 129f.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See more fully CiM, §23. The much suggested alternative, half-way between person and personification — viz. ‘hypostasis’ (see those cited in CiM, p. 325, n. 21) — is a doubly anachronistic importation of a 19th century misunderstanding of a key technical term from the Trinitarian controversies of the third and fourth centuries AD. ‘The statement that hypostasis ever received “a sense midway between ‘person’ and ‘attribute’, inclining to the former” is pure delusion, though it is derived ultimately from Harnack.’ (Prestige, G. L., God in Patristic Thought, SPCK ² 1952, paperback 1964, p. xxviiiGoogle Scholar). See further CiM, p. 174 and n. 42. For the meaning of hypostasis see Witt, R. E., ‘Hypostasis’, Amicitiae Corolla, Festschrift for J. R. Harris, ed. Wood, H. G., London, 1933, pp. 319–343; Prestige, God, chap. IX.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See more fully CiM, §28.3

⁵⁶ See particularly Mack, B. L., Logos und Sophia, Göttingen, 1973, passim.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Hooker, M. D., The Son of Man in Mark, SPCK, 1967, pp. 20f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. 4Q184 and 4Q185 (Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 255–9).

⁵⁹ The seven pre-existent things include the Torah, the throne of glory, the sanctuary, the name of the Messiah and repentance (bPes. 54a; bNed 39b; Targ. Ps.Jon. Zech. 4.7); seeStrack-Billerbeck I, pp. 974f.; II, pp. 334f.

⁶⁰ See Fohrer, G. and Foerster, W., TDNT VII, particularly pp. 1012–1015.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Cf. Robinson, J. A. T., ‘Elijah, John and Jesus: an Essay in Detection’, NTS 4, 1957–1958, pp. 236–281Google Scholar; Brown, R. E., ‘Three Quotations from John the Baptist in the Gospel of John’ (1960), New Testament Essays, Chapman, 1965, pp. 138–140Google Scholar; otherwise Jeremias, , TDNT II, pp. 936f.Google Scholar

⁶² See further CiM, §19.1 and above n. 26.

⁶³ Otto's, R. suggestion that Jesus' self-understanding and expectation was influenced by or patterned on the exaltation of Enoch to be Son of Man (The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, Lutterworth, 1938, p. 237) depends on a firm pre-Christian date for the Similitudes of Enoch and otherwise is without foundationGoogle Scholar. See the more measured judgment of Lindars, B., ‘Jesus as Advocate: a Contribution to the Christology Debate’, BJRL 62, 1979–1980, pp. 490f.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ On Hebrews' Platonic character see CiM, pp. 52–4.

⁶⁵ Despite 7.3—‘neither beginning of days nor end of life’ — phrases best understood as exegesis of the silences of Gen. 14.18–20 using the rabbinic principle ‘what is not in the text, is not’ (Strack-Billerbeck III, pp. 694f).

⁶⁶ See particularly Horton, F. L., The Melchizedek Tradition, Cambridge, 1976, pp. 167–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁷ See further Grillmeier, A., Christ in Christian Tradition Vol. I: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon(451), Mowbray, ² 1975, pp. 46–53Google Scholar; Dunn, CM, §20.3.

⁶⁸ Contrast John 12.34 — ‘Who is this “Son of Man”?’

⁶⁹ According to the LXX of Dan. 7.13 (mss 88 and 967) the one like a son of man came‘as the Ancient of Days’ rather than ‘to the Ancient of Days’. Perhaps a very early scribal error (hōs for heōs) (Montgomery, J. A., Daniel, ICC, 1927, p. 304Google Scholar). But perhaps a more deliberate modification (see the discussion by Lust, J., ‘Daniel 7.13 and the Septuagint’, ETL 54, 1978, pp. 62–69Google Scholar — I owe this reference to my colleague Dr P. M. Casey), which may just reflect something of the same Jewish speculation at the end of the first century AD to which we have already referred (note that second century Thedotion translates heōs). The seer of Revelation could have known the reading (see below), but the use of the phrase ‘the Son of Man’ in the Gospels stems directly from the Aramaic and shows no knowledge of or influence from the Greek, and the Evangelists' usage is confined to reworking and developing the Jesus-tradition itself.

⁷⁰ The definite article, universal in the Gospels (‘the Son of Man’), is absent here.

⁷¹ Cf. Rowland, ‘Vision of the Risen Christ’. See also now Bauckham, R., ‘The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity’, NTS 27, 1980–1981, pp. 322–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷² Revelation is usually dated towards the end of the first century AD (see e.g. Kiimmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament, ¹⁷ 1973, SCM Press, 1975, pp. 466–469).Google Scholar

⁷³ See also the references collated in Charles, R. H., Revelation, ICC, 1920, Vol. I, pp. cxif.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See more fully CiM, §14.2.

⁷⁵ See further Wainwright, A. W., The Trinity in the New Testament, SPCK, 1962, chap. 5.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ CiM, §15.1.

⁷⁷ See the brief discussion in CiM, p. 45, with further bibliography in the notes.

⁷⁸ See CiM, pp. 165–6.

⁷⁹ CiM, pp. 164f.,241f.

⁸⁰ For the following passages see the fuller exposition in CiM, §§24.2,24.5 and 25.3.

⁸¹ Bultmann, , John, pp. 21f.Google Scholar

⁸² As Bultmann himself acknowledged (see Fuller, R. H., The New Testament in Current Study. SCM Press, 1963, p. 136 and n. 1).Google Scholar

⁸³ Miller, E. L., ‘The Christology of John 8.25’, TZ 36, 1980, pp. 237–265, suggests that 8.25 has the sense ‘I am the One at the Beginning, which is what I keep telling you’, which would forge a strong link between 1.1 and 8.58.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Cf. particularly Bühner, J. A., Der Gesandtc undsein Weg im 4. Evangelium, Tübingen, 1977Google Scholar; Schillebeeckx, E., Christ: the Christian Experience in the Modem World, SCM Press, 1980, pp. 313–322.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See further Dunn, J. D. G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, SCM Press, 1977, §64.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ I am less convinced than Moule, C. F. D., The Origin of Christology, Cambridge, 1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar, particularly chap. 2, that the incorporative inclusive categories which Paul uses to speak of believers' relationship to Christ (‘in Christ’, ‘the body of Christ’, etc.) take us beyond an Adam christology and ‘conceive of Christ as any theist conceives of God.’ (pp. 94f, 138f). Paul does after all speak of Jesus as representative man prior to his resurrection, in his life and death (Rom. 8.3; II Cor. 5.14; Gal. 3.16; Phil. 2.7f).

⁸⁷ Contrast Justin, Apol. 1.6.2, and Athenagoras, Legatio 10.5, where a readiness to draw in angelology to enrich their doctrine of God has laid them open to the charge of ‘crypto-polytheism’ (Loofs) — see the recent discussion by Schoedel, W. R., ‘A Neglected Motive for Second-Century Trinitarianism’, JTS 31, 1980, pp. 356–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁸ Cf. Hasler, V., ‘Epiphanie und Christologie in den Pastoralbriefen’, TZ 33, 1977, pp. 193–209, particularly pp. 199–201Google Scholar; Oberlinner, L., ‘Die “Epiphaneia” des Heilswillens Gottes in Christus Jesus. Zur Grundstruktur der Christologie der Pastoralbriefe’, ZNW 71, 1980, pp. 192–213, particularly pp. 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁹ In an already too lengthy paper I cannot go into the role of Spirit christology in all this. Suffice it to say that just as the assessment of Christ in terms of Sophia-Logos leads to a redefinition of Jewish monotheism in what we might call a ‘binitarian’ direction, so the recognition that Spirit christology was not simply a variant on Sophia-Logos christology created an internal tension and dynamic in earliest christology which resulted inevitably in a fully triadic formulation. See further my CiM, chap. V: also ‘Rediscovering the Spirit (2)’, forthcoming in Exp. T. 1981–82.