Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:21:44.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

M. De Jonge  and
A. S. Van Der Woude
M. De Jonge
Affiliation:
Groningen, Holland
A. S. Van Der Woude
Affiliation:
Groningen, Holland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The following article is the result of frequent conversations between the two authors about the fragments of a scroll from the 11th Cave at Qumran, recently published by A. S. van der Woude. At a later stage the fragments as well as the material for this article were discussed in a number of meetings of the Qumran seminar in the University of Groningen. The authors wish to thank the members of that seminar (and others) for stimulating comments and suggestions and hope that their article in turn will stimulate others to further research on this interesting new document.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , July 1966 , pp. 301 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 301 note 1 ‘Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI’, Oudtestamentische Studiën, XIV (Leiden, 1965), 354–73.Google Scholar

page 301 note 2 In 1. 3 should be translated as: he has proclaimed, not as: (the release) has been proclaimed. In I. 9 is to be translated by ‘judgement’ (not ‘Gerechtigkeit’). In l. 14 [] is more likely than []: cf. 1. 11: . In the same line the conjecture of the editio princeps: is uncertain. On l. 9 () compare Yadin, Y., Isr. Explor. Journal xv, 3, 1965.Google Scholar

page 301 note 3 For further comment on this passage, see below p. 306 ff.

page 301 note 4 Op. cit. pp. 360–6.Google Scholar

page 303 note 1 See l. 6.

page 303 note 2 We cannot be sure whether [] or [] is to be read.

page 304 note 1 See the passages mentioned in Strack-Billerbeck, , Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, III (München, 1926), 48–51.Google Scholar

page 304 note 2 Commonly identified with the archangel Michael, see Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II (Oxford, 1913), p. 255.Google Scholar

page 304 note 3 We owe this reference to Dr Emerton, J. A. (Oxford).Google Scholar

page 305 note 1 A number of important parallels are given in the article mentioned in note 1 on p. 301, PP. 367–73.

page 305 note 2 In his Michael (Göttingen, 1898), p. 31.Google Scholar

page 305 note 3 In his Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation, ‘Genesis’, vol. II (New York, 1955), p. 164.Google Scholar

page 305 note 4 Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 34 and Pesigta 51 a, cf. Strack-Billerbeck, , op. cit. IV, 464.Google Scholar In Targ. Neofiti I, f. 23 (Gen. xiv. 18) Melchizedek is said to serve in the high-priesthood (), cf. Fitzmyer, J. S., S. J., ‘Now this Melchizedek…’, C.B.Q. xxv (1963), 311.Google Scholar

page 305 note 5 This is, perhaps, implied in Hebrews; in v. 5, 10 and vi. 20 the expression σὺ ιερεὺς εις τὀν αιῶνα κατά τήν τάξıν Мελχıσήδεκ (Ps. cx. 4) is connected with Jesus' high priesthood. See, however, Spicq, C., L'Epître aux Hébreux, II (Paris, 1953), 119–20.Google Scholar

page 305 note 6 See Hag. 12b, Zeb. 62a, Men. 110a mentioned by Lueken, , op. cit. p. 30.Google Scholar See on the notion of a heavenly temple and heavenly cult Woude, Van der, op. cit. pp. 370 f.Google Scholar and de Jonge, M., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Assen, 1953), pp. 47–9 (in connexion with T. Levi iii).Google Scholar

page 306 note 1 van der Woude, A. S., op. cit. p. 366.Google Scholar

page 306 note 2 The MS reads (cf. Rabin, Ch., The Zadokite Documents, Oxford, 1958 2, p. 9)Google Scholar, but most scholars are of the opinion that should be corrected to .

page 307 note 1 See Allegro, J. M., J.B.L. LXXV (1956), 182 ff.Google Scholar

page 307 note 2 II, 705–35.

page 307 note 3 Op. Cit. pp. 705–7.Google Scholar

page 307 note 4 Op. Cit. pp. 712–14.Google Scholar The same applies to the rabbinic sources and the rabbis mentioned by Strack-Billerbeck, , op. cit. III, pp. 8–11.Google Scholar

page 307 note 5 See Friedrich and Billerbeck. Isa. lxi. I is connected with Isaiah or applied to the gift of the Spirit to the whole of Israel in the last days (Strack-Billerbeck, , op. cit. II, 156 (at Luke iv. 18 f.)).Google Scholar The use of in Isa. lxi. I does not seem to have been of importance. In Targ. Jon. this verse is translated as follows: , etc.

page 307 note 6 Pesikt. r. 35 (161 a) is quoted by Friedrich, , op. cit. p. 713.Google Scholar Lines 18 ff. connect in Isa.lx ii. 7 the closely with the and not with the preceding .

page 308 note 1 With the verb in the plural, as in the LXX-see van der Woude, A. S., op. cit. p. 366.Google Scholar

page 308 note 2 In their ψAΛМOί ΣOΛOМωNTOΣ, etc. (Cambridge, 1891), p. 101. See also their comment: ‘In any case the sense is obvious: the great year of Jubilee for Israel has come.’

page 308 note 3 This interpretation remains, however, uncertain. See the use of the expressions αί σάλπıγγες τής σημασιας in II Chron. xiii. 12 (LXX), αι σάλπıγγες τῶν σημασıῶν in Num. xxxi. 6 (LXX), I Macc. iv. 40; vii. 45, where alarm trumpets (blown by the priests) are referred to. The meaning of άγίων is not clear either. Does this word refer to the faithful Israelites (cf. Ps. Sol. xvii. 32) or to the angels (xvii. 43)? Viteau, J., Les Psaumes du Salomon (Paris, 1911), p. 311Google Scholar translates: ‘de la trompette du signal des fêetes’.

page 308 note 4 Translation by Billerbeck, , op. cit. p. 9Google Scholar taken over by Friedrich, , op. cit. p. 713.Google ScholarSchlatter, A., Der Evangelist Matthäus (1959 5), p. 122Google Scholar, refers to Midr. Shir-ha-Shir. Rabb. 8, 10 where R. Simeon b. Johai (±A.D. 150) uses the expression . It is doubtful, however, whether this is an implicit reference to Isa. lii. 7; in the context Lam. i. 13 and Micah v. 4 are quoted.

page 308 note 5 There seems to have been a greater variety and flexibility in the use of the word before ±A.D. 70 than after that date. See on this subject M. de Jonge, ‘The use of the word “anointed” in the time of Jesus’ (to appear shortly in Novum Testamentum).

page 309 note 1 See besides the Wörterbuch article by Friedrich mentioned in n. 2, p. 307, Chevallier, M. A., L'Esprit et le Messie daps le Bas-Judaïsme et le Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1958)Google Scholar, especially pp. 74–83 (the chapter ‘És 61/1 dans la tradition évangélique’); Bowman, J. W., ‘The Term “Gospel” in Palestinian Syrian’ in New Testament Essays (studies in memory of Manson, T. W.), ed. Higgins, A. J. B. (Manchester, 1959), pp. 54–67Google Scholar; de la Potterie, I., ‘L'Onction du Christ’, Nouv. Rev. Théol. LXXX (1958), 225–52Google Scholar; van Unnik, W. C., ‘Jesus the Christ’, N.T.S. VIII (1962), 101–16Google Scholar and Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel (Göttingen, 1963)Google Scholar, Anhang ‘Der eschatologische Prophet’ (pp. 351–404, esp. PP. 392–6).

page 309 note 2 Against once in Matthew, never in Mark and John, twenty-one times in the Pauline epistles, twice in Hebrews, three times in I Peter and twice in Revelation. The substantive εὺαγγέλıον, however, is found four times in Matthew, eight times in Mark, never in Luke and John, twice in Acts, sixty times in Paul, once in I Peter and once in Revelation. For these statistics see Morgenthaler, R., Statistik des Neukstamentlichen Wortschatzes (Zürich-Frankfurt a. M., 1958)Google Scholar, s.v., and for a commentary on these figures Friedrich, G., op. cit. pp. 714 f., 724.Google Scholar On the difference in use between verb and substantive in Mark and Luke Friedrich remarks: ‘Lk wird in diesem Fall den wortgetreueren Text der Überlieferung bieten. Er hält sich, wie auch sonst beobachtet, strenger als die anderen Evangelisten an den aramäischen Wortlaut, der sicher häufiger als enthalten hat’ (in accordance with the use in the Old Testament).

page 309 note 3 Friedrich, G., op. cit. p. 715.Google Scholar One may also compare the τυφλοί άνάβλεφıν in the beginning of Jesus' speech with the τυφλοίς άνάßλεψıν in Isa. lxi. 1 (LXX); but see Isa. xxxv.5 (LXX τὁτε άνοıχθήσονταı ὁφθαλαοί τυφλῶν).

page 309 note 4 According to the LXX, with some omissions and an addition from Isa. lviii. 6.

page 310 note 1 See de la Potterie, I., op. cit. pp. 231–3Google Scholar on the prophetic elements in this story, and op. cit. pp. 227–9 on the parallels between Jesus and Elijah, especially frequent and conspicuous in Luke. This story is placed in a particular universalistic context: Jesus is rejected by Israel and the good news is preached to the nations.

page 310 note 2 ‘Jesus the Christ’, N.T.S. VIII (1962), 101–16.Google Scholar

page 310 note 3 The actual anointing with oil has fallen into the background already in the Old Testament, see, e.g., Isa. xlv. 1, where Cyrus is called ‘the Lord's anointed’-‘anointed’ indicating a very special divine appointment without an anointing in the literal sense of the word.

page 310 note 4 Op. cit. pp. 113 ff.Google Scholar See also II Cor. i. 21 f. (Unnik, Van, op. cit. pp. 105, 114Google Scholar) ὁ δέ βεβαıῶν ήμᾶς… είς χρıστὁν καί χρίσας ήμᾶς θεὁς, ὁ καί σφραγıσάμενος ήμᾶς και δοὺς τὁν άρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεὺματος ήν ταίς καρδιαıς ήμῶν and I John ii. 20, 27.

page 310 note 5 Acts x. 38 reminds one of Luke iv. 14 (just before the Nazareth story) and the stories of healing in the beginning of the gospel (see Potterie, de la, op. cit. p. 230).Google Scholar We should also note that the healings are said to deliver those who were overpowered by the devil (πάντας τοὺς καταδυναστενομήνους ὺπὁ τοῦ δıαßὁλου), and that the first story recorded by Luke after the rejection at Nazareth concerns an exorcism (Luke iv. 31–7, ending with the question of the people at Capernaum τίς ὁ λὁγος οὺτος, ὁτı ήν ήξσυσια και δυνάσσεı τοις άκαθάρτοıς πνεὺμασıν και έξήρχονταı; v. 36). This is a different struggle against the evil powers from the one pictured in 11Q Melch, but the parallels are obvious.

page 310 note 6 See especially Chevallier, M. A., op. cit. passim.Google Scholar

page 311 note 1 This connexion is also absent in Ps. Sol. xvii (the expression χρıστὁς κυριου occurs there in v. 32), but we find it in Ps. Sol. xviii. 7 where χρıστὁς κυριου is more or less used as a technical term, see de Jonge, M., De toekomstverwachting in de Psalmen van Salomo (Leiden, 1956), p. 18 and p. 39, n. 43.Google ScholarChevallier, M. A. (op. cit. p. 80)Google Scholar considers it wrong to speak of an anointing with the Holy Spirit in Isa. lxi. i (and Isa. xi. 2), as Acts x. 38 does explicitly: ‘il (= le Massie) sera oint comme roi et en tant que tel recevra l'Esprit; ce sont deux aspects conjoint mais distincts de sa consécration.’ If our reconstruction of II Q Melch 1. 18 is right Luke in Acts x. 38 interpreted Isa. lxi. 1 in the same way as the author of II Q Melch. Moreover, Chevallier overlooks the fact that Isa. xi. 2 does not speak of anointing, and Isa. lxi. I not of kingship. See also Hahn, F., op. cit. pp. 393–5.Google Scholar

page 311 note 2 In the Gospel of the Nazarenes we find the expression… ήν τοίς προϕήταıς μετά τὁ χρıσθῆναı αὺτοὺς ήν πνεὺματı άγι ‘in prophetis quoque, postquam uncti sunt spiritu sancto…’. See Klostermann, E., Apocrypha, II, Evangelien (Kleine Texte, 8, Berlin, 1929 3), p. 8Google Scholar, n. to for the text (this author ascribes this passage to the Gospel according to the Hebrews), and Vielhauer, Ph. in Hennecke, E., Schneemelcher, W., Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 1 (Tübingen, 1958 3), 96Google Scholar and Jeremias, J., Unbekannte, Jesttsworte (Gütersloh, 1963 3), pp. 89–91Google Scholar for translation and commentary. Jeremias writes on p. 91: ‘Wir haben einen ausgesprochenen Grenzfall vor uns. Sicher 1st, daß unser Agraphon sprachlich und inhaltlich ausgesprochen palästinisches Kolorit aufweist. Dagegen ist nicht ebenso sicher zu sagen, ob as rich um eine sekundäre Ausgestaltung von Mt 18, 21 f. oder um eine selbständige Fassung dieses Wortes handelt.’

page 311 note 3 Op. cit. p. 244.Google Scholar See also p. 246: ‘l'onction du serviteur dont parlent Pierre et les premiers chrétiennes en Act. iv. 27 est secondaire par rapport a l'onction prophr tique de Lc. iv. 18 et Act. x. 38’. Cf. Hahn, F., op. cit. p. 395Google Scholar and Chevallier, M. A., op. cit. p. 80.Google Scholar

page 311 note 4 The verb χριω is used four times in connexion with Jesus. Twice it emphasizes the prophetic side of his activity (Luke iv. 18 and Acts x. 38) and twice (in Acts iv. 27 and Heb. i. 9, where Ps. xlv. 7 f. is applied to the exalted Lord, see below p. 316) it denotes his royal dignity.

page 312 note 1 Cf. Luke iv. 43; viii. I; xvi. 16 and Acts viii. 12 for the combination of and βασıλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. In Matt. iv. 23; ix. 35 and xxiv. 14 we find the expression τὁ εὺαγγέλıον τῆς βασıλείας.

page 312 note 2 The other allusions in the New Testament to Isa. lii. 7 and related texts need not detain us very long. In Rom. x. 15 the , cf. Isa. lii. 7 and Nahum ii. 7 (note the plural) refers to the preachers of the Gospel. Eph. ii. 17 connects the εὺηγγεισατο ειρήνην with the addition ὺμίν τοίς μακράν και ειρήνην τοίς έγγὺς (cf. Isa. lvii. 19) with Jesus Christ. Those who put on the divine armour will have to be ὺποδησάμενοı τσὺς ήν ήτοıμασιαç τοῦ εὺαγγελιου τῆς ειρήνης (Eph. vi. 15). Finally, the τοὺτο δέ έστν τὁ ρῆμα τὁ εὺαγγελıσθέν εις ὺμᾶν in I Pet. i. 25 obviously goes back to the ὁμενος in Isa. xl. 9, as Isa. xl. 6, 8 are quoted in the preceding v. 24. On none of these New Testament passages, however, the 11Q Melch fragment sheds any new light, as far as we can see.

page 312 note 3 The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1955 3), p. 271.Google Scholar

page 312 note 4 On ήγιασεν see among others Braun, F. M., Jean le Théologien, II (Paris, 1964), 82 f.Google Scholar

page 313 note 1 Strack-Billerbeck, , op. cit. II, p. 543.Google Scholar

page 313 note 2 ‘John's Citation of Psalm lxxxii’, N.T.S. XI (1965), 158–62.Google Scholar

page 313 note 3 Op. cit. p. 161.Google Scholar

page 313 note 4 ‘Some New Testament Notes. I. The Interpretation of Psalm lxxxii in John x’, J.T.S. N.S. XI (1960), 329–32 (quotation from p. 332).Google Scholar

page 314 note 1 See i. 13; viii. 1; x. 12 f.; xii. 2.

page 314 note 2 See also the κεκληρονὁμηκεν ὁνομα in v. 4 and the τοὺς μέλλοντας κληρονομείν σωτηρίαν in v. 14.

page 314 note 3 On this question see especially Kistemaker, S., The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam, 1961)Google Scholar and Thomas, K. J., ‘The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews’, N.T.S. XI 4 (1965), 303–25.Google Scholar

page 315 note 1 For a detailed discussion see Kistemaker, S. and Thomas, K. J. (see preceding note) and de Waard, J., A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament (Leiden, 1965), pp. 13–16Google Scholar, and Meyer, Rudolf, ‘Die Bedeutung von Deuteronomium 32, 8 f. 43 (4Q) für die Auslegung des Moseliedes’, in Verbannung und Heimkehr (Festschrift für W. Rudolph), ed. Kuschke, A. (Tübingen, 1961), pp. 197–209.Google Scholar

page 315 note 2 Cf. Dan. iii. 25 (LXX) and Theod. (v. 92).

page 315 note 3 Or by the version of Deut. xxxii used in the liturgy. The v. 43 (printed as Ode no. 2 in Rahlfs, Septuaginta, n (Stuttgart), 166–9) reads ; see Kistemaker, S., op. cit. pp. 20–3Google Scholar and Thomas, , op. cit. p. 304.Google Scholar Whatever may be the solution of the text-critical problem, it is clear that the άγγελοı in Heb. i. 6 is essential to the argument of its author.

page 315 note 4 See Phil. ii. 9: Christ Jesus receives τὁ ὁνομα τὁ ὺπήρ πᾶν ονομα, cf. Eph. i. 21 (in the context Ps. cx. 1 and Ps. viii. 7 are referred to!). See also I Pet. iii. 22.

page 315 note 5 See v. 10; vi. 20; vii. 11, 15, 17, 21, 24, 28. Whereas Ps. cx. 1 is quoted also in other New Testament writings, the use of Ps. cx. 4 is confined to Hebrews.

page 315 note 6 In a quotation from Ps. civ. 4. The connexion with v. 14 makes it probable that the author of Hebrews interpreted πνεὺματα as ‘spirits’ as well as ‘winds’.

page 315 note 7 See, e.g., Strack-Billerbeck, , op. cit. in, 680.Google Scholar

page 315 note 8 For the last notion see Heb. xii. 22–4 and on the whole Spicq, C., L'Épître aux Hébreux, 11, Commentaire (Paris, 1953)Google Scholar, Excursus 1 ‘Les Anges dans l'Épître aux Hébreux’, pp. 50–61. On Heb. xii. 18–24 and its Qumran parallels see Gärtner, B., The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 88–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 316 note 1 See, e.g., Kraus, H. J., Psalmen, i (Neukirchen, 1960), 334 f.Google Scholar

page 316 note 2 On the έχρıσέν σε in this verse, see p. 311 above.

page 316 note 3 Vv. 10–12 use the κὺρıος title for the Son (cf. ii. 3) and glorify him as mediator at the creation by applying Ps. cii. 26–8 to him (cf. i. 2 and ii. 10).

page 316 note 4 Comp. Acts vii. 53 and Gal. iii. 19.

page 316 note 5 They are called ‘sons’ (v. 10) and ‘my brothers’ (v. 12, cf. v. 17!).

page 316 note 6 On Satan as angel of death see Strack-Billerbeck, , op. cit. i, 144–9Google Scholar and III, 683. For parallels see, e.g., Spicq, C., op. cit. p. 43Google Scholar; Michel, O., Der Brief an die Hebräer (Göttingen, 1960 11), pp. 85 f.Google Scholar; Windisch, H., Der Hebräerbrief (Tübingen, 1931 2), p. 23Google Scholar and Moffatt, J., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh, 1924), pp. 34–5.Google Scholar See especially Ass Mos x. 1: ‘et tunc parebit regnum illius in omni creatura illius et tunc zabulus (= diabolus) finem habebit et tristitiam (leg. tristitia) cum eo adducetur (leg. abducetur)’; see p. 306 above and 1Q H iii. 28 f.

page 316 note 7 See p. 304 above.

page 317 note 1 See p. 306 above.

page 317 note 2 Op. cit. pp. 64–5.Google Scholar

page 317 note 3 See, e.g., Strack-Billerbeck, , op. cit. III, 2–4.Google ScholarMichel, O., op. cit. pp. 94–6Google Scholar; cf. also C. Spicq, loc. cit.

page 317 note 4 In his Hebräer, Essener, Christen (Leiden, 1958), pp. 76–9.Google Scholar

page 317 note 5 Very ingenious, but sometimes rather far-fetched are Kosmala's further comments on the connexions between Heb. iii. 1, the Book of Malachi and the views of the Qumran community.

page 317 note 6 In his survey of recent research on Hebrews, ‘Der Hebräerbrief 1938–1963’, Theol. Rundschau, xxx (1964), 138–236Google Scholar, Erich Grässer discusses the studies on the relations between Hebrews and the Qumran documents on pp. 171–7. See also Braun, H., ‘Qumran und das Neue Testament. Ein Bericht über 10 Jahre Forschung (1950–1959), Hebräer’, Theol. Rundschau, xxx (1964), 1–38.Google Scholar

page 317 note 7 This is especially emphasized by Spicq, C., ‘L'Épître aux Hébreux, Apollos, Jean-Baptiste, les Hellénistes et Qumran’, Rev. de Qumran, I, 3 (1959), 365–90, esp. pp. 377 f.Google Scholar He finds here an ‘argumentation antithétique’ against Qumran ideas on the part of Hebrews.

page 318 note 1 So rightly Spicq, C., Commentaire, p. 52Google Scholar and Bruce, F. F., ‘“To the Hebrews” or “To the Essenes”’, N.T.S. ix (1963), pp. 217–32, esp. pp. 218 f.Google Scholar

page 318 note 2 See Grässer, , op. cit. pp. 177–86Google Scholar (and passim), who writes on p. 176: ‘Denn die wirkliche Bedeutung der neuen Texte für die Auslegung unseres Briefes liegt nicht in gelegentlich konstatierbaren Begriffs-und Vorstellungsanalogien, sondern in dem durch die neuen Funde erbrachten Beweis für ein synkretistisches Judentum in vorchristlicher Zeit. Aus der Beobachtung, daß die Parallelität von Begriffen und Vorstellungen zu den n.t.lichen Schriften am größten ist, die am meisten “gnostisch” sind (also Eph, Kol, I Petr, Job, Hb), ergibt sich die logische Konsequenz, daß die Qumrantexte selber an das religionsgeschichtliche Hinterland dieser Schriften, also an die Gnosis, angeschlossen sind.’ This seems to go much too far, though Grässer's following warning against the use of the alternative ‘hellenistic-palestinian’ is apposite.

page 318 note 3 On the following see, besides the commentaries and general studies mentioned above: Westcott, B. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1892 2, repr. W. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids)Google Scholar; Riggenbach, E., Der Brief an die Hebräer (Leipzig-Erlangen, 1922 3)Google Scholar; Robinson, T. H., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1933)Google Scholar; Grosheide, F. W., De Brief aan de Hebreeën en de Brief aan Jakobus (Kampen, 1955 2)Google Scholar; Michel, O., Th.W.z.N.T. IV, 573–5Google Scholar (art. Мελχıσέδεκ); Spicq, C., Commentaire, Exc. v ‘Melchisédech et Jésus’, pp. 203–14Google Scholar; Wuttke, G., Melchisedeck der Priesterkönig von Salem, B.Z.N.W. v (Giessen, 1927)Google Scholar; Käsemann, E., Das wandernde Gottesvolk (Göttingen, 1938)Google Scholar; Schille, G., ‘Erwägungen zur Hohepriesterlehre des Hebräerbriefes’, Z.N.W. LXIV (1955), 81–109Google Scholar; Del Medico, H. E., ‘Melchisédech’, Z.A.W. LXIX (1957), 160–70Google Scholar; Friedrich, G., ‘Das Lied vom Hohenpriester im Zusammenhang von Hebr. 4, 4–5, 10’, Theol. Zeitschrift (Basel), xviii (1962), 95–115Google Scholar; Le Déaut, E., ‘Le titre de Summus Sacerdos donné à Melchisédech est-il d'origine juive?’, Rech. Sc. Rel. L (1962), 222–9Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘Now this Melchizedek… (Heb. 7, I)’, C.B.Q. xxv (1963), 305–21Google Scholar; Bamberg, C., ‘Melchisedech’, Erbe und Auftrag, Benediktinische Monatschrift, XL (1964), 5–21Google Scholar; Sowers, S. G., The Hermeneutics of Philo und Hebrews (diss. Basel, Zürich, 1965), 119–26.Google Scholar The studies by Rusche, H., ‘Die Gestalt des Melchisedek’, Münch. Th. St. vi (1955), 230–52Google Scholar, and Zimmermann, H., Die Hohepriester-Christologie des Hebräerbriefes (Paderborn, 1964)Google Scholar could not be consulted.

page 318 note 4 E. Käsemann supposes that the conception of Jesus as high-priest was already found in the ὁμολογια in the liturgy of the church (‘Gemeindeliturgie’, op. cit. pp. 107 f.). G. Schille thinks that both in Heb. v and in Heb. vii. 1–3 ancient Christian hymns were used. G. Friedrich gives an analysis of Heb. iv. 14–V. 10; he agrees with Schille as to the principle but gives a different reconstruction. See also Grasser, , op. cit. p. 216.Google Scholar Various studies on the problem of a ‘high-priest-christology’ in the New Testament are discussed by Grässer, , op. cit. pp. 217–20.Google Scholar Besides Friedrich, G., ‘Beobachtungen zur messianischen Hohepriestererwartung in den Synoptikern’, Z.T.K. LIII (1956), 265–311Google Scholar one should consult Gnilka, J.‘Die Erwartung des messianischen Hohepriesters in den Schriften von Qumran und im Neuen Testament’, R.d.Q. VII (ii, 3; 1960), 395–426Google Scholar with the conclusion on p. 426; ‘Daß sich Jesus als messianischer Hohepriester wußte, ließ sich nicht nachweisen. Im Johannesevangelium meldet sich das Interesse an, priesterliche Züge in das Christusbild einzutragen. Das gleiche Anliegen ist in der Apokalypse feststellbar. Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes baut diese Sicht schließlich zu seiner Hohenpriesterlehre aus….’ See also F. Hahn in his book (p. 240) mentioned in note 1, p. 309.

page 319 note 1 For other interpretations of the names, see, e.g., Spicq, , Comm. pp. 182 f. and p. 207.Google Scholar Though the author does not say so explicitly, he clearly mentions δıκαıοσὺνη and ειρήνη because they are the great eschatological gifts of God (for Old Testament parallels, see Spicq, , Comm. p. 183Google Scholar, cf. also Rom. xiv. 17). Many points in the Genesis story are not worked out; later Christian authors did not fail to notice the parallel between wine and bread in Gen. xiv and the Eucharist, see Spicq, , Comm. p. 208Google Scholar, n. 2 and Fitzmyer, , op. cit. p. 320, n. 61.Google Scholar

page 319 note 2 Εις τὁ δıηνεκές indicates continuity without interruption. There does not seem to be any difference in meaning from εις τὁν αιῶνα. The author uses the same expression in x. 1, 12 and 14.

page 320 note 1 Άπαράßατος is hapax legomenon in the Bible. The word means ‘unalterable’, ‘inviolable’; ancient and modern commentators assume here the special meaning of μή παραβαινουσαν εις άλλον (see Spicq, , Comm. p. 197Google Scholar, and Bauer, W., Wörterbuch, s.v., who prefers ‘unalterable’).Google Scholar

page 320 note 2 On these words see the commentaries, which rightly emphasize that the Levitical priests had to be descendants of Aaron and should be born from a Jewish mother: cf. also ὁ μή γενεαλογοὺμενος in v.6.

page 321 note 1 Op. cit. III, 694.Google Scholar

page 321 note 2 Op. cit. p. 186.Google Scholar

page 321 note 3 See, e.g., Westcott, Spicq, Grosheide, Fitzmyer.

page 321 note 4 Άφωμοıωμένος should be taken as passive, the perfect denoting the ‘lasting result’ of the action (cf. έχων, μένεı in the same vetse).Άφομοıὁω may mean ‘to compare’ but here it has the meaning: ‘to make like’, implying that the thing or the person which is made like the other is secondary and inferior to the first.

page 321 note 2 There is, therefore, no danger that Melchizedek will overshadow Jesus Christ, and it is wrong to say that the author makes use of Melchizedek to prove the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood but lets him disappear afterwards (against Windisch, H., op. cit. p. 61).Google Scholar

page 321 note 6 The meaning of κατά τήν τάξıν Мελχıσέδεκ as translation of the obscure in Ps. cx is not quite clear. Hebrews seems to take τάξıς in the meaning of ‘arrangement, regulation’ (see the κατά τήν τάξıν Мελχıσέδεκ over against κατά τήν τάξıν Άαρὡν and the emphasis on νὁμου μετάθεσıς in v. 12 (cf. vv. 16, 20 f., 28). W. Bauer, Wörterbuch, s.v. translates, however, ‘die Beschaffenheit, der Zustand’. According to him ‘nach der Beschaffenheit’ means ‘ganz wie’. In that case the κατά τήν ὁμοıὁτητα of v. 15 gives an explanation of the κατά τήν τάξıν used everywhere else. See also Spicq, , Comm. p. 111Google Scholar and Moffatt, , op. cit. p. 64.Google Scholar

page 322 note 1 On groups within the early Church which missed this point and glorified Melchizedek above Jesus, see below, pp. 324–7.

page 322 note 2 Op. cit. p. 215Google Scholar, cf. also Hahn, F., Die christologischen Hoheitstitel (Göttingen, 1964 2), pp. 232 f.Google Scholar, and the authors mentioned by Grässer and Hahn.

page 322 note 3 See Kosmala, H., op. cit. pp. 76–96Google Scholar and the surveys of recent opinion in Grässer, , op. cit. p. 175 and pp. 215–19Google Scholar; Hahn, F., loc. cit.Google Scholar; and Braun, H., op. cit. pp. 18–21Google Scholar, with the now completely antiquated statement: ‘Melchisedek ist für die Qumrangemeinde offenbar völlig uninteressant gewesen … Hätte Qumran sich mit Melchisedek beschäftigt, so wäre der Priesterkönig höchstwahrscheinlich genau so dem levitischen Priestertum untergeordnet worden, wie dies bei den Rabbinen geschah…’ (p. 20). See also the negative conclusion at this point in J. Coppens, , op. cit. pp. 265–7.Google Scholar

page 322 note 4 Unfortunately we do not (yet?) have a Qumran text which elucidates the relationship between the heavenly Melchizedek and the high-priest-to-come on earth. We may, perhaps, point to IQ Sb iv. 25 ff., where a human priestly figure is said to be (or to become?) ‘like an angel of the Presence in the holy dwelling’, and to 1 Q M where the high-priest is commander in the final battle in which the angels take part under the leadership of Michael. We may, perhaps, also point to Test. Levi ii. 10; iii. 2 f., 5–7 where Levi is introduced into his priesthood and priestly angels are mentioned besides angels of vengeance. In Test. Levi v the accompanying angel, after having shown to Levi the heavenly temple, gives him a sword to execute God's vengeance on Sichem. The accompanying angel is called ὁ άγγελος ὁ παραıτοὺμενος τὁ γένος Ίσραήλ (v. 6). This subject requires further study, because of the many problems connected with Test. xii Patr. in general and Test. Levi in particular.

page 323 note 1 On this subject see: Jérôme, F. J., Das geschichtliche Melchisedechbild und seine Bedeutung im Hebräerbriefe (Strassburg, 1917)Google Scholar; Wuttke, G., ‘Melchisedech der Priesterkönig von Salem’, B.Z.N.W. v (Giessen, 1927)Google Scholar; Bardy, G., ‘Melchisédech dans la tradition patristique’, R.B. xxxv (1926), 496–509Google Scholar and xxxvi (1927), 25–45; Stork, H., ‘Die sogenannten Melchisedekianer’, F.z.G.d.Nt.K. VIII, 2 (Leipzig, 1928)Google Scholar; Simon, M., ‘Melchisédech dans la polemique entre Juifs et Chrétiens et dans la légende’, R.H.P.R. (1937), pp. 58–93Google Scholar (reprinted in Recherches d'Histoire Judéo-Chrétienne, Paris-La Haye (1962), pp. 101–26).Google Scholar

page 323 note 2 See, however, Baehrens, W., ‘Überlieferung und Textgeschichte der lateinisch erhaltenen Origeneshomilien zum Alten Testament’, T.U. 42, I (Leipzig, 1916), pp. 6–8Google Scholar who (on p. 7) gives a fragment of a homily which is found in the Catenae-MS Barber. Graec. vi. 8 (579) f. 128 r. Baehrens thinks that this fragment may give part of the homily mentioned in Jerome's ep. 73; in any case this homily is the work of Origen. For our purpose the following words are of importance: (op. cit. p. 6). Baehrens did not notice that this fragment shows many points of agreement with the argumentation of Cyril of Alexandria in his Glaphyrorum in Genesim lib. 11, Migne, P.G. LXIX, 104c–105AB. Also H. Stork and G. Bardy, who cite Baehrens's book, do not seem to have observed this agreement which points to dependence one way or the other. This question requires further study.

page 323 note 3 See Saint Jérôme, , Lettres, iv, ed. Labourt, J. (Paris, Coll. Budé, 1954), pp. 19–26.Google Scholar

page 323 note 4 Labourt, J., op. cit. (in note on p. 164)Google Scholar, is of the opinion that this anonymous work was Ps.-Augustine, Liber quaestionum Veteris et Novi Testamenti (quaestio 109 concerning Melchizedek).

page 324 note 1 Ed. Wendland, P., Hippolytus' Werke, III, G.C.S. xxvi (Leipzig, 1916).Google Scholar

page 324 note 2 Ed. Kroymann, A., C.S.E.L. XLVII (Vindobonae/Lipsiae, 1906).Google Scholar

page 324 note 3 Ed. Marx, F., C.S.E.L. xxxviii (Pragae/Vindobonae/Lipsiae, 1898).Google Scholar

page 324 note 4 Ed. Holl, K., Epiphanius, Ancoratus und Panarion, II, G.C.S. xxxi (Leipzig, 1922).Google Scholar

page 324 note 5 See, e.g., Altaner, B., Patrologie (Basel/Wien, 1960 6, bearbeitet von Alfr. Stuiber), p. 147Google Scholar; Stork, H., op. cit. p. 2Google Scholar and Nautin, P., Hippolyte, Contre les hérésies (Paris, 1949).Google Scholar

page 324 note 6 Hippolytus, , Elenchos VII, 35.Google Scholar

page 324 note 7 Hippolytus, , Elenchos VII, 36.Google Scholar

page 324 note 8 Adv. omn. haer. 8.Google Scholar

page 324 note 9 See his expression: ‘…dicentes virtutem dei magnam esse (cf. Simon Magus in Acts viii. 10 οὺτὁς έστıν ή δὺναμıς τοῦ θεοῦ ή καλουμένη μεγάλη). Without any explication he adds: ‘et nomina quaedam diversa hominum adserunt’ (see Stork, H., op. cit. p. 29).Google Scholar

page 325 note 1 See A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. Lampe, G. W. H. (Oxford, 1961 ff.), pp. 390–1.Google Scholar

page 325 note 2 Haer. 55, I, 5: πλάττουσı δέ έαυτοίς και και βιβλουέπıπλάστους, έαυτοὺς άπατῶντες.

page 325 note 3 See Stork, H., op. cit. pp. 28 f.Google Scholar

page 325 note 4 Haer. 55, 8, 1–5.Google Scholar

page 325 note 5 Christ is therefore relegated to a person elected by God to bring people back to the right way έξ οὺπερ ὁ άπὁστολος άποσταλεις (alluding to Heb. iii. I ?) άπεκάλυϕεν ήψίν, δτί μέτιν ὁ Мελχıσέδεκ και ιερεὺς μένεı εις τὁν αιῶνα. With the statement recorded in the text compare the remarks on the Melchizedekians by Theodore bar-Khonai in his Liber Scholiorum xi (edited by Pognon, H. in his Inscriptions Mandaïtes des coupes de Khouabir, Paris, 1898, text on p. 122, transl. on p. 177)Google Scholar: ‘They say that Melchizedek is a great force and not a mere man. And in his name as in that of the Messiah they teach and do everything.’ (Reference kindly given by Dr H. J. W. Drijvers.)

page 325 note 6 Haer. 55, 1, 7.Google Scholar

page 325 note 7 Glaphyra in Genesim, Migne, P.G. Lxix; see also note 2, p. 323 above.

page 325 note 8 Op. cit. 84D.Google Scholar

page 325 note 9 Op. cit. 101c, cf. also 97C and 104c.Google Scholar

page 326 note 1 Op. cit. p. 30.Google Scholar Two homilies of Cyril which are preserved in Ethiopic (see Euringer, S., ‘Übersetzungen der Homilien des Cyrillus von Alexandrien, des Severus von Synnada und des Theodotus von Ancyra in Dillmanns “Chrestomathia Aethiopica”’, Orientalia, N.S. XII (1943), 113–34, espec. pp. 113–27)Google Scholar do not give much new information. See, however, op. cit. p. 120 where Cyril quotes Ps. ciii. 20 f. as argument against those who equate Melchizedek and the Holy Spirit and remarks: ‘Jetzt aber haben sie den Herrn…von seinem göttlichen Throne abgesetzt und zu den Engeln versetzt.’ For the opinions of other Fathers see the books mentioned in n. I, p. 323 above.

page 326 note 2 Ed. Koetschau, P., Origenes' Werke, II, G.C.S. (Leipzig, 1899).Google Scholar See Werner, M., Die Entstehung des christlichen Dogmas (Bern-Leipzig, 1941), p. 340, n. 117Google Scholar in a chapter called ‘Die Nachwirkung der Auffassung des Christus als Engelwesen’. The problem of the ‘Angel-christology’ in the early Church cannot be discussed here.

page 326 note 3 On Pistis Sophia see the studies by Jerôme and Wuttke and Bardy, G., op. cit. pp. 500 f.Google Scholar See also Schmidt, C., Till, W., Kopiisch-gnostische Schriften, G.C.S. XLV (Berlin, 1959 3), Register, s.v. Melchizedek, p. 413.Google Scholar

page 326 note 4 Text in Völker, W., Quellen zur Geschichte der christlichen Gnosis (Tübingen, 1932), p. 126.Google Scholar On the Jewish background of this passage, see Lueken, , op. cit. pp. 96 f.Google Scholar