‘Die Messianität Jesu bei Paulus’, Studia Poulin in honorem Johannis de Zwaan (Haarlem: Erven F. Bohn, 1953) 83–95; a translated and redacted version ‘The Messiahship of Jesus in Paul’ is found in Dahl, N. A., The crucified Messiah and other Essays (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974) 37–47.
 Christos Kyrios Gottessohn (AThANT 44; Zürich: Zwingli, 1963) §§2–14, 31–41, 60–5. See also Heugel, M., ‘Erwägungen zum Sprachgebrauch von χριιτÓς bei Paulus und in der “vorpaulinischen” Überlieferung’, Paul and Paulinism. Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett (London: SPCK, 1982) 135–58. After listing the most important literature on the subject (p. 149 n. 1) Hengel remarks: ‘Grundlegend sind nach wie vor die Untersuchungen von Dahl und Kramer.’
 So M. Hengel, ‘Erwägungen’, 135.
 See Kramer, W., Christos, §65; on Rom 16. 18 see M. Heugel, ‘Erwägungen’, 139 (and n. 36).
 Kramer, W., Christos, §§61–4.
 ‘The Messiahship of Jesus’, 37.
 See Grundmann, W., TWNT 9 (1973) 535 n. 326 and Berger, K., ‘Zur traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund christologischer Hoheitstitel’, NTS 17 (1970–1971) 391–425, cf. 391–2. Berger quali-fies ‘Christ’ and ‘Peter’ as ‘eschatologische Eigennamen’.
 See Grundmann, W., TWNT 9 (1973) 535 and M. Heel, ‘Erwägungen’, 139.
 N. A. Dahl, ‘The Messiahship of Jesus’, 40.
 N. A. Dahl, ‘The Messiahship of Jesus’, 40 and n. 11 and 12, detects ‘Messianic connotations’ in Rom 15. 7; 1 Cor 1. 23; 10. 4; 15. 22; 2 Cor 5. 10; 11. 2–3; Gal 3. 16; Phil 1. 15, 17 and 3. 7. He adds ‘But in no case in Paul can Christos be translated with Messiah’. Cf. Kramer, W., Christos, §62 and M. Hengel, ‘Erwägungen’, 138. See also Rom 1. 3–4 where Paul, quoting an ancient for-mula, mentions Jesus' descent from David.
 Cf. 1 Cor 1. 13, 17–18; 2. 2, 8; 2 Cor 13. 4; Gal 3. 1; 6. 12, 14; Phil 2. 8; 3. 18. The emphasis on the crucifixion is typically Pauline. Paul's personal involvement is rightly emphasized by M. Hengel, ‘Erwägungen’,142. He also stresses that the communities to whom Paul wrote his letters must have had many Christians of Jewish descent and ‘Godfearers’ in their midst. In Pauline circles the original meaning of χριιóς and its eschatological connotations must have remained influential during the progressive ‘christianization’ of the designation.
 See Christos, §§1–8.
 See Rom 5. 6, 8;14. 15; (1 Cor 8. 11); 2 Cor 5. 14–15; 1 Thess 5. 9–10. Cf. 1 Cor 1. 13;Gal 2. 21; 3.13.
 See his important article ‘Christologie and neutestamentliche Chronologie’, Neues Testament and Geschichte, Fs. O. Cullmann (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1972) 43–67. Hengel emphasizes the role of Hellenistic-Jewish Christians in and outside Jerusalem. See e.g. also his ‘Zwischen Jesus and Paulus’, ZThK 72 (1975) 151–206 and his ‘Der stellvertretende Sühnetod Jesu. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des urchristlichen Kerygmas’, Intern. kath. Zeitschrift ‘Communio’ 9 (1980) 1–25, 135–47 and (in a fuller form) The Atonement. The Origin of the Doctrine in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981). Particularly, the origin of 1 Cor 15. 3–5 in Hellenistic or Palestinian Jewish circles has been a matter of much debate. See the survey in Kloppenberg, John ‘An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula 1 Cor 15:3b–5 in Light of some Recent Literature’, CBQ 40 (1978) 351–67 who arrives at the conclusion that the formula came from the Palestinian Church, but took final shape in a Jewish-Hellenistic milieu (p. 357). It may be doubted whether the evidence allows a clear conclusion.
 See, e.g. Grundmann, W., TWNT 9 (1973) 485 and Moule's, C. F. D. remark: ‘in secular Greek, christos is applied to ointment, never, it seems, to the one anointed: it means ‘for external application’ or ‘externally applied as against something that is drunk and used internally’, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: CUP, 1977) 32 n. 37.
 See esp. verse 13 with formulations which presuppose that ‘Christ died for you’, that baptism is a baptism εις χριιτóν and that (those who belong to) Christ cannot be divided.
 See esp. verses 12–13; cf. 1 Cor 10. 1–5.
 Rom 6. 1–11, cf. also Col 2. 12–13; 3.1–4. See also the corporate language in Rom 8. 9–11; 2 Cor 5. 14–15 and cf. 2 Tim 2. 11–12.
 On this see e.g. Betz, H. D., Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 181–5.
 In chapter 5 ‘Ritual’ of his The First Urban Christians (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1983) W. A. Meeks has rightly emphasized that ‘ritual communicates the fundamental beliefs and values of a society or a group’ and that ‘ritual did not merely encode ideas that could be expressed otherwise, rather it createdthe essential categories of human thought’ (p. 141). On baptism we pp. 150–7.
 In his The Origin of Christology C. F. D. Moule devotes a long chapter to ‘The Corporate Christ’ (51–96). See also Kramer, W., Christos, §26 on èν χριιτῷ.
 Cf. 1 Cor 1. 12; 3. 23; 15. 23; 2 Cor 10. 7; Gal 3. 29; 5. 24 and Mark 9. 41. See also Kramer, W., Christos §33 ‘“Christos” in Bezeichnungen des Einzelnen and der Gemeinde’.
 χριιτιανóς is also used in Acts 26. 28; 1 Pet 4. 16. See the convenient survey of early evidence by Schneider, G., Art.χριιτιανóς in EWNT 3 (1983) 1145–7. Schneider says: ‘Der Name setzt voraus, dass man im Christus-Bekenntnis das Characteristikum der Jesusanhänger erkannte’ (1146). Acts connects the origin of the term with the origin of the first important community of followers of Jesus from the Jews and Gentiles. Because we do not have any early mention of the term we are not in a position to say with certainty whether its information rests on facts. The scarcity of the term in the writings of the NT will point to the fact that it was a name used by outsiders rather than by the ‘Christians’ themselves. But these outsiders must have used some designation as soon as the ‘Jesus-group’ was no longer in some way connected with the local synagogue - and in view of the early prominence of the designation χριιτιóςin the group's preaching and teaching the term ‘Christian’ may be early also.
 Originally published in German ‘Der gekreuzigte Messias’ in Ristow, H. and Matthiae, K. (ed) Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1960) 149–69. See now The Crucified Messiah and other Essays, 10–36.
 ‘The Crucified Messiah’, 34.
 ‘The Crucified Messiah’, 32.
 All these quotations from ‘The Crucified Messiah’, 33.
 ‘ ‘The Crucified Messiah’, 32.
 See my ‘The use of O ΧπΙΣτΟΣ’ (listed in n. 35 below), 189: ‘There is no reason to doubt that Jesus was crucified and that he was sentenced to death because the Romans regarded him as a dangerous political rebel. But we cannot take for granted that the actual accusation ‘King of the Jews’ was used at the trial before the Roman governor’.
 See e.g. Pesch's, R. picture of Mark in his Das Markus-evangelium I–II (Freiburg-Basel-Wien: Herder, 1976–7). See esp. his essay on ‘Die vormarkinische Passionsgeschichte’ in II, 1–27 and the criticism it provoked, we e.g., that of Neirynck, F. in three articles now brought together in his Evangelica (BEThL 60, Leuven: Peeters/Leuven UP, 1982) 493–564 (on the passion story we 527–46).
For a survey of recent studies on the relation between tradition and redaction in the Markan passion narrative, we Matera, Frank J., The Kingship of Jesus. Composition and Theology in Mark 15 (SBL DissSer 66; Chico: Scholars, 1982) 1–5. Matera himself emphasizes the importance of Mark's redaction. ‘… we cannot exclude that Mark had some kind of passion tradition before him, but it does appear that the present form of the passion narrative, as we find it in the second gospel, is very much the result of Mark's redactional activity…. Mark was constrained by the logic of the events (hearing, crucifixion, death, burial), but within that logic of events he effected an arrange-ment of material which reflected more than an historical report’ (p. 60).
 For a judicious assessment of the achievements of the ‘Formgeschichte’ and some remarks on the relation between ‘synchronic’ and ‘diachronic’ reading of a text, see Hahn's, F. concluding essay ‘Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. Voraussetzungen, Ausbau und Tragweite’ in Hahn, F. (ed), Zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Wege der Forschung 81; Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft, 1985) 427–77.
 De Toekomstverwachting in de Psalmen van Salom (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965); ‘The Use of the Word “Anointed” in the Time of Jesus’, NT 8 (1966) 132–48; ‘The Role of Intermediaries in God's Final Intervention in the Future according to the Qumran Scrolls’ in Michel, O. ed., Studies on the Jewish Background of the New Testament (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1969) 44–63; (together with Woude, A. S. van der) ‘11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament’ NTS 12 (1965–1966), 301–26 and ‘Messianische Vorstellungen im Spätjudentum’, TWNT 9 (1973) 500–18, esp. pp. 502–8 and 511–2; ‘Josephus und die Zukunftserwartungen seines Vols’, Josephus-Studien. Fs. O. Michel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1974) 205–19; ‘Jewish Expectations about the “Messiah” according to the Fourth Gospel’, NTS 19 (1972–1973) 246–70; ‘The use of Ο ΧΠΙΣτΟΣ in the Passion Narratives’, in Dupont, J. ed., Jésus aux origines de la christologie (BEThL 40; Gembloux/Leuven: J. Duculot/Leuven UP, 1975) 169–92; ‘The use of the expression ò χπιιτóς in the Apocalypse of John’ in Lambrecht, J. ed., L 'Apocalypse johannique et l'Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament (BEThL 53; Gembloux/Leuven: J. Duculot/Leuven UP, 1980) 267–81 and ‘Two Messiahs in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs?’ (forthcoming).
 See Charlesworth, J. H., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament (SNTS Mon. Ser. 54; Cambridge: CUP, 1985) 111–9.
 I take up here a number of points discussed in my ‘The Use Ο ΧΠΙΣτΟΣ of in the Passion Narratives’ (mentioned in n. 35), esp. pp. 173–82. For an interesting and new attempt to describe and analyse Mark's christology see Kingsbury, J. D., The Chrsstology of Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). He sets himself the task ‘not to read the gospel in the light of a reconstruction of pre-markan traditions or of the alleged heresy of the Markan Church, but to follow the contours of Mark's story’ (p. 45). He consistently argues on the level of the overall story which he describes as the gradual unfolding of the secret of Jesus' identity. Kingsbury admits the usefulness of a tradition-critical approach; he rightly emphasizes: ‘The art of approaching a document with such a tradition-critical scheme, however, consists in not permitting the scheme to predetermine the message of the document’ (p. 43). Scholars will do well to go all the way with him, before asking again what christology (or christologies) Mark presupposed in early Christianity and how these christologies and his own relate to Jewish notions about the Messiah, Son of God etc.
 This is true, whether this verse serves as the title of the gospel, or simply introduces its con-tent. See the discussion of the problem in Pesch, R., Das Markus-evangelium I, 74–7. The longer text, with υìοū θεοū, if not original, shows a clear insight into the christological emphasis of the gospel.
 See the studies of Dahl and Kramer mentioned in notes 1 and 2 above.
 See section 1.1.3. above.
 The addition τòν Χπιιτòν α;τòν εῷναι in 1. 34 in some MSS is clearly influenced by Luke 4. 41.
 See also 4.1, 26, 30 (in the chapter on the parables); 9. 47; 10. 14, 15, 23–25 (on entry into the Kingdom of God cf. 12. 34; 15. 43); 9. 1 (the Kingdom of God ‘in power’, cf. 14. 25).
 See 1. 7–8, 14–15; 8. 27–29 (and 6. 14–16); 9. 11–13 (Elijah has come as John the Baptist); 11. 27–33.
 This is rightly emphasized by Kingsbury, J. D., Christology, 60–8. Jesus is the beloved i.e. the unique Son of God (cf. 9. 7; 12. 6). There is no direct link with the use of χπιιτóς in 1.1. The close connection between ‘Son of God’ and χπιιτóς ‘Son of David’ only becomes evident as Mark's story progresses. ‘Son of God’ and χπιιτóς are used in connection with kings from the house of David in texts which have influenced the expectation of a future ideal king (for ‘Son of God’ see 2 Sam 7. 14; Ps 2. 7; 89. 27–28). See Matera, F. J., The Kingship of Jesus, esp. pp. 75–8; 140–5 and also Merklein, H., ‘Die Auferweckung Jesu and die Anfänge der Christologie (Messias bzw. Sohn Gottes and Menschensohn)’, ZNW 72 (1981) 1–26, esp. p. 9 and n. 34.
 1.21–22, 27; 2.7; 4.41; 6. 2–3 (cf. 11.8).
 In 6. 14 some say ‘John the Baptist has been revived from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him.’ This leads Herod to the remark: ‘John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.’ He is clearly wrong; in the following verses 6. 17–29 the evangelist tells the story of John's execution and burial. 6. 14, 16 are important proof-texts in K. Berger's theory that there existed a Jewish expectation concerning eschatological prophets who are killed by their adversaries and raised by God. See his Die Auferstehung des Propheten and die Erhöhung des Menschensohnes (WUNT 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1976) 17–22. See also Pesch, R., Das Markus-evangelium I, 332–7.
 3. 11; 5. 7; cf. 1. 24 (òῷυιος θεοū) and 1. 34 ‘because they knew him’; 3. 11 and 1. 34 are found in summaries. Kingsbury, J. D. aptly speaks of a ‘contrapuntal pattern of demonic cry and human question, of (suppressed) knowledge and ignorance …’ (Christology, 87).
 Jesus' forthcoming death is mentioned alone in 9. 12; 14. 21.
 On this see, particularly, Kingsbury's chapter 4 ‘The christology of Mark: The Son of Man’, 157–73. In the present context the much-debated problem of the original use and meaning of ‘Son of Man’ (probably by Jesus himself) cannot be treated. The fact that we always find the same Greekò νìòς ανθπώπον with a clear messianic meaning is regarded by M. Hengel as an indication of the fact that the Jesus tradition was translated into Greek at one place and at one time. He attributes it to the activity of the Greek-speaking Jews from the diaspora in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 7. 56!). See his ‘Zwischen Jesus and Paulus’, 202–3.
 On this pericope, 11. 1–11 and 12. 35–37 we my ‘The use of Ο ΧΠΙΣτΟΣ 180–1, using Berger, K., ‘Die königlichen Messiastraditionen des Neuen Testaments’, NTS 20 (1973–1974) 1–44, esp. pp. 3–9 which gives much attention to Solomonic ‘Son of David’ traditions. I hesitate now to connect Jesus' concern for the temple in 11. 15–17 and the reference to his rebuilding of the temple (14. 58–59 - a false accusation, according to Mark!) with the Solomonic ‘Son of David’ tradition. Mark, certainly, does not make this connection. Cf. Juel, D., Messiah and Temple (SBL Diss. Ser. 31; Missoula: Scholars, 1977) and Lührmann, D., ‘Markus 14. 55–64: Christologie and Zerstörung des Tempels im Markusevangelium’, NTS 27 (1980–1981) 457–74.
 In contrast to Matt 21. 1–9 which speaks of ‘crowds ’ and Luke 19. 24–80 which mentions ‘the whole multitude of the disciples’ Mark's πολλοí not very specific. But he seems to refer to the disciples and a wider group which joins them.
 See Hay, D. M., Glory at the Right Hand. Psalm 110 in early Christianity (SBL Mon. Ser. 18; Nashville - New York: Abingdon, 1973); Gourgues, M., À la Droite de Dieu, Résurrection de Jésus et actualisation du Psaume 110:1 dans le Nouveau Testament (Paris: Gabalda, 1978).
 On this pericope we my ‘The use of Ο ΧΠΙΣτΟΣ’, 181–2, and now also Kingsbury, J. D., Christology, 108–14 who concludes: ‘The title that Mark does want the reader to infer as the counterpart to [Son of David] in 12. 35–37 is [Son of God] (p. 112).’Cf. my own conclusion in the article just mentioned. We should stress, however, that it is only the wider context in Mark which allows us to draw this conclusion. An interesting parallel may be supplied by the much-discussed pre-pauline formula used in Rom 1. 2–4.
 Compare my ‘The Use of Ο ΧΠΙΣτΟΣ’, 174–6. Kingsbury, J. D., Christology, 118–24 sees a close connection with 12. 1–12. See also his paraphrase of 14. 62 on p. 124: ‘Yes, I am the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed; and because you (the high priest) have asked me who I am in order to condemn me to death (cf. 14. 55), it will be in my (prophesied) role as the man who will have been vindicated by God by being exalted to universal rule and appointed to exercise final judgment that you (the high priest and Sanhedrin) will we me at the end of time.’ Note that in 11. 10 the disciples (together with others) acclaim ‘The coming Kingdom of our father David!’
 See for details my ‘The Use of Ο ΧΠΙΣτΟΣ’, 176–9; Mark does not tell his readers who Pilate is, why he uses the term ‘The King of the Jews’, during which insurgence (ώντ ιτάιειverse 7) Barabbas was arrested. They are also expected to know who Alexander and Rufus are (verse 21). In the article just mentioned I conjectured that Mark inserted an originally independent story in his narrative. This may be so, but it does not explain why Mark does not redact it more thoroughly.
 Mark, therefore, puts much emphasis on the title which, as he assumes, his readers will immediately connect with that of ‘the Messiah, Son of God’ in 14. 61. Jesus is crucified as ‘King of the Jews ’ by Pilate who is not at all convinced that he is such a king, at the instigation of the Jewish leaders who do not believe Jesus' real claim and distort his interpretation of the title ‘Messiah’. Mark seems to assume that his readers are familiar with this gross misinterpretation by the Jewish leaders and the Roman governor of the real aims of Jesus the Christ in whom they believe. It must have been a burning question at the time the gospel of Mark was written. See also the conclusion of F. J. Matera: ‘Our study suggests that Mark and his community may have been besieged by opponents who argued that Jesus did not fulfill the messianic expectations of the Old Testa-ment. Kingship seems to have been intensely important to Mark, and one of his problems was to explain how the King of Israel could be a crucified Messiah.’ (The Kingship of Jesus, 150–1)
 This is brought out very well by Kingsbury, J. D., Christology, 131–7.
 In ‘The Use of Ο ΧΠΙΣτΟΣ’, 190–1 (following a suggestion by K. Berger) I pointed out the parallels between Mark's picture in chapter 15 and that of Paul in 1 Cor 1. 18–31 (cf. 15. 24–25; when Paul speaks about Christ's βαιιλεεω he means his future kingship). See also K. Berger, ‘Zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund christologischer Hoheitstitel’, 398–9.
 In 14. 64 (cf. 15. 29–32) Jesus is, ironically (so also Kingsbury, J. D., Christology, 120–1), accused of βλαιθημια. For the meaning in Mark we 2. 7; 3. 28–29. In ‘The Use of Ο ΧΠΙΣτΟΣ’, 176, I concluded: ‘for Mark the charge of βλαιθημια was connected with Jesus’ claim to divinely inspired authority, rooted in his special relationship with God'. In 14. 65 Jesus is mocked by the members of the Sanhedrin who ask him to prophesy. In Mark's picture of events Jesus, also after he has publicly accepted the designation Messiah, remains a divinely appointed prophetic figure - whose claim is not accepted, but nevertheless perceived by his adversaries.
 Cf. 8. 35; 10. 29; 13. 10; 14. 9. On the traditional pre-Pauline use of the expression τò ε;αγγλιogr;ν τοū χπιιτοū see se section 1.1.3. above.
 In the parallel 13. 5, 6 the deceivers are people who come in Jesus' name, saying: ‘I am he!’ Verse 21 may refer to the same people, or alternatively, to a wider group of preachers to be connected or identified with the ψενδóχπιιτοι κίì ψενδοπροφ;ήαι. The sense of the warning in verse 21 is the same in both cases. We should note that Mark 13 envisages a situation of confusion, in which false messiahs and prophets constitute a real threat to the Christian community (note the el duvardv in verse 22!). In passing, we should note that also here the terms ‘messiah’ and ‘prophet’ are connected.
 Significantly, in 13. 32 Jesus uses the designation ‘the Son’ (and ‘the Father’ cf. 14. 36).
 Here I take up a number of points discussed at some length in the sessions of the Pseudepigrapha Seminar at Durham in 1979 (see n. 36 above).
 On this we also my article ‘Jewish Expectations about the “Messiah” according to the Fourth Gospel’, NTS 19 (1972–1973) 246–70.
 See Woude, A. S. van der - Jonge, M. de, TWNT 9 (1973) 500–1 (the English equivalent in TDNT 9 (1974) 509–10).
 A term used by Nickelsburg, G. W. E. and Stone, M. E. in their Faith and Piety in Early Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 161–202.
 See Gelin, A., ‘Messianisme’ in DBS 5, Paris: Letouzey et Ane (1957) 1165–1212, esp. col. 1190–92: ‘Le messianisme sans Messie: thème de Yahweh-Roi’. The fact that the terms ‘messianism’ and ‘messianic’ have long been taken over by historians of religion and cultural anthropologists does not offer an excuse for unclear use of these terms by biblical scholars. Here also Kyung Hee Kim, Die Bezeichnung Jesu als (O) XPICTOC. Ihre Herkunft und ursprüngliche Bedeutung (Diss. Theol. Marburg: 1989) giÖse Entwicklung der Messiasanschauung im zeitgenössischen Judentum’ (191) she does not observe a comparable restriction. ‘Messiasanschauung’ covers more than the use of the term ‘anointed’. This inconsistency of approach affects the cogency of the argument and the conclusions of the book.
 See, e.g. Hesse, F., ‘B ; und ; im Alten Testament’ in TWNT 9 (1973) 485–500 and A. S. van der Woude, ‘CII Septuaginta’ ibidem 501–2.
 Referring to the patriarchs mentioned in verses 12–15.
 See my ‘The Role of Intermediaries in God's Final Intervention in the Future according to the Qumran Scrolls’, 50–1.
 CD 12. 23–24; 14. 19; 19. 10–11; 20. 1.
 Which seems likely, we my –The Role of Intermediaries’, 53–8.
 See 1QM 11. 7–8; CD 2. 12 and CD 5. 21–6.1. In the last two texts one should read for (see my ‘The Use of the Word Anointed in the Time of Jesus’, 141 n. 2). One of the principal tasks of the prophets was to endorse and to expound what Moses had said. But we also read that the prophets proclaim what God's future dealings with his people will be (‘The Role of Intermediaries’, 55). In 4QTest 5–8 a quotation from Deut 18.18–19 (on the prophet like Moses!)precedes Num 24. 15–17 and Deut 33. 8–11. The sect follows the interpretation of the Teacher of Righteousness (priest and prophet!) ‘bis auf bessere Belehmng’, i.e. until yet a further stage is reached in God's dealings with Israel. This may point to a primarily teaching function of the prophet in 1QS 9. 11 (cf. 1 Mace 4. 16; 16. 41). Compare also the article by Martinez, F. García, ‘Profeet en Profetie in de Dode-Zee rollen’, to be published in Profeten en profetische geschriften. Studies aangeboden aan dr. A. S. van der Woude (Nijkerk/Kampen: Callenbach/Kok, 1986).
 See M. de Jonge and A. S. van der Woude, ‘11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament’, 304–8. The content of the good news in Isa 52. 7 is ; (probably referring to Melchizedek). Vermes, Geza, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2 1975) 265–8, continues: concerning whom Dan[iel] said [Until an anointed one, a prince (Dan 9. 25)], following a suggestion by Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11’, originally in JBL 86 (1967) 25–41, now in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (Missoula: Scholars, 1974) 245–67.
 See my De Toekomstverwachting in de Psalmen van Salomo, 14–23 and ‘The Use of the Word Anointed in the time of Jesus’, 133–7 (both publications contain further details about the stereo-typed use of the word χπιιτóς in PsSol 18).
 On χπιιτóς κúπως as the probable original reading, see De Toekomstverwachting, n. 41 and ‘The Use of the Word Anointed’, 134, n. 2. The king is called ‘Son of David’ in verse 21 - but again this is a qualification and not a title: ‘Behold, O Lord, and raise up onto them their King, the Son of David … to rule over Israel, your servant.’
 In the present context I cannot dwell on this problem, nor on that of the date of the Parables.
 See, e.g. the variations between the versions in 4 Ezra 7. 28, 29 and possible Christian influence in SBar 30. 1–2. Note that all MSS of PssSol read χπιιτóς κúπως in 17. 32 (see also n. 76 above).
 See Staerk, W., Altjüdische Liturgische Gebete (Kleine Texte 58; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1930) 11–14 who gives the form of the text found in a Genizah fragment, published by Schechter, S., JQR 10 (1898) 654–9. The date and the exact wording of this recension are difficult to establish (see e.g. Woude, A. S. van der, TWNT 9 (1973) 512–13). Note the fifteenth Benediction of the ‘Babylonian Recension’: ‘Speedily cause the Shoot of David, Thy servant, to shoot up and raise up his horn through thy salvation.’ ; God is praised as He ‘who causes the horn of salvation to shoot up’ ; (text Staerk p. 18; trs. Duling, D. C., ‘The Promises of David and their Entrance into Christianity - Nailing down a Likely Hypothesis’, NTS 20 (1973–1974) 55–78, esp. pp. 63–4; see also v.d.W.) We may note the parallel with Qumran in the use of ; (see 126.96.36.199.) and with Hebr. Sirach 51,128 (cf. Ps 132. 17: ‘There I will make a horn to sprout for David, I have prepared a lamp for my anointed’).
 See my ‘Josephus und die Zukunfterwartungen seines Volkes’, esp. pp. 216–9. In n. 32 on p. 216 I also pointed to a group of three people mentioned in BJ 2.56–65; Ant 17.271–84 as operating in the time of Archelaos: Judas B. Hiskia, Simon, Athrongaios. On Menahem see BJ 2.433–48; on Simon bar Giora BJ 4.503–44; 556–84; 7.26–36; 153–7.
 See BJ 2.258w63; Ant 20. 167–72; Ant 20. 97–9; 18: 85–7.
 CBQ 46 (1984) 471–95.
 ‘Popular Messianic Movements’, 494–5.
 ‘Popular Messianic Movements’, 471. Compare also Kippenberg, H. G., ‘Wo war im Judentum des zweiten Tempels die Hoffnung auf einen davidischen Messias verbreitet?’, to be published in Profeten en profetische geschriften (see n. 73).
 See also Chevallier, M. A., L'Esprit et le Messie dans le Bas-Judaisme et le Nouveau Testa-ment (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958). So also Hengel, M., ‘Jesus als messianischer Lehrer und die Anfänge der Christologie’ in Sagesse et Religion (Colloque de Strasbourg, octobre 1976) (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1979) 148–88, esp. 166–80.
 On the following we the interesting article by Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘David, “Being Therefore a Prophet …” (Acts 2.30)’, CBQ 34 (1972) 332–9 and my ‘Jezus als profetische Zoon van David’, to be published in Profeten en profetische geschriften (see n. 73).
 Cf. Acts 28. 25; we also Ep.Barn. 12. 10; Justin, Dial. 34. 1; 87. 4.
 Trs. Thackeray, H. St. J. / Marcus, R. in Josephus V (LCL edition 1934).
 The Spirit is not mentioned, but the text says: ‘et erat Dominus cum eo ex illo die’.
 See Sanders, J. A., The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD 4; Oxford: OUP, 1965) 91–3. Sanders comments: ‘David is credited with the divine gift of prophecy (line 11) in composing his psalms and songs. Several of the attributes of David listed in lines 2–4 are found in 2 Sam 23. 1–7, which immediately precedes in Cols xxvi and xxvii line 1, or in 2 Sam 22 (Ps 18) which was surely included in the early columns of 11QPsa …’.
 In a note on p. 93 J. A. Sanders remarks that Ps 91 was known as ; in Judaism. See also: Ploeg, J. P. M. van der O.P. ‘Un petit rouleau de psaumes apocryphes (11QPsApa)’ in Tradition und Glaube (Fs. K. G. Kuhn) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1971) 128–39. On p. 128 he writes: ‘Nombre d'expressions suggèrent que les psaumes ont contenu des imprécations contre les démons tout comme le Ps XCI qui termine la petite collection et qui a été employé dans le Judaisme comme moyen de défence contre les démons.’ Cf. Ploeg, J. P. M. van der, ‘Le Psaume XCI dans une recension de umrân’, RB 72 (1965) 210–7.
 Fisher, L., ‘Can This be the Son of David?’ in Jesus and the Historian (Fs. E. C. Colwell) (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) 82–97; K. Berger, ‘Die königlichen Messiastraditionen des Neuen Testaments’, 1–44, esp. §1 ‘“Sohn Davids” bezeichnet den Messias als Exorzisten und Wundertäter’ (pp. 3–9); Lövestam, E., ‘Jésus Fils de David chez les Synoptiques’, Studia Theologica 28 (1974) 97–109; Duling, D. C., ‘Solomon, Exorcism and the Son of David’, HThR 68 (1975) 235–52; see also his ‘The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew's Christological Apologetic’, NTS 24 (1978) 392–410.
 See pp. 249–52. He rightly warns against the use of verbal parallels from the Testament of Solomon. ‘Only in the Testament of Solomon is Solomon addressed as “Son of David“ as Jesus is addressed in the gospels. My impression is that such references are dependent on the NT even though the NT and the Testament of Solomon are only orally related.’
 See p. 252. Fisher, Lövestam and Berger point to Matt 12. 22–42 as indication for acquaintance with the Solomon tradition.
 NTS 8 (1961–2) 101–16.
 P. 114. He includes a reference to Josephus, Ant 6.166–168, but does not note the exorcistic element in it; but on pp. 112–13 he mentions Solomon's exorcistic abilities described in Ant 8. 45. ‘Solomon was notorious for his victories over demonic powers which were still gained in his name during the N.T. period. Would the great Son of David, the Messiah, be less powerful?’
 See M. de Jonge - A. S. van der Woude, “11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament’ esp. the section ‘The use of Isa LII.7 and LXI.1 f. in the New Testament’, 309–12.
 χπιιτóς is never used in Q.
 Here I disagree with Kingsbury, J. D., Christology 66. M. Hengel, ‘Jesus als messianischer Lehrer…’, after paying due attention to the influence of Isa 11. 1–5 on the Jewish expectations of the Messiah (see n. 85), yet regards the prophetic Messiah/the Anointed with the Spirit as the earliest ‘model’ to explain Jesus' ministry as teacher, and eschatological representative of Wisdom. In a way which differs from 11Q Melch, early Christian christology after Easter identifies ‘the earthly messianic teacher’ and ‘God's heavenly redeemer’ (see pp. 181–4). One would welcome further argumentation for this hypothetical reconstruction.