196 Gard Granerød In the Gnostic sources, Jesus and Melchizedek are identified, both being transcendental figures. These sources, however, are most likely later that Hebrews. More important, the identification is based on Heb 7,3. Among the Nag Hammadi texts discovered in Egypt in 1945 there is an apocalypse attributed to a Melchizedek who receives revelations and is identified with Christ (NHC IX,1: Melchizedek). The tractate is dated between the second and fourth century CE. The identification of Melchizedek with Christ is based on Heb 7,3 (20). As for the other Gnostic texts dealing with Melchizedek — and a transcendent Melchizedek for that matter (e.g. the Bala”izah fragment, The Second Book of Jeu, Pistis Sophia, books 1–4) — the “problem” with them is also their relatively late date — regardless of whether or not one can find traces of Hebrews in them. In the rabbinic literature a human Melchizedek appears. In the targums, midrashim and in Talmud he is identified with Shem, one of the sons of Noah (21). Although Melchizedek is an antediluvian figure, he is nonetheless human throughout. All the rabbinic sources are probably later than Hebrews. For the historian Josephus, Melchizedek is a thoroughly human figure — he is seen as a Canaanite and the first one to have built a temple (Bell. 6,438). Apart from this information, Josephus does not add much to the biblical texts except for some etymological interpretations of Melchizedek and Salem (Ant. 1,180). Philo of Alexandria died 50 CE. Thus, his works antedate Hebrews. At one point he interprets Melchizedek as the divine Logos(22). This may — or may not — imply knowledge of a Jewish tradition ascribing divine or semi-divine status to Melchizedek. However, this cannot be said with certainty — Philo sometimes Figures outside the Bible (eds. M.E. STONE – T.A. BERGREN) (Harrisburg, PA 1998) 176-202. Moreover, see also the excursus on Melchizedek in ATTRIDGE, Hebrews, 192-195; M. MCNAMARA, “Melchizedek: Gen 14,17-20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature”, Bib 81 (2000) 1-31 and J.J. PETUCHOWSKI, “The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek”, HUCA 28 (1957) 127- 136. (20) PEARSON, “Melchizedek”, 193. (21) Targ. Ps.-J., Targ. Neof., Frag. Targ. on Gen 14,18; midrashim: ARN 2; Gen. R. 43,1; 44,7; Talmud: e.g. b. Ned. 32b. Moreover, see V. APTOWITZER, “Malkisedek: Zu den Sagen der Agada”, MGWJ 70 (1926) 93-113. (22) Leg. all. 3,82 iJereu;" gavr ejsti lovgo", “For reason is a priest”.