The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation (Wissemschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe, 260) 9783161499043, 9783161516030, 3161499042

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (München) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg) Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

260

Susan E. Docherty

The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation

Mohr Siebeck

Susan E. Docherty, born 1965; 1986 BA (Hons) Theology and Religious Studies University of Cambridge; 1990 MA University of Cambridge; 2000 MPhil Old Testament and Inter-Testamental Studies University of Cambridge; 2008 PhD University of Manchester; Head of Theology and Principal Lecturer in Biblical Studies, Newman University College, Birmingham, UK.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151603-0 ISBN 978-3-16-149904-3 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2009 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface This book is a revised version of my PhD thesis, submitted to the University of Manchester in August 2007. I should like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks to my PhD supervisor, Professor Philip Alexander, for all that he contributed to the genesis and development of my dissertation, and especially for introducing me to the whole new world of contemporary research into targumic and rabbinic scriptural interpretation. I am grateful also to several other members of the Faculty of Religions and Theology at the University of Manchester for their encouragement and interest in my work during my time there, particularly Professor George Brooke and Professor Alexander Samely, who gave up his time to discuss with me his own research and the ideas of Arnold Goldberg, and allowed me to consult the manuscript of his Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought: An Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) in advance of its publication. It goes without saying, however, that any misunderstanding or misrepresentation of their work in this book is my own responsibility. My thanks go also to my PhD examiners, Dr. Todd Klutz of the University of Manchester and Professor William Horbury of the University of Cambridge, for their advice, which has informed this reworking of my thesis, and their support for its publication. Professor Horbury had previously supervised me as both an undergraduate and postgraduate student at Cambridge, so it was particularly fitting that he should have been involved in this next stage of my academic journey. To him, and to all those who taught me both at Cambridge and elsewhere, particularly Professor Graham Davies, I owe a great debt of gratitude for their ability to inspire in me a sustained interest in the field of biblical studies. There are several other people whose support and help during the long process of studying for the PhD and then turning the thesis into a monograph I should like to acknowledge here. Firstly, I am grateful to my colleagues, both past and present, at Newman University College in Birmingham, where I have worked throughout this time. Secondly, I thank the ‘regulars’ at the Annual Seminar on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, who were among the first to hear some of the ideas which underpin this book in the form of conference papers delivered there. I have benefited greatly over the last five years from their insightful comment, supportive

VI

Preface

critique and deep knowledge of this subject. Finally, I thank Dr. Lieve Teugels for alerting me in correspondence to several useful articles applying or evaluating the methods of the ‘Goldbergian School’. I am grateful to Cambridge University Press for permission to reproduce here as part of chapter four a slightly revised version of my article: “The Text Form of the OT Citations in Hebrews Chapter 1 and the Implications for the Study of the Septuagint”, New Testament Studies, forthcoming, 2009. I wish to thank also the editor of the WUNT II Series, Professor Jörg Frey, for his encouragement and for accepting my manuscript for publication. Finally, sincere thanks are due to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki and his editorial team at Mohr Siebeck Publishers, particularly Tanja Mix, for their expert and efficient technical assistance in the production of this book.

Susan Docherty Birmingham, January 2009

Table of Contents Preface ....................................................................................................... V

Chapter 1. Introduction: Hebrews as an Exemplar of Early Jewish Bible Interpretation ....................................................... 1 1.1 Context: The ‘Parting of the Ways’ Debate .......................................... 1 1.2 Aims: A New Approach to the Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews.. 2 1.3 Method and Overview........................................................................... 4

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews ...... 9 2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews......................................................... 9 2.1.1 Introduction: Parameters of the Literature Review ........................ 9 2.1.2 Late 19th Century Scholarship ..................................................... 10 2.1.2.1 Franz Delitzsch .................................................................... 11 2.1.2.2 Brooke Foss Westcott .......................................................... 14 2.1.2.3 Conclusions: Early Critical Studies of Hebrews................... 16 2.1.3 Scholarship in the First Half of the Twentieth Century ............... 18 2.1.3.1 James Moffatt ...................................................................... 18 2.1.3.2 Hans Windisch ..................................................................... 20 2.1.3.3 Conclusions: Theological Readings of Hebrews .................. 22 2.1.4 Hebrews Scholarship in the Post-War Years ............................... 23 2.1.4.1 Ceslas Spicq ......................................................................... 23 2.1.4.2 Frederick F. Bruce ............................................................... 26 2.1.4.3 Otto Michel .......................................................................... 28 2.1.4.4 Conclusions: The Influence on Commentaries on Hebrews of Some Twentieth Century Movements in New Testament Studies ................................................................ 32 2.1.5 Scholarship in the Last Quarter of the Twentieth Century........... 34 2.1.5.1 Harold W. Attridge .............................................................. 34 2.1.5.2 William L. Lane ................................................................... 36 2.1.5.3 Paul Ellingworth .................................................................. 40 2.1.5.4 Conclusions: Strengths and Weaknesses of Late 20th Century Commentaries ........................................................ 42

VIII

Table of Contents

2.1.6 Twenty-First Century Scholarship ............................................... 43 2.1.6.1 David A. DeSilva ................................................................. 43 2.1.6.2 Craig R. Koester................................................................... 47 2.1.6.3 Conclusions: Hebrews Commentary in the Present .............. 49 2.1.7 Commentaries on Hebrews: Summary of Achievements and Pointers for Future Directions .............................................. 49 2.2 Theological and Structural Studies of Hebrews .................................. 51 2.2.1 Introduction: Purpose and Scope of the Survey of Hebrews Studies......................................................................................... 51 2.2.2 Covenant as a Central Theme in Hebrews ................................... 52 2.2.2.1 Susanne Lehne ..................................................................... 52 2.2.3 The Priesthood of Jesus as the Key to Understanding Hebrews .. 53 2.2.3.1 Alexander Nairne ................................................................. 53 2.2.3.2 Marie E. Isaacs..................................................................... 55 2.2.4 Studies of the Structure of Hebrews ............................................ 56 2.2.4.1 Albert Vanhoye .................................................................... 56 2.2.5 The Presentation in Hebrews of Old Testament Figures .............. 58 2.2.5.1 Mary Rose D’Angelo: Moses ............................................... 58 2.2.5.2 James Swetnam: Isaac.......................................................... 60 2.2.6 Conclusions: The Treatment of the Use of the Old Testament in Studies of Hebrews ................................................................. 61 2.3 Studies of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews........... 63 2.3.1 Introduction: The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament .................................................................................... 63 2.3.2 George B. Caird........................................................................... 65 2.3.3 Markus Barth ............................................................................... 66 2.3.4 Anthony T. Hanson ..................................................................... 68 2.3.5 Kenneth J. Thomas ...................................................................... 69 2.3.6 Friedrich Schröger ....................................................................... 71 2.3.7 J. Cecil McCullough .................................................................... 72 2.3.8 Dale F. Leschert .......................................................................... 75 2.3.9 Stephen Motyer ........................................................................... 77 2.3.10 George H. Guthrie ..................................................................... 78 2.3.11 The History of Research: Final Conclusions ............................. 81

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash ....................... 83 3.1 Introduction: The Interpretation of Scripture in the Rabbinic Midrashim........................................................................................... 83 3.2 The Tradition-Historical Approach: Bloch and Vermes...................... 84 3.2.1 Summary of the Work of Renée Bloch ........................................ 84 3.2.2 Summary of the Work of Geza Vermes ....................................... 85 3.2.3 Evaluation of the Tradition-Historical Approach......................... 86

Table of Contents

IX

3.3 The Rabbinic Hermeneutical Rules: Heinemann................................. 88 3.3.1 Summary of the Work of Isaac Heinemann ................................. 88 3.3.2 Evaluation of Heinemann’s Work................................................ 89 3.4 Intertextuality and Midrash: Fishbane and Boyarin ............................ 90 3.4.1 Summary of the Work of Michael Fishbane ................................ 90 3.4.2 Evaluation of Fishbane’s Work ................................................... 91 3.4.3 Summary of the Work of Daniel Boyarin .................................... 92 3.4.4 Evaluation of Boyarin’s Work ..................................................... 94 3.5 Documentary Analysis: Neusner......................................................... 96 3.5.1 Summary of the Work of Jacob Neusner ..................................... 96 3.5.2 Evaluation of Neusner’s Work .................................................... 98 3.6 Form-Analysis: The Goldbergian School.......................................... 102 3.6.1 Summary of the Work of Arnold Goldberg ............................... 102 3.6.2 Evaluation of Goldberg’s Work................................................. 105 3.6.3 The Goldbergian School ............................................................ 106 3.6.4 Summary of the Work of Alexander Samely ............................. 107 3.6.5 Evaluation of Samely’s Work.................................................... 110 3.7 Defining Midrash as a Literary Genre: Alexander ............................ 112 3.7.1 Summary of the Work of Philip Alexander ............................... 112 3.7.2 Evaluation of Alexander’s Work ............................................... 114 3.8 Critical Issues in the Study of Midrash ............................................. 115 3.8.1 Defining Midrash ...................................................................... 115 3.8.2 Midrash: Scriptural Exegesis or Rabbinic Ideology?................. 116 3.8.3 Parts and Wholes, Collections and Compositions...................... 117 3.8.4 Underlying Presuppositions of Midrashic Exegesis................... 118 3.8.5 Theories for Reading Midrash ................................................... 118 3.9 Conclusions: The Relevance of the Study of Midrash for New Testament Interpretation........................................................... 119

Chapter 4. The Study of the Septuagint and its Implications for Hebrews ............................................................ 121 4.1 Introduction: Developments in Septuagintal Studies and the Study of the New Testament ............................................................. 121 4.2 Current Issues and Trends in Septuagintal Studies............................ 122 4.2.1 Terminology: ‘Septuagint’ Versus ‘Old Greek’......................... 122 4.2.2 Textual Plurality ........................................................................ 124 4.2.3 The Value of the Lucianic or Antiochian Recension ................. 127 4.2.4 The Full Range of Textual Evidence ......................................... 129 4.2.5 The Septuagint as a Collection of Individual Books .................. 129 4.3 Greek Versions of the Psalms ........................................................... 130 4.4 The Sources of Specific Old Testament Citations in Hebrews .......... 132 4.4.1 Ps 2:7 in Heb 1:5a ..................................................................... 133

X

Table of Contents

4.4.2 2 Sam 7:14 (or 1 Chron 17:13) in Heb 1:5b............................... 133 4.4.3 Deut 32:43 in Heb 1:6 ............................................................... 133 4.4.4 Ps 103:4 in Heb 1:7 ................................................................... 134 4.4.5 Ps 44:7–8 in Heb 1:8–9 ............................................................. 135 4.4.6 Ps 101:26–28 in Heb 1:10–12.................................................... 136 4.4.7 Ps 109:1 in Heb 1:13 ................................................................. 137 4.4.8 Ps 94:7–11 in Heb 3:7–11 ......................................................... 137 4.4.9 Gen 2:2 in Heb 4:4 .................................................................... 139 4.5 Conclusions: The Faithfulness of the Author of Hebrews to his Scriptural Sources ....................................................................... 140

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews ........................................................................................... 143 5.1 Introduction: Applying a Descriptive-Analytical Method ................. 143 5.2 Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews Chapter 1 ............... 144 5.2.1 Introduction: The Key Questions............................................... 144 5.2.2 Ps 2:7 in Heb 1:5a ..................................................................... 144 5.2.2.1 Source of the Citation ........................................................ 144 5.2.2.2 Exegetical Techniques ....................................................... 144 5.2.2.3 Wider Context of the Citation ............................................ 150 5.2.3 2 Sam 7:14 (1 Chron 17:13) in Heb 1:5b ................................... 152 5.2.3.1 Source of the Citation ........................................................ 152 5.2.3.2 Exegetical Techniques ....................................................... 152 5.2.3.3 Wider Context of the Citation ............................................ 154 5.2.4 Deut 32:43 in Heb 1:6 ............................................................... 156 5.2.4.1 Source of the Citation ........................................................ 156 5.2.4.2 Exegetical Techniques ....................................................... 156 5.2.4.3 Wider Context of the Citation ............................................ 159 5.2.5 Ps 103:4 in Heb 1:7 ................................................................... 160 5.2.5.1 Source of the Citation ........................................................ 160 5.2.5.2 Exegetical Techniques ....................................................... 160 5.2.5.3 Wider Context of the Citation ............................................ 162 5.2.6 Ps 44:7–8 in Heb 1:8–9 ............................................................. 163 5.2.6.1 Source of the Citation ........................................................ 163 5.2.6.2 Exegetical Techniques ....................................................... 163 5.2.6.3 Wider Context of the Citation ............................................ 166 5.2.7 Ps 101:26–28 in Heb 1:10–12.................................................... 166 5.2.7.1 Source of the Citation ........................................................ 166 5.2.7.2 Exegetical Techniques ....................................................... 166 5.2.7.3 Wider Context of the Citation ............................................ 167 5.2.8 Ps 109:1 in Heb 1:13 ................................................................. 168 5.2.8.1 Source of the Citation ........................................................ 168

Table of Contents

XI

5.2.8.2 Exegetical Techniques ....................................................... 168 5.2.8.3 Wider Context of the Citation ............................................ 171 5.2.9 Excursus: Testimonia Collections ............................................. 172 5.3 Hermeneutical Methods and Axioms in Hebrews Chapter 1 ............. 176 5.3.1 Summary of Exegetical Methods in Hebrews Chapter 1............ 176 5.3.2 Summary of Underlying Scriptural Axioms in Hebrews Chapter 1 ................................................................................... 179 5.4 Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews Chapters 3–4.......... 181 5.4.1 Introduction: A Comparative Text............................................. 181 5.4.2 Source of the Citations .............................................................. 182 5.4.2.1 Ps 94:7–11 ......................................................................... 182 5.4.2.2 Gen 2:2............................................................................... 182 5.4.3 Framing the Scriptural Texts: Heb 3:1–6 and 4:11–13 .............. 182 5.4.4 Exegetical Techniques in Hebrews Chapters 3–4 ...................... 185 5.4.4.1 Techniques Used to Exegete Ps 94:7–11............................ 185 5.4.4.2 Techniques Used to Exegete Gen 2:2 ................................. 189 5.4.5 Wider Context of the Citations .................................................. 193 5.5. Hermeneutical Methods and Axioms in Hebrews Chapters 3–4....... 194 5.5.1 Summary of Exegetical Methods in Hebrews Chapters 3–4 ...... 194 5.5.2 Summary of Underlying Scriptural Axioms in Hebrews Chapters 3–4 ............................................................................. 196 5.6 Conclusions: The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews.............. 198

Chapter 6. Conclusions ..................................................................... 201 6.1 Overview of the Study’s Conclusions ............................................... 201 6.2 Suggestions for Further Developing These Findings ........................ 205 Bibliography ........................................................................................... 207 Index of Ancient Sources........................................................................ 219 Index of Modern Authors........................................................................ 226 Subject Index .......................................................................................... 229

Chapter 1

Introduction: Hebrews as an Exemplar of Early Jewish Bible Interpretation 1.1 Context: The ‘Parting of the Ways’ Debate This study of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews begins from the premise that at the time when the letter was written, Christianity was historically still a form of Judaism: the so-called ‘parting of the ways’ had not yet occurred, and Hebrews is therefore a Jewish text, which belongs just as much to Jewish as to Christian history.1 This statement is hardly controversial in theory today, but its significance has had surprisingly little impact on contemporary study of the New Testament or on the study of Judaism. For all that historians of early Christianity acknowledge its Jewish origins, most regard the contemporary Jewish literature and thought as merely ‘background’ to the New Testament, and seem to find it hard to really accept that early Christianity was a form of Judaism. The situation is even 1

Discussion about the question of the ‘parting of the ways’ between Judaism and Christianity has received new impetus in recent years. There is a growing consensus that the rupture between ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity’ took place later and more gradually than used to be thought. One of the earliest attempts to argue this position was by Philip Alexander: see Alexander, Philip S., “‘The Parting of the Ways’ From the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism.” Pages 1–25 in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135. Edited by J.D.G. Dunn. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992; see also Boyarin, Daniel, Dying for God. Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1999; and Border Lines: The Partition of JudaeoChristianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. More recently there has been a tendency, perhaps somewhat exaggerated, to regard the separation as never having been total and complete: see, for example, some of the contributions in Becker, Adam H. and Annette Y. Reed, eds. The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Certainly there is growing evidence that even in the patristic period Christian biblical exegesis operated in much the same way as rabbinic exegesis of the same period, and with considerable knowledge of the Jewish tradition. This is perhaps hardly surprising if early Christian and Jewish bible interpretation are seen as typical of hermeneutics more generally in the Graeco-Roman world, on which see Alexander, Philip S., “Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Rabbinic Midrash and Hermeneutics in the Graeco-Roman World.” Pages 101– 124 in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History. Edited by P.R. Davies and R.T. White. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.

2

Chapter 1. Hebrews and Early Jewish Bible Interpretation

more striking on the side of Jewish Studies: few historians of Judaism consider treating early Christianity as a manifestation of late Second Temple Judaism, and as integral to the history of Judaism as, say, the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is, however, the contention of this study that to fully understand its interpretation of the Old Testament, Hebrews must be taken seriously as an important exemplar of early post-biblical Jewish exegesis. This approach will demonstrate the extent to which the study of the New Testament can be profoundly enriched by engagement with current work in the field of Jewish Studies, and the way in which it may also contribute to scholarly understanding of ancient Judaism. It thus makes a move in the direction urged by James Dunn: A crucial step forward will be taken when Christian scholars recognise that the beginnings of Christianity cannot be understood without reference to Jewish documents and traditions from the late Second Temple period; and when Jewish scholars recognise that the bulk of the NT writings are also Jewish documents and that many of them have a right to be counted as witnesses to the breadth and character of Second Temple Judaism as much as their own later documents. 2

1.2 Aims: A New Approach to the Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews The decision to undertake yet another study of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews is one which might require some justification. I shall attempt to demonstrate, however, that there is still much to be uncovered about the exegetical techniques and axioms of the author of Hebrews, despite the existence of an already extensive body of literature on this subject. In particular, I shall draw attention to important developments which have taken place in recent decades in the study of early Judaism which are of fundamental importance for the subject of early Christian bible exegesis, but which are being largely ignored by New Testament scholars. That this academic segregation between the study of early Judaism and the study of early Christianity persists is in part due to the way in which commentating functions within the field of New Testament Studies. Commentary remains a central and prestigious mode of researching the New Testament writings, so that the production of a major commentary on an indi2

Dunn, James D.G., The Partings of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM Press, 1991, 251. See also the study of the second century Epistle of Barnabas and the writings of Justin Martyr by William Horbury, which concludes that they “...could properly be assigned to a Christian sub-section of Jewish literature.” (Horbury, William, Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998, 161).

1.2 Aims: A New Approach

3

vidual book is widely seen as the culmination of a scholar’s career. In this climate, anyone writing such a commentary inevitably feels the weight of scholarly tradition, and under some obligation to construct his or her new commentary in dialogue with its predecessors, but this often necessitates the following of a pre-determined approach and agenda, from which it becomes difficult to break free to consider fresh evidence. There are two crucial aspects of the issue of the use of the scriptures in Hebrews which I shall argue here have not been adequately considered by New Testament scholars to date. The first is the provision of a precise account of the exegetical techniques employed by the author and a full consideration of what these reveal about his underlying view of scripture. As I have indicated above, great strides are being made in the study of early Jewish biblical hermeneutics, particularly in relation to midrash and targum. Sophisticated methods have been put forward for the analysis of the interpretation of the scriptures in both of these genres, which potentially have relevance to the use in Hebrews of the same canonic text. The study of the exegetical procedures of rabbinic midrash is at present at the cutting-edge of the study of early Jewish hermeneutics, and, arguably, also more widely of hermeneutics in the ancient world.3 The aim of this new wave of research has been to go beyond some of the impressionistic statements of earlier scholarship to devise more refined and accurate ways of describing the interpretative processes at work in the Jewish texts. It is time, then, I suggest, to make a serious attempt at determining whether these new approaches can be adapted to explaining the use of scripture in the Letter to the Hebrews. The second area in which I suggest there is considerable scope for the development of existing work relates to the text of the Greek bible in the first century. The question of what form of bible may have been in front of the writer of Hebrews is clearly germane to the issue of his scriptural interpretation.4 The study of the Septuagint has progressed greatly in the past twenty years, partly impelled by the discovery of the Qumran biblical texts, yet much of this advance is not reflected even in recent studies of the New Testament.

3 On this point, see in particular Alexander, “Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Rabbinic Midrash and Hermeneutics.” 4 That the author was making use of Greek rather than Hebrew biblical texts is a given in Hebrews scholarship today; further comment on this point is to be found in chapter 4, below.

4

Chapter 1. Hebrews and Early Jewish Bible Interpretation

1.3 Method and Overview Although I contend that there are significant gaps in previous research into the interpretation of the Old Testament in the Letter to the Hebrews, it would obviously be foolish to ignore the often excellent work which has already been undertaken on this subject. The second chapter of this study is therefore devoted to an extensive review and evaluation of what I consider to be the major studies of Hebrews published within the past one hundred and fifty years. This time frame is partly determined by the need to keep this section within manageable limits, but the choice of starting date is not entirely arbitrary: it does, importantly, allow for the inclusion within the survey of the classic commentaries by the late nineteenth century biblical scholars Brooke Foss Westcott and Franz Delitzsch, texts which are still referred to by most modern writers on Hebrews, and which can legitimately be regarded as the earliest serious critical engagements with the letter. This survey, which cannot be exhaustive, but which is sufficiently broad to identify central issues and significant trends, illustrates how changing movements in biblical criticism over time are reflected in studies of Hebrews. Thus writers on Hebrews have been as affected as other biblical scholars by the rise and fall of the form-critical movement and the History of Religions School, for example, by developments in thinking about the relative importance of Jewish and Hellenistic influences on early Christianity, and by modern approaches to studying the biblical texts such as literary criticism. This historical review of the existing literature on Hebrews highlights also some differences in the approaches taken to the letter by British, European (German and French), and North American commentators. The main focus throughout chapter two is, however, on evaluating the treatment of the interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews in these major studies and commentaries. The influence on their approach to this subject of prevailing tendencies in the wider field of the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament emerges, as is to be expected, with, for example, ‘sensus plenior’, ‘typological’, or ‘pesher-like’ serving at different times as fashionable descriptions of the scriptural exegesis of the author of Hebrews. A number of these studies contain valuable insights, but a close reading of others demonstrates a surprising lack of detailed identification of the author’s exegetical techniques and axioms. The often general and imprecise accounts of the biblical interpretation in Hebrews which they contain, and the over-reliance on unexplained and unexamined phrases like ‘reading scripture through a christological lens’, or ‘employing standard Jewish exegetical techniques’, surely cannot be left as the final word on this subject.

1.3 Method and Overview

5

Having thus identified key strengths and weaknesses of previous work on Hebrews, I turn to the crucial question of what methods I should apply to my own investigation of the letter’s Old Testament interpretation. The studies surveyed in chapter two naturally brought a variety of approaches to bear on the text, from the early days of historical and philological criticism,5 through efforts to ‘justify’ the author’s biblical exegesis as still normative for Christians today,6 to the literary and socio-rhetorical readings which have emerged in the latter part of the twentieth century.7 My own preferred starting point was to consider what recent work on scriptural exegesis in other early post-biblical Jewish writings might bring to an analysis of Hebrews. The necessity of setting all the writings of the New Testament in the context of first century Judaism has, as I have noted above, long been recognised by scholars, at least in theory, and was given new impetus in the second half of the twentieth century by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Numerous articles and books drawing comparisons between the biblical exegesis of the Qumran texts and the New Testament have since appeared, amongst the most well-known of which are those by Joseph Fitzmyer8 and Timothy Lim.9 However, I have found more to interest me in current research into scriptural exegesis in midrash, research with which New Testament scholarship has by and large not kept pace, and from which, I suggest, it has much to learn. Chapter three of this study, therefore, provides an overview of the most significant work on midrash which has been published in the second half of the twentieth century. Some of the issues on which scholars disagree are drawn out and discussed, such as the limits of the term ‘midrash’, and whether the midrashim are best read as loose collections of traditional material assembled over time, or as whole documents with a coherent overall theme and purposeful authorship. In this section, the work of Arnold Goldberg and his students is introduced, as it is their approach which has inspired the particular analysis of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews which I shall offer in chapter five. From the mid-1970s until his death in 5 See e.g. Spicq, Ceslas, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Études Bibliques. 2 vols. 3rd edition. Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, 1952–53 (see below, section 2.1.4.1). 6 As in Leschert, Dale F., Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some Core Citations From the Psalms. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994 (see below, section 2.3.8). 7 See e.g. DeSilva, David A., Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews”. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2000 (see below, section 2.1.6.1). 8 Fitzmyer, Joseph A., “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament.” New Testament Studies 7 (1960–61): 297–333. 9 Lim, Timothy H., Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.

6

Chapter 1. Hebrews and Early Jewish Bible Interpretation

1991, Goldberg practised a method of studying rabbinic texts known as form-analysis, which begins with the identification and detailed description of the various literary forms present in the texts, including the individual hermeneutical operations by which a scriptural segment was interpreted. One of Goldberg’s former students, Alexander Samely, has since developed this approach, and applied it in particular to the exegesis of scripture in the targumim and midrashim. Samely’s work is described in some detail in chapter three, because it has been very helpful for my own efforts to identify and explain the exegetical techniques present in Hebrews. This form-analytical method is virtually unknown amongst British New Testament scholars, perhaps because Goldberg’s work appears too narrowly technical, or was originally written in rather dense German, so one aim of this study is to introduce it to a wider audience. The research of both Goldberg and Samely is concerned to bring to the surface the understanding of the nature of scripture held by the rabbinic interpreters, as this is revealed through their exegesis. This question of the underlying scriptural axioms and hermeneutical presuppositions is also, I shall argue, an extremely significant aspect of the Old Testament interpretation of the author of Hebrews which has received far too little attention from commentators to date. Before beginning the analysis of some passages of Hebrews which forms the climax of this study, I found it necessary to try to establish the form of the author’s scriptural text with some precision. This is something of a vexed question, as scholars differ rather sharply in their conclusions about his faithfulness to his source in biblical citations. I have already drawn attention above to the fact that one important weakness which emerged from the survey of current literature on Hebrews was a lack of awareness on the part of many commentators of recent developments in the field of Septuagintal Studies. Some commentaries on Hebrews were written before the benefit of the discovery of the Qumran biblical texts, for example, or before the publication of the entire Göttingen edition of the Septuagint. Some studies compare the text of the Old Testament citations in Hebrews only with the major Septuagint Codices Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, whilst others draw conclusions about the author’s tendency to diverge from his scriptural source for theological reasons on the basis of only brief and general discussions about text form. In chapter four, therefore, I highlight some of the main developments in Septuagintal research which I consider most relevant for the study of the New Testament, referring in particular to the impact of the discovery of the Qumran corpus, and to current thinking about Greek versions of the Book of Psalms. As this chapter makes clear, contemporary Septuagintal scholarship stresses much more than was the case in the past the pluriformity of the biblical text in

1.3 Method and Overview

7

the first century CE, and the need to consider the form of every Old Testament book and each individual scriptural citation on its own terms rather than drawing general conclusions. I conclude this section with an examination of the text form of the nine direct Old Testament citations present in Hebrews chapters 1 and 3–4, drawing on all available evidence and taking full account of the conclusions of the most recent research into the Septuagint. My aim is to provide a more solid basis than is to be found in many existing studies for discussion of the accuracy (or lack of it) with which the author reproduces his biblical source, and of the techniques with which he exegetes it. Chapters two to four thus prepare the ground for the investigation of the interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews undertaken in chapter five of this study, where I apply to the text the kind of precise descriptiveanalytical method pioneered by Goldberg and further developed by Samely. I hope to demonstrate that this approach both illuminates new aspects of the biblical exegesis of the author of Hebrews, and also offers a way of explaining some of the features of his use of the Old Testament which have long been noted by commentators but never adequately explained, such as his frequent employment of citations containing first person direct speech. Drawing on Samely’s work in particular has provided me with access to a new vocabulary for explaining the hermeneutical operations in evidence in Hebrews, a very precise terminology which could be of great value for making comparisons between the scriptural exegesis of Hebrews and that employed in other New Testament books, the writings of the early church fathers, and the early post-biblical Jewish literature. The whole of the Letter to the Hebrews is, of course, so threaded through with Old Testament interpretation that almost any part of it could profitably be selected for detailed analysis of this subject. I have, however, made a deliberate decision to consider only the exegesis of explicit Old Testament citations. This provides a clear body of text to work on, text in which there can be no dispute that the author was intentionally interpreting (rather than, for example, unconsciously echoing) scripture, and about which there is usually (although not always, see for example Heb 1:5, 6) little argument about which biblical verses are being exegeted. Due to the constraints of time and space, I then narrowed down my focus further to two sections of Hebrews which appear on the surface to be very different in their use of scripture: chapter 1, a catena of citations, several of which are relatively short in length, and chapters 3–4, which offer a sustained exegesis of a longer citation, drawing in another scriptural text. This selection of passages provides the opportunity to ask what I consider to be another important question, namely whether the biblical interpretation in these chapters would reveal commonalities as well as differences under-

8

Chapter 1. Hebrews and Early Jewish Bible Interpretation

neath their divergent surface forms. In short, then, this study seeks to offer new insights into the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews – by asking more precise questions about the author’s hermeneutical operations, by proposing a new way of describing his exegetical techniques, by exploring the previously neglected question of his scriptural axioms, and generally by integrating the analysis of this New Testament book into the broader fields of research into the Septuagint and early Judaism.

Chapter 2

The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews 2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews 2.1.1 Introduction: Parameters of the Literature Review The task of reviewing existing scholarship on the Letter to the Hebrews is a particularly daunting one. Faced with the vast number of significant commentaries and studies available, some principles of selection must be brought to bear on the material. The main focus of this evaluation of previous studies of Hebrews will be their treatment of the subject of the use of the Old Testament in the letter. Section three of this chapter will review some of the many books and journal articles dealing specifically with this topic, but as the citation and interpretation of scripture is so fundamental to Hebrews as a whole, it seems important to include within this literature survey also some of the major commentaries on the text published in English, German and French, and a representative sample of studies of aspects of the letter’s theology and structure. An analysis of fewer commentaries in some depth rather than a briefer survey of a larger number better serves the main purpose of this chapter of highlighting the main strengths and any recurring weaknesses of previous research into the Old Testament exegesis in Hebrews. This review will therefore be limited to volumes published within the past one hundred and fifty years, and to those commentaries which I consider to be representative of common approaches to Hebrews, drawing where possible on the major series. Following some brief introductory remarks about each commentary, the way in which they tackle the issue of scriptural interpretation in Hebrews will be evaluated in detail. This time frame, although driven partly by the need to keep the literature survey within manageable proportions, is not simply arbitrary. This period encompasses major phases in the history of critical study of the New Testament such as: the changing attitude to koiné Greek consequent on the discovery of manuscripts such as the Oxyrhynchus Papyri in 1897; the influence of the History of Religions School, with its focus on Christianity as one among many religious phenomena in the ancient world; and the new emphasis on the ‘Jewishness’ of the New Testament which has

10

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

emerged during the latter part of the twentieth century.1 As these scholarly movements are often reflected in studies of Hebrews, I have also taken the decision to consider the commentaries in chronological order of publication, rather than to group them in some other way, by language, for example, or according to whether they are primarily theological or philological in approach. This method of proceeding should demonstrate most clearly the relationship of each volume to the broader context of New Testament study and thus best illustrate the ways in which the treatment of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews has developed over time. It may also bring to the surface the effect on some New Testament commentators of the general political and social climate of their time, which should not be underestimated. Ernst Käsemann’s work on Hebrews, for example, clearly reflects his particular situation as an opponent of the Nazi regime in pre-war Germany, as he later acknowledged: By describing the church as the new people of God on its wandering through the wilderness, following the Pioneer and Perfecter of faith, I of course had in mind that radical confessing church which resisted the tyranny in Germany and which had to be summoned to patience so that it could continue its way through endless waste. 2

I am not aware of any similar historical survey of studies of the interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews, so this chapter should enable me to provide some new insights into the strengths and weaknesses of current scholarship, and also to indicate some important areas where existing work may be in need of further development. 2.1.2 Late 19th Century Scholarship This survey begins with two commentaries produced by pioneers of the critical study of the New Testament, the first by the influential German scholar Franz Delitzsch, and the second by one of the giants of nineteenth century English biblical studies, Brooke Foss Westcott. Their work has proved to be of enduring value, so these commentaries have been chosen for inclusion here because of their importance as representative examples of the best of early critical scholarship on Hebrews from across Europe. 1 Neill, Stephen and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 18611986. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988 remains a useful and readable introduction to the work of key New Testament scholars and to the major shifts in the critical study of the New Testament. 2 Isaacs, Marie E., Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 73. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992, 13. She gives the source of this quotation as: Käsemann, Ernst, Kirchliche Konflikte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982, 17, as cited in the Translator’s Preface to Käsemann, Ernst, The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1984, 13.

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

11

2.1.2.1 Franz Delitzsch Delitzsch is concerned to offer in his commentary both an account of the theology of Hebrews and a very detailed study of the text, often drawing on linguistic and thematic parallels found in classical Greek sources and in Philo. There is reference throughout to a wide range of previous studies on Hebrews spanning the ancient, mediaeval, and Reformation periods, as well as more contemporary work, especially that written in German, as might be expected.3 Delitzsch assumes that the original audience of Hebrews were Jewish Christians, probably living in Palestine, and he suggests a date of writing before 66CE.4 He accepts that the letter as it stands cannot have been written by Paul, but is unwilling to abandon altogether some kind of connection with Paul, perhaps mediated by Luke.5 Among the strengths of this commentary are Delitzsch’s extensive knowledge of the whole field of biblical studies and his familiarity with a great breadth of ancient Greek literature. He was, however, writing before the discovery of various material which has had a profound impact on New Testament Studies in the twentieth century: new manuscripts of the Septuagint such as Codex Sinaiticus,6 for example, the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, which revolutionised the scholarly approach to koiné Greek, and the Qumran texts which have added so significantly to the sum of knowledge about Second Temple Judaism. Other areas of weakness in Delitzsch’s work strike the modern reader very forcibly. Thus, although he claims to be taking account of historical criticism,7 in fact he often appears to accept at face value claims of the biblical text which would be widely questioned today. He assumes, for example, that the words of several psalms were spoken by the historical King David at specific times in his life,8 and attributes the words of Jer 38(31):31–34 (cited at Heb 8:8–12; cf. Heb 10:16–17) without question to the historical prophet Jeremiah speaking after the conquest of Jerusalem.9 Similarly, he regards some Old Testament passages as directly prophetic of

3 Delitzsch, Franz, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868. The German original was published in 1857. The annotated bibliography (see Vol. 1: 22–35) indicates the extent of Delitzsch’s engagement with previous work on Hebrews. 4 See Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 1: 4, 20–21; Vol. 2: 46, 140, 332, 414. 5 Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 1: 5, 18. See also Vol. 2: 407–409. 6 T.L. Kingsbury made the decision to introduce into his English translation of the book a few references to Codex Sinaiticus, discovered only after the publication of the German original; see the Translator’s Preface to Delitzsch, Commentary. 7 See e.g. Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 2: 150. 8 See e.g. Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 1: 124; Vol. 2: 150. 9 Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 2: 39.

12

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

Jesus,10 and his work is heavily influenced by his own religious beliefs as a committed Christian. Thus, at times it seems that Delitzsch is as concerned to defend traditional views of the atonement in the face of contemporary challenges to them as to explain the text of Hebrews.11 It is his attitude to the Jewish background of the letter which is perhaps the most striking aspect of his commentary, however. Delitzsch was partly of Jewish descent, and was a renowned Hebraist and rabbinic scholar. He clearly had a detailed knowledge of ancient Jewish sources, and does occasionally bring in to his discussion of the letter a reference to the targumim,12 or the midrashim,13 especially where these seem to him to support the viewpoint of Hebrews. Yet he does so surprisingly infrequently, and never turns to these sources to seek an explanation for the author’s exegetical techniques or attitude to scripture. This silence is surely an eloquent one, as it is not the result of his ignorance of the comparative Jewish material, especially given that a Christian tradition of illuminating the New Testament from rabbinic parallels is in evidence from the seventeenth century onwards in the work of, for example, Johannes Schöttgen and later John Lightfoot. Presumably, having himself, as he saw it, accepted the truth of Christianity over Judaism, Delitzsch sought to emphasise the differences rather than similarities between the two religions and their approach to scripture. This seems the most probable explanation for the dismissive comments about the “…empty outward forms of Jewish religion…”14 which appear in the commentary from time to time, for example, and for the way in which he has arguably seriously underplayed the Jewish roots of the theology and biblical interpretation of the author of Hebrews. Many of these criticisms of the commentary in general apply specifically to Delitzsch’s treatment of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews. On the positive side, he includes some detail about the original scriptural context of some of the citations, and is knowledgeable about variant readings of the text of Hebrews. His discussion of the differences between the form of the citations in Hebrews and the Septuagint is, however, hampered 10

See e.g. Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 1: 62–63; Vol. 2: 149. Delitzsch refers directly in the preface (Commentary, Vol. 1: xi) to the controversy caused by the publication of Hofmann, Johann C.K von, Der Schriftbeweis: Ein theologischer Versuch. Nördlingen: C.H. Beck, 1852–55, and he frequently returns to this theme throughout the commentary, especially in treating Hebrews chapter 9 (see e.g. Vol. 2: 84–85) and in his excursus on the theology of the atonement (Vol. 2: 418–463). 12 Targumic renderings of Ps 103:4(LXX) are cited, for instance: see Commentary, Vol. 1: 74. 13 Delitzsch argues, for example, that a belief in the superiority of the coming messiah over Moses (cf. Heb 3:1–6) is attested in midrashic exegesis of Isa 52:13; see Delitzsch Commentary, Vol. 1: 157; cf. Vol. 1: 168–171, 312. 14 See Delitzsch, Commentary Vol. 2: 46. 11

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

13

by his faith-perspective that the ‘sacred writer’ could not have either made a mistake when citing scripture or deliberately altered his source text.15 Although he does sometimes acknowledge that the author may have elected to replace a word in his citation with another, for example preferring  to   at Heb 8:8 for theological reasons,16 on the whole he preferred to attribute differences between the Septuagint and Hebrews to the author citing from memory.17 This explanation has since been invalidated by a growing understanding of the extent of textual fluidity in the first century CE. Another difficulty with Delitzsch’s treatment of the Septuagint is his view that it was not regarded by the New Testament writers as having an authority equal to that of the original Hebrew scriptures.18 The inclusion of a citation in Heb 1:6 from the Song of Moses (Deut 32:43), a section of the text present in Greek versions of the bible but not the Masoretic Text, has therefore to be ‘justified’ by the explanation that its message is consistent with biblical theology as a whole.19 This view of the status of the Greek scriptures is too simplistic, given their widespread use within the early Christian movement, and it may stem in part from his Protestant convictions that only the books included in the Hebrew bible and its text are inspired and authoritative, not those preserved in Greek speaking Judaism and accepted as canonical by Roman Catholics. Delitzsch’s general position is that the author of Hebrews regarded the Old Testament negatively, and critiqued its revelation as partial and indirect in comparison to the perfection of the revelation in Jesus: “Old and New Testaments are set the one over against the other, the moonlight of the Old Testament paling once and again before the sunrise of the New...”20 Whilst this certainly appears to be the import of passages like Heb 1:1–4 and 8:6–13, I suggest that Delitzsch over-emphasises the presentation of the Old Testament in Hebrews as something inferior, perhaps because of his own background and faith position. He does not, for example, take account of the fact that it is used as the basis of the author’s whole argument throughout the letter, its message is assumed to be true and still valid for the author’s community (see especially Heb 3–4), its characters are presented as exemplars of faith in chapter 11, and its words are frequently used for exhortation and ethical directives. This tendency to downplay the importance of the Old Testament leads Delitzsch to deal with 15

See e.g. Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 2: 153. Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 2: 39. 17 A claim advanced by Delitzsch in e.g. Commentary, Vol. 1: 123 (with reference to Heb 2:13); and Vol. 2: 154 (in relation to Heb 10:5–7). 18 See Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 1: 69–70. 19 Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 1: 70. 20 Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 1: 3. 16

14

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

its use in Hebrews in a very general way, hardly discussing the author’s exegetical techniques at all. He frequently simply assumes that the texts cited were chosen because they are inherently messianic and point to their future fulfilment in a seed of David, who is Jesus.21 Delitzsch makes some comments which are related to the issue of the axioms about the nature of scripture and of interpretation which may underlie the treatment of the Old Testament in Hebrews. He foregrounds, for example, the author’s christological reading of the Old Testament, which Delitzsch himself considers to be a justifiable disclosure of its true inner meaning.22 He also asks how passages which were clearly referring to God in their original contexts (such as Deut 32:43 cited at Heb 1:6 and Ps 40:6– 8(39:7–9) at Heb 10:5–7) could have been applied to Jesus. This is an important question, but Delitzsch fails to develop the point, simply giving the unsatisfactory and over-simplistic answer that this is a fitting use of scripture because Jesus is the manifestation of God.23 In short, this commentary offers only a generalised account of the Old Testament citations in Hebrews, which focuses on their overall theological meaning, not on the precise techniques with which they are exegeted. Delitzsch is hampered both by his own apologetic approach and by the unavailability to him of material discovered later related to the study of the Septuagint and of biblical interpretation in first century Judaism. 2.1.2.2 Brooke Foss Westcott One of the oldest critical commentaries on Hebrews, Westcott’s volume remains a valuable resource for scholars and offers a detailed exposition of the Greek text.24 He is alert to similarities of vocabulary and interpretation between Hebrews and Philo, a line of enquiry picked up by later scholars such as Spicq, and he also demonstrates throughout this volume his extensive knowledge of patristic commentators. Westcott’s study provides theological as well as exegetical and philological interpretation of the text, and some reflection on how Hebrews could be related to issues faced by Christians in his own time.25 On the general questions about the letter’s author and date, he suggests that it was written to Jewish converts in Jerusalem just before the destruction of the Temple, and concludes that it is impossi21 See e.g. Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 1: 62–65 (on the use of 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 2); Vol. 1: 77 (on Ps 44:7–8); Vol. 2: 39 (on Jer 31(38):31–34); Vol. 2: 149–150 (on Ps 39:7–9). 22 As stated e.g. in Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 2: 246; cf. Vol. 2: 149. 23 Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 1: 71–72; cf. Vol. 2: 152. 24 Westcott, Brooke F., The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays. London: MacMillan & Co., 1889 25 See e.g. Westcott, The Epistle, ix, 492–495.

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

15

ble to be certain who wrote it.26 The introduction to the commentary includes a particularly useful section on the text of Hebrews, indicating all the extant manuscript witnesses and early versions and noting important divergent readings.27 Westcott fully appreciates the importance of the exegesis of the Old Testament in Hebrews, discussing it throughout his commentary and in a concluding chapter devoted to a detailed treatment of this subject.28 In this final section, he notices some very interesting features of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews, such as the fact that although there are several direct citations from the Book of Psalms in the letter, it appears to have generated remarkably few allusions or verbal echoes.29 This kind of precision is evident throughout the commentary, where, for example, he notes and tries to explain the differences between Hebrews and the Septuagint in some citations,30 and defines exactly what he means by typology and allegory,31 terms which are used rather loosely by some other commentators. In contrast to Delitzsch, Westcott’s basic thesis is that the author of Hebrews did not in any sense disparage the Old Testament, its revelation, or its institutions, although he believed that all these found in Jesus a more perfect and absolute fulfilment.32 Westcott is also surely correct to look to the original contexts of scriptural citations for reasons for their selection and application to Christ or the Christian community. He suggests, for example, that the designation of the speaker of a text as ‘lord’ could have contributed to the readiness of the author to attribute its words to Jesus, and that the phrase immediately preceding the passage from Ps 94 cited in Heb 3:7–11 (“We are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his hand…”, Ps 94:7) may have been regarded as justifying its use as a reference to the readers.33 In other respects, however, Westcott’s commentary seems to fall short in the light of more recent work. For example, although he does note the most significant differences between the form of the citations in Hebrews and the Septuagint, he does not examine in any detail the question of the textual state of the Greek bible in the first century, an area of study which 26

See the full discussion of these issues in Westcott, The Epistle, lxii–lxxix. Westcott, The Epistle, xv–xxvi. 28 This chapter is to be found in Westcott, The Epistle, 469–495. 29 Westcott, The Epistle, 473. 30 See e.g. Westcott’s discussion of the citation from Hab 2:4 at Heb 10:38: The Epistle, 337. 31 Westcott, The Epistle, 200. 32 See e.g. Westcott’s comments in The Epistle, lviii, lxxxii–lxxxiii, 4, 480–486. 33 These examples are taken from Westcott, The Epistle, 20 and 79; for further discussion on this point, see the “Additional Note on 3:7: the application to Christ of words spoken in the OT of the Lord”, pp. 89–91. 27

16

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

has advanced considerably since the time of his writing. He also, like Delitzsch, tends to be reluctant to accept that the author of Hebrews may have felt free to alter a citation;34 it is, for instance, disappointing that he is content to attribute the differences between the form of Jer 38(31):31–34 in Hebrews chapters 8 and 10 to the suggestion that the author was citing from memory in his second use of this text.35 Westcott shares the view of many subsequent commentators that the present tense is normally used in Hebrews to introduce citations,36 a generalisation which I find unconvincing (see for example Heb 1:5, 13; 2:5; 5:5; 10:30). Westcott’s final chapter on the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews is more concerned with the author’s overall interpretation of the scriptures than with the specific exegetical methods he applied to each text. His solid groundwork could, then, be extended by the consideration of issues which have more recently come to the forefront of scholarly debate, such as the application of the tools of linguistics to the use in Hebrews of scriptural citations containing first person direct speech, or the study of the axioms underlying biblical interpretation in other early Jewish texts. 2.1.2.3 Conclusions: Early Critical Studies of Hebrews These two commentaries are excellent examples of early critical study of Hebrews. In a manner unmatched by many later commentators, both Delitzsch and Westcott were able to bring to bear on their research a wideranging familiarity with classical Greek sources and the writings of the early church fathers, as well as an immense expertise across the whole field of biblical studies. They reflect the trends of their time particularly in the detailed attention which they pay to philological exegesis, and in their interest in variant readings of the text. Westcott in particular was involved in the drive to establish a critically reliable text of the New Testament, a task which took on a new significance towards the end of the nineteenth century, following Tischendorf’s discovery of Codex Sinaiticus and the increase in access to Codex Vaticanus.37 Significant advances in this area have taken place since the end of the nineteenth century, however, particularly with the discovery of the Chester-Beatty papyrus, the earliest known manuscript of the New Testament.

34 See e.g. his comments on the citation from Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38 and on the use of Deut 9:19 to attribute fear to Moses at the time of the giving of the Law in Heb 12:21 (Westcott, The Epistle, 347–348, 412). 35 Westcott, The Epistle, 241. 36 Westcott, The Epistle, 475. 37 For a summary of these developments, see Neill and Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 74ff.

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

17

The whole field of Septuagint Studies has also moved on since the era of Delitzsch and Westcott, although in my view this fact is not always taken seriously by New Testament scholars,38 so that the understanding of the textual state of the Septuagint in the first century CE is far greater now than was the case in the late nineteenth century. More recent knowledge about the development of the Greek language has also raised questions about the concern with the precise nuances of individual words in the New Testament texts seen in the work of Westcott and Delitzsch, and characteristic also of, for example, the early Meyer Series commentaries of this period. Whilst these philological methods and the search for accurate distinctions between the meaning of virtual synonyms have much to recommend them, the publication from 1898 onwards of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri and the discoveries of other papyri and inscriptions have demonstrated that the New Testament was not written in a special form of Greek all of its own, nor did it demand the application to it of the linguistic rules of classical Greek, as the nineteenth century philological commentators had assumed. It was instead “…simply the Koiné, the common form of Greek, simplified down from the classical standards, which had become widely used throughout the East as a result of the campaigns of Alexander the Great.”39 Although Westcott and Delitzsch were keen to use the methods of critical scholarship in their work, they did make assumptions about the nature of the scriptures as ‘sacred’ and about the ‘truth’ of the New Testament and Christian beliefs which do not sit well with modern approaches to the text. Both commentators were reluctant to admit that the author of Hebrews may have deliberately altered his Old Testament citations to suit his argument, for example. The century following the publication of their work has yielded a great increase in knowledge about many aspects of the Judaism of the late Second Temple period, including the methods and principles underpinning its biblical exegesis. Thus Delitzsch, Westcott and 38 See also Timothy McLay’s assertion that “...the study of the Septuagint continues to remain on the margins of New Testament research...” (McLay, R. Timothy, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2003, 1). 39 Neill and Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 159. Neill is rather dismissive of Westcott’s efforts in this area, claiming that he went “...off on endless wild-goose chases after exact classical shades of meaning which had in fact long since disappeared from the language.” Neill does, however, acknowledge the literary character of New Testament Greek (p. 161), and Semitic influences on it (p. 162). The role played by the Jewish scriptures in shaping the style of New Testament Greek, and the frequent occurrence in it of syntactic and linguistic Semitisms should certainly be stressed, even if some twentieth century attempts to demonstrate the unique nature of biblical Greek (e.g. Turner, Nigel, A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol. 3: Syntax. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963) have not been wholly successful.

18

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

their contemporaries did not have the benefit of the Qumran discoveries, or of the fruits of the research of twentieth century midrashic scholars. Their work therefore lacks precision and detail in its account of the exegetical techniques of the author of Hebrews, and it does not evince much interest in his underlying axioms about the nature of both scripture and interpretation, and how these compare with those reflected in other Jewish genres such as midrash. Despite the similarity of the strengths and weaknesses found in the work of these two commentators, one important difference should be noted: Westcott demonstrates a far more positive attitude to the value of the Old Testament for the New Testament writers than Delitzsch. It will be interesting to consider how far this difference continues to characterise English and German scholarship of later periods. 2.1.3 Scholarship in the First Half of the Twentieth Century Although this period was a very important one for the study of the New Testament in general, with new possibilities of scholarly access to the manuscript finds of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the rise of the influential History of Religions School, it was not a particularly fruitful one for commentaries on Hebrews. Few enduring studies were published in the first half of the twentieth century, but one English and one German commentator can again serve as representative of this period, especially as both place emphasis on establishing a Hellenistic Jewish background for Hebrews, in keeping with the general tendency of New Testament scholarship at the time. 2.1.3.1 James Moffatt In 1924 Moffatt published a medium size commentary on the Greek text of Hebrews, which demonstrates a philological concern to establish the precise meaning of individual Greek words, drawing parallels with the works of Philo and other Jewish sources, and including citations from classical writers and the early church fathers.40 Moffatt’s introduction covers the letter’s date, authorship, and audience, but he deliberately does not devote very much space to these questions, as he believes that they simply cannot be definitely answered.41 He concludes that the author was perhaps a Jewish Christian steeped in Alexandrian Judaism,42 who may have been writ40

Moffatt, James, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924. 41 “The identity of the author and of his readers must be left in the mist where they already lay at the beginning of the second century when the guess-work, which is honoured as ‘tradition’, began.” (Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, ix; cf. p. xx). 42 Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, xxi.

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

19

ing to a small household church.43 Above all, Moffatt stresses that although the letter’s original recipients may have been born Jewish, they are thoroughly Greek-speaking, and so the content and message of Hebrews have nothing to do with issues in Palestine, such as the Jewish rebellion against the Romans or the destruction of the temple. He therefore takes issue with the view that members of the community were feeling tempted to return to the practice of Judaism,44 and in this reading of the text he has been followed by several more recent commentators. He includes in the introduction a relatively lengthy account of “the religious ideas of the epistle”,45 covering themes like the author’s philosophical outlook and his understanding of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. However, at least part of this section appears to owe more to Moffatt’s views about later theological debates than to the central concerns of Hebrews. Moffatt’s approach to the treatment of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews can perhaps be best summed up in the following statement from his introduction: The exegetical methods which the author took over from the Alexandrian School are not ours. Besides, historical criticism has rendered it hard for us moderns to appreciate the naive use of the OT which prevails in some sections...46

Here, because of some similarities between Hebrews and Philo (a theme developed by later commentators, particularly Spicq), he makes the assumption that the exegetical techniques evident in Hebrews can all be satisfactorily labelled ‘Alexandrian’, and that there were no other significant influences on the author. He does not compare the exegesis of Hebrews with that found in any other sections of Judaism; scholars today are, of course, in a much better position to appreciate the benefits of such a wider comparison, in view of the Qumran finds and developments in the study of rabbinic texts. However, Moffatt also fails to analyse or even describe the ways in which the author of Hebrews uses his Old Testament citations. He does not, for instance, attempt to account for features like the dividing up of a short passage into two separate citations.47 His only explanation for the author’s selection of scriptural texts is that most of them were drawn from passages which had previously been read as messianic, or were at least open to that interpretation.48 I cannot agree that the exegetical method 43

Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, xv. See especially Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, xvi. 45 Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, xxx–lvi. 46 Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, xlvi. 47 This is noted in the case of Isa 8:17–18 at Heb 2:13, for example, but not discussed; Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 33. 48 See the discussion of 2 Sam 7:14 at Heb 1:5 in Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 10; cf. p.14, on Ps 102:25–27(101:26–28) at Heb 1:10–12. 44

20

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

of Hebrews was ‘naive’ or ‘fanciful’ or ‘fantastic’, adjectives used by Moffatt in talking specifically about the interpretation of the Melchizedek episode in Hebrews chapter 7.49 Closer analysis of the author’s exegesis shows that it makes careful and sophisticated use of recognisable techniques, that it is often attempting to deal with ambiguities or other issues in the original scriptural text, and that the author was part of a long tradition of biblical interpretation. Finally, Moffatt recognises that there are sometimes differences between the form of an Old Testament citation in Hebrews and the Septuagint, and concludes that the author used a text similar to Codex A, but reproduced it with some freedom.50 Obviously, there is now a much greater understanding than at the time Moffatt was writing about the complexity inherent in making decisions about an author’s use of a particular version of the Septuagint. 2.1.3.2 Hans Windisch Windisch serves as both an example of an important German commentator of the first half of the twentieth century and as a leading representative of the History of Religions School. It is also interesting to compare this volume in the Handbuch zum Neuen Testament series51 with the later commentary on Hebrews in the same series by Herbert Braun, who also seeks to uncover connections between Hebrews and the wider religious world of its time.52 Windisch categorises Hebrews as a Mahnrede,53 or homily, with a letter-conclusion attached, and describes its author as learned in the methods of biblical exegesis developed within Hellenistic Judaism.54 Although accepting that no case for assigning a particular date to the writing of Hebrews has been made conclusively, he tends to favour a relatively late date during the reign of Domitian, about 81–96CE, when the author’s audience may have been facing renewed opposition.55 Windisch is interested in parallels between the christology of Hebrews and the logos speculation of Philo, but, in line with the History of Religions approach, even more so in the relationship of both to an ancient Messiasmythus. He sees in the Enoch-Metatron-Myth reflected in the Enochic literature and in the Mandaean texts discovered in the early nineteenth cen49

Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, xxxii, 90. Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, lxii. 51 Windisch, Hans, Der Hebräerbrief, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 14. 2nd edition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1931. 52 Braun, Herbert, An die Hebräer, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. 53 Windisch, Der Hebräerbrief, 8, 124. 54 Windisch, Der Hebräerbrief, 131–133. 55 Windisch, Der Hebräerbrief, 126–127. 50

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

21

tury some of the ideas which were the precursors of Gnosticism. He therefore argues throughout this volume for the existence of an oriental gnosis, which became fused very early, first with Jewish and then Christian gnosis. It is these ancient redeemer myths which Windisch regards as providing the context for the christology of Hebrews (and also of Colossians and Ephesians). He also emphasises the dualistic worldview of Hebrews, a characteristic of later Gnosticism, and suggests parallels between it and the Mystery Religions. These widespread mythic and early Gnostic ideas are, then, for Windisch, the key to understanding Hebrews, leading him to downplay links between the letter and gospel traditions. The possibility of influence on Hebrews of Philo was taken up by some later commentators, most notably Spicq, and the place of Hebrews in the development of Christian Gnosticism has also been considered significant by scholars such as Michel and Braun. There are, however, some obvious difficulties with Windisch’s theory, not least the fact that 3 Enoch, which played a large part in the construction of his theory, is unlikely to have reached its final form before the fifth or sixth century CE,56 so the age and developmenthistory of the ideas it contains are not certain. Even Otto Michel, who wrote the first edition of his commentary in this period (1936), and who took up many of Windisch’s views, considered that he went too far in distancing Hebrews from the gospel tradition (see further below, section 2.1.4.3). Windisch’s theory about the background of the ideas in Hebrews depends in large part on his stressing the author’s rootedness in the theology of the Septuagint, and his education in methods of biblical exegesis developed in the Diaspora. In order to demonstrate this thesis conclusively, however, I think that Windisch would need to provide more evidence that unique beliefs about scripture and particular interpretative methods really did characterise Hellenistic (as distinct from Palestinian) Judaism. He offers virtually no discussion of the scriptural axioms or exegetical techniques of the author of Hebrews, however, or of how far these are reflected in Hellenistic Jewish writings, nor any real consideration of the scriptural texts available to him, beyond brief comments noting some of the differences between the form of citations in Hebrews and the Septuagint. This is, of course, partly a result of the small size of his commentary, but it is also because Windisch’s main concern is to put forward his overall argument about the letter’s christology. Yet some consideration of the original context of the Old Testament citations, and of how this might have made pos56

See for instance the full discussion of the various positions on the dating of this text in Alexander, Philip S., “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch.” Pages 223–325 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Vol. 1. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 225–229.

22

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

sible the particular interpretation given to them in Hebrews, is surely necessary to establish his case. Windisch does on occasion characterise the author’s exegesis as ‘midrash’,57 but his use of the term would now be considered rather loose, in view of the efforts of later scholars to specify its meaning more precisely (see further below, chapter three). This study, then, makes a particular contribution to the debate about the origins of the christological ideas of Hebrews. The analysis of the use of the Old Testament in the letter is, however, not well developed; there is very little comment on the author’s exegetical techniques or on the biblical texts available to him, and manuscript discoveries and scholarly research during the latter part of the twentieth century have since moved forward quite considerably our knowledge and understanding of early Jewish biblical exegesis. 2.1.3.3 Conclusions: Theological Readings of Hebrews The History of Religions approach, championed by Windisch, was important in biblical studies in the first decades of the twentieth century, and it would continue to influence commentators on Hebrews, especially in Germany, but it did result in rather one-sided analyses of the New Testament texts. It could thus be said of both of the commentators surveyed in this section that they allow their own theological views about Hebrews to dominate, to the detriment of a full analysis of the author’s use of the Old Testament. A strength of both is their recognition of the need to compare Hebrews with contemporary Jewish sources such as Philo, but, as noted above in the introduction to this study, this material is regarded purely as background to Hebrews, in exactly the same way that Hellenistic sources can serve as background to the ideas of the letter, and Hebrews is not understood as being itself an example of Jewish bible exegesis. These commentaries do not, therefore, examine the exegetical techniques of Hebrews, nor of the contemporary Jewish authors, in sufficient depth, and the later discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has provided important evidence for challenging the clear distinction drawn by both Moffatt and Windisch between Hellenistic and Palestinian Jewish biblical interpretation and theology. This point will be explored further below, in the evaluation of the work of Michel (section 2.1.4.3). Finally, whilst these commentators do point out the differences between the form of an Old Testament citation in Hebrews and the Septuagint, neither appears to see a need to discuss reasons for these in detail.

57

28.

See e.g. the discussion of the use of Ps 94 in Heb 3–4: Windisch, Der Hebräerbrief,

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

23

2.1.4 Hebrews Scholarship in the Post-War Years A number of important commentaries on Hebrews were published in Europe in the two decades immediately following the end of the Second World War. Perhaps the most famous of these is that by the French scholar Ceslas Spicq, who argues in detail the case for connections between Hebrews and the writings of Philo. Also important is Otto Michel’s German commentary, heavily influenced by the History of Religions approach. Although first published in 1936, it is the expanded edition of 1966 which will be reviewed here, as this offers a fuller account of Michel’s position and takes account of the first wave of Qumran research. This period also saw the publication of several smaller commentaries in English. Of these, the volume by F.F. Bruce published in the New London Commentary Series has been chosen for inclusion here, as it deals with the issue of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews more fully than others of a similar size. 2.1.4.1 Ceslas Spicq Spicq’s classic commentary is published in two volumes, the first serving as the introduction to the letter and its theology, and the second devoted to the commentary proper.58 Spicq emphasises the theology of the epistle,59 as well as offering a detailed exegesis of the Greek text, and he is thoroughly acquainted with other major studies of Hebrews. The introduction covers matters such as the rhetoric of Hebrews and its literary characteristics, similarities between this text and other New Testament writings, particularly the Johannine literature,60 and the various witnesses to the text. Spicq characterises the letter as a moral exhortation and stresses the author’s practical goal: “...réconforter et encourager des chrétiens éprouvés et lassés...”61 He dates the writing of the letter before the destruction of Jerusalem, around 67CE,62 and suggests that the addressees may have been a group of Jewish priests within a Christian community, who were sorely missing Jewish forms of worship.63 Spicq also argues for Alexandria as the place where Hebrews was written, and the Alexandrian Jew Apollos as the

58 Spicq, Ceslas, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Études Bibliques. 2 vols. 3 rd edition. Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, 1952–53. 59 See e.g. the lengthy section in Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 266–329. 60 Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 109–138. 61 Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 4. 62 Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 254–257. 63 See Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 4–5, 221–231, 243–244. Spicq even suggests (p. 227) that some of the addressees may have been among those Jewish priests converted at the time of the ministry of Stephen according to Acts 6:7, but this appears to be nothing more than speculation on his part.

24

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

most likely of the candidates for its authorship.64 However, this is mainly because of the stress he famously places on the ‘Philonism’ of Hebrews, which would sit well with an Alexandrian provenance.65 The similarities between the works of Philo and Hebrews to which he is able to point do not, however, prove the actual dependence of the latter on the former, as much of the language and thought at issue is not unique to Philo, and Spicq himself was aware that the claim for the influence of Philo on the author of Hebrews was losing favour amongst commentators.66 Spicq’s first volume contains a chapter of twenty pages specifically dealing with the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews.67 It has some similarities with the equivalent section in Westcott’s commentary, as both seek to firmly establish the number of citations and allusions present in the letter, the range of scriptural books from which they are taken, and the form of the Septuagint text being used by the author. There is, then, no doubt that Spicq fully recognises the importance of the Old Testament for the argument of Hebrews, and that he attempts to bring some clarity to the discussion of this subject. He offers some very useful insights into the exegesis in Hebrews, although several of the points made here are now probably in need of questioning or further development in the light of new knowledge about early Jewish biblical interpretation. For example, he notes the frequent use of the Psalms in the citations and of the Pentateuch in allusions,68 and suggests that this prominence of the Psalms may be due to the familiarity of the author and his audience with Jewish liturgy.69 The discovery of the Qumran texts has, however, thrown new light on the issue of the range of Old Testament books on which the New Testament writings draw, as they also evidence a particular emphasis on the Pentateuch and the Psalms. In reviewing some of the differences between the Old Testament citations in Hebrews and the extant forms of the Septuagint, Spicq concludes that the author most often follows Codex Alexandrinus or a text 64 The various suggestions about authorship are discussed in Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 197–219. 65 A whole chapter on the ‘Philonism’ of Hebrews is to be found in Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 39–91. The relationship between the exegesis of the author of Hebrews and Philo and an ‘Alexandrian school’ is also the subject of another study dating from this period: Sowers, Sidney G., The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews: A Comparison of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Philo Judaeus and the Epistle to the Hebrews, Basel Studies of Theology 1. Zürich: Evz-Verlag, 1965. 66 This is acknowledged by Spicq, see L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 39, although he remains confident that his comparison of Philo and Hebrews is more extensive than any previously undertaken, and that it proves his position. 67 Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 330–350. 68 Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 331–333. 69 Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 332.

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

25

related to it, but that he sometimes made changes to his source where that better suited his argument.70 This is also an area of study in which there have been important developments since Spicq was writing, so that scholars might now take a more complex view about the variety of Septuagint text forms extant in the first century CE and of the relationships between them. One of the strongest aspects of Spicq’s analysis of the exegesis of the Old Testament in Hebrews is the fact that, unlike many other commentators, he attempts to consider what this reveals about the author’s understanding of scripture itself. Thus he claims that there is a significant difference between the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews and in all other New Testament writings: whereas other early Christians tended to employ scriptural verses as proof-texts to buttress their arguments, in Hebrews the Old Testament texts are integral to the argument, and in fact serve as the source of the author’s Christian faith: “Si Hébreux s’intéresse a ce point – on pourrait dire exclusivement – a l’Ancien Testament, c’est qu’il y découvre tous les éléments de sa christologie et du nouveau culte.”71 The Old Testament, then is as ‘Christian’ as the New, and the author was drawing out its ultimate meaning, making particular use of texts which were already considered messianic.72 This explanation is in line with the sensus plenior approach to scripture taken by several other Roman Catholic scholars. Spicq also draws attention to the author’s strong belief in the divine inspiration and continued relevance of scripture, evidenced partly by the introductory formulae which stress the divine not the human author.73 I certainly agree with Spicq that the author of Hebrews uses Old Testament citations as the basis of his theology in quite a unique way – the careful arrangement of the texts in chapter 1, for example, is a means of developing an argument, not simply a listing of scriptural passages which might be applied to Jesus (see further section 5.2 below). However, there is considerable scope for extending this discussion of the author’s axioms beyond his belief in the divine inspiration and christological content of the Old Testament, as, for example, Goldberg has done in his pioneering work on the rabbinic view of scripture (see further section 3.6 below). Spicq’s conclusions may also stem in part from his presuppositions as a Christian commentator: he appears to believe that faithfulness to the sense of a scriptural text can always include exegeting it as referring to Jesus, when in fact

70

Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 336. Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 339; cf. Vol. 1: 333. 72 See e.g. Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 331, 333; cf. Vol. 2: 15–16 on the application in Judaism of Ps 2:7 to the king-messiah. 73 See e.g. Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 337–338. 71

26

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

such an interpretation may have appeared to contemporaries of the author of Hebrews as a novel or unjustified one. If the appreciation of the whole approach to scripture of the author of Hebrews is a strong point of Spicq’s commentary, perhaps the weakest aspect of it is his lack of analysis of the actual exegetical techniques employed in interpreting the Old Testament texts, a shortcoming shared with other major commentaries. His remarks about this subject are relatively brief and very general, mentioning the author’s use of some common rabbinic techniques such as a fortiori and the linking together of scriptural texts,74 for example. There is, then, much more work to be done on analysing whether there is anything in a biblical citation or its context which made it susceptible to the interpretation it receives in Hebrews, and on describing clearly what exegetical methods are being applied to it to make it yield this meaning. 2.1.4.2 Frederick F. Bruce Bruce’s is one of the best of the smaller commentaries on the English text of Hebrews, as it is remarkably detailed for its size, and the discussion of the background to the letter and its key issues is concise, but clear and authoritative.75 Like many modern commentators, Bruce feels that the evidence does not warrant definite conclusions about the letter’s author or original destination, but he is of the view that the intended audience was a community of Hellenistic Jewish Christians,76 possibly in Rome,77 and he considers a date before rather than after the destruction of the temple in 70CE as the more likely.78 He frequently draws on useful comparative material from various ancient Jewish sources, including the DeuteroCanonical books like Wisdom and 1 Maccabees, the Qumran texts, the writings of Josephus and rabbinic literature. He is also aware of possible parallels between Hebrews and Philo, although he follows other commentators in concluding that: “...our author is using Philonic language rather than Philonic ideas.”79 The New London Commentary Series stands avow74

Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Vol. 1: 333, 347–348. Bruce, Frederick F., Commentary on The Epistle to the Hebrews, New London Commentary on the New Testament. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1964. 76 This discussion is to be found in Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, xxiii–xxx. 77 Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, xxv; see also the discussion of this issue on pp. xxxi–xxxv; cf. Bruce’s comments on the expulsion of Jews from Rome under Claudius in relation to Heb 10:32–34, pp. 267–269. 78 “In short, there are several passages which, while they do not demand a date before A.D. 70, would have special point if in fact the Jerusalem temple was still standing and the cultus still going on; while there is no passage which suggests that sanctuary and cultus were by now things of the past.” (Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, xliv). 79 Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, 80. 75

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

27

edly within the tradition of Protestant Christianity informed by critical scholarship,80 and Bruce’s own religious perspectives are at times evident in this volume. His claim that “the inwardness of true religion” is a central plank in the argument of Hebrews, for instance, does make the letter’s author sound like a good Protestant!81 There is a short section on “Hebrews and the Old Testament” in the introduction and Bruce returns to this subject throughout the commentary. He begins by addressing the question of the text form underlying the citations, and concludes that the author generally made use of “...a type of text earlier than either the A-text or the B-text...Where his text deviates from both A and B, he appears to have selected his variants for interpretational purposes.”82 This brief summary is a useful starting point, but recent work in the area of the Septuagint has made possible a more sophisticated approach to the issues. Greek biblical texts other than those closely related to Codices A and B existed in the first century CE, for example, and Bruce does not consider in sufficient detail the reasons for possible deliberate departures from a Septuagintal source on the part of the author, and the significance of this for an understanding of his exegetical methods. Perhaps the greatest strength of Bruce’s treatment of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews is the detailed explanation he frequently gives of the original context of the citations.83 His concern to do this presumably stems at least partly from the fact that he agrees with C.H. Dodd that the Old Testament passages cited in the New Testament carried their wider contexts with them. So, for example, he suggests that Ps 22(21) and Isa 8 may have been associated in Heb 2:12–13 because both chapters contain the idea of God hiding his face.84 In general, Bruce’s discussion of the Old Testament in Hebrews focuses on the way in which it is used by the author to support his overall argument that the gospel is superior to everything that has gone before.85 On 80

In the foreword written by Bruce as series editor, he explains that its aim is: “...to interpret the New Testament books in accordance with the best standards of Reformed scholarship, in which wholehearted acknowledgement of the divine authority of Holy Writ is combined with the acceptance and presentation of all the light that has been thrown on it by the most recent study and discovery.” (Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, ix). 81 See Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, xi–xii. Cf. his comment that “...the redemptive and cleansing efficacy of His (Jesus’) death in the lives of His followers has been a matter of plain experience for over nineteen centuries.” (p. lvi). 82 Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, xlix. 83 See especially his commentary on Hebrews chapter 1 and on the use of Ps 94 in Hebrews chapter 3 (Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, 11–26, 63–65). 84 Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, 46. 85 “The purpose of our author’s exegesis of Old Testament scripture, as of his general argument, is to establish the finality of the gospel by contrast with all that went before it

28

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

the positive side, this means that he is engaging with the important issue of the axioms underlying the biblical exegesis in Hebrews, claiming, for example, that the author understood scripture as a word of promise which is only perfectly fulfilled in Jesus,86 or as a divine oracle, so that its every word could be interpreted as the direct speech of God to or about Jesus.87 In this context he suggests that several of the texts cited in Hebrews, such as Ps 2 and Hab 2:3–4, are open to a messianic interpretation.88 However, these rather general comments about the interpretation of scripture in the letter lead Bruce to overlook almost entirely the need to analyse and comment specifically on the author’s exegetical techniques, and this is probably the greatest weakness of this commentary, as of others reviewed here. He also has a tendency to use his terms too loosely, characterising the exegesis of Hebrews as typological and historical, in contrast to Philo’s allegorical methods,89 for instance, without offering any explanation of these descriptions. Likewise, he introduces the idea that in chapters 7, 9 and 12 the author may have been using an oral midrash on the Pentateuch, because he refers to some details not found in the scriptural text.90 Here, the reader is left to wonder in what sense Bruce is using the word ‘midrash’, as recent studies have demonstrated that it is not helpful to apply this technical term imprecisely to any kind of expansion of scripture. In rather similar fashion he compares the scriptural interpretation of Hebrews to the raz-pesher pattern found in biblical apocalyptic and Qumranic exegesis,91 despite the fact that there is no occurrence in the letter of a term equivalent to ‘mystery’, and without providing any clear evidence that the author did in fact understand the Old Testament as a parable awaiting the uncovering of its hidden meaning. 2.1.4.3 Otto Michel This volume is the sixth edition of Michel’s substantial commentary on Hebrews.92 It provides a detailed exegesis of the text, but is less philological in its approach than some of the other commentaries surveyed here, (more particularly, by contrast with the levitical cultus), as the way of perfection, the way which alone leads men to God without any barrier or interruption of access...” (Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, lii). 86 See especially Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, 2–3. 87 Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, xlix–l. 88 See Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, 12, 272–273. 89 Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, l–li. 90 Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, xlix. 91 Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle, l. A similar view is found also in Braun, An die Hebräer. 92 Michel, Otto, Der Brief an die Hebräer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 13. 6th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966.

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

29

such as those by Spicq and Westcott. Michel agrees with many scholars that the details of the background to Hebrews cannot be retrieved with certainty, but he suggests that the text originated as an early Christian homily, which the author, a Jewish-Christian educated in the Alexandrian tradition, sent with a letter-conclusion to a community in Rome or somewhere else in Italy. His aim in so doing was to strengthen the faith and endurance of a group who were becoming casual about their faith in the post-apostolic times.93 Michel believes that Hebrews may reflect the circumstances of a final break between Christianity and Judaism,94 but, like Moffatt, he does not see the letter’s original audience as having been struggling with the specific temptation of returning to their former Jewish religious practices and forms of worship. Michel’s thinking about Hebrews evolved over the decades after the first edition of his commentary was published in 1936. Later editions were therefore revised to take account of the Qumran material, for example, and of changing views about the importance of Philo for understanding the letter. Thus in the foreword to this volume, Michel explains that he has gradually come to realise that Hebrews should not be thought of as dependent on Philo, but that it is important to recognise that both authors came from the same world, that of the Hellenistic Jewish synagogue, in which their theology was shaped by the Septuagint.95 The extent to which the contemporary currents of New Testament scholarship have affected the interpretation of Hebrews is particularly clear in the case of Michel. He shares, for example, the interest of the prevailing form critical movement in assessing whether a text is related to the preaching or teaching needs of the early church,96 and he is also influenced by the approach of the History of Religions School. He regards Hebrews, therefore, as fitting into the process of Hellenisation in which both Judaism and then Christianity came to terms with the Greek world and confronted phenomena such as the Mystery Religions.97 This explains Michel’s emphasis on the Hellenistic synagogue as the place of ultimate origin for the theology of Hebrews, although 93

See especially Michel, Der Brief, 58. Michel, Der Brief, 48. This view of the dating of the break between Judaism and Christianity is widely questioned today, as noted above in chapter 1. 95 “Mir ist bei der Auslegung immer klarer geworden, dass der Hebräerbrief nicht von Philo, sondern Hebräerbrief und auch Philo aus der hellenistischen Synagoge und ihrer Theologie zu verstehen sind. Die LXX ist der Schlüssel zu mancher Frage, die bisher viel zu sehr von Philo her beleuchtet wurde.” (Michel, Der Brief, 5). 96 This is evident in his discussion of the literary character of Hebrews, see Michel, Der Brief, 21–36; cf. also his comment that the author of Hebrews “...steht in einer Zeit, die stärker didaktisch als kerygmatisch wirkt...” (p. 77). 97 See e.g. Michel, Der Brief, 547–549 for a clear statement of this view; see also pp. 5, 35, 78, 151–156. 94

30

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

he does distance himself to some extent from other leading proponents of this view such as Windisch, who he feels do not take sufficient account of the letter’s connections with primitive Christian tradition.98 He also stresses throughout the commentary that the general theological outlook of the author of Hebrews and his scriptural exegesis are deeply rooted in apocalyptic, which was an area of growing scholarly interest in the postwar years.99 Michel clearly appreciates the central place of the Old Testament in Hebrews, and its importance as the key to the author’s thought. His emphasis on the theology of the Diaspora synagogues as a formative influence on the letter’s author means that he is particularly interested in the relationship between Hebrews and the Septuagint. In this edition of his commentary then, he adds three pages to his excursus on the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews which specifically discuss the text form of the citations.100 However, there is an important flaw in Michel’s underlying premise about the author’s rootedness in a Hellenistic Jewish theology shaped by the Septuagint: he seems to assume, rather than attempting to prove, that there was such a body of Diaspora synagogue learning on which the author of Hebrews was able to draw. No evidence for the existence of such an extensive and solid tradition is provided, apart from reference to the writings of Philo, and Michel offers no arguments to support his claim that important theological beliefs and approaches to scripture were held in common by Diaspora Jews throughout the Graeco-Roman world. The view that ‘Hellenistic’ Judaism was something quite different from ‘Palestinian’ Judaism has since been seriously undermined by the publication of the work of Martin Hengel, who has convincingly demonstrated the extent of the influence in Palestine for much of the Second Temple period of Greek education, ideas and language, arguing that: “From about the middle of the third century BC all Judaism must really be designated ‘Hellenistic Judaism’ in the strict sense…”101 The second major weakness in Michel’s treatment of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews is, I suggest, that he allows his belief that the epistle is an essentially apocalyptic writing to dominate. He therefore assumes that an important presupposition of the author of Hebrews was that the scriptural text is eschatological, and can be understood only now that the 98

See e.g. Michel, Der Brief, 547. See e.g. Michel, Der Brief, 26, 76–77, 89, 92, 107, 362, 547. 100 Michel, Der Brief, 155–157. 101 Hengel, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. London: SCM Press, 1974, 104; see also Hengel, Martin, The ‘Hellenization’ of Judaism in the First Century After Christ. London: SCM Press, 1989. 99

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

31

end-time has been brought near through Jesus, stating, for example: “Das AT wird als Autorität ernst genommen, weil es den Sinn und die Bedeutung der Endzeit enthüllt.”102 This stress on apocalyptic leads Michel also to regard biblical interpretation in Hebrews as involving a revelation of secrets, as did Bruce.103 Whilst eschatological expectation was indeed a central feature of early Christianity in general, I do not agree that it is accurate or sufficient to describe the biblical exegesis of the author of Hebrews as apocalyptic. Michel himself acknowledges that there are connections between the interpretation of scripture in Hebrews and a number of Jewish traditions other than apocalyptic.104 He provides no real evidence for his view that the way the bible is understood in Hebrews owes a specific debt to apocalyptic, or for his claim that scriptural exegesis was at least partially regarded by the author as a revelation of secrets. He also fails to distinguish clearly between the terms apocalyptic, eschatological and messianic. Like many other commentators, Michel emphasises that the author of Hebrews approaches the Old Testament with the conviction that it makes sense only when interpreted in relation to Jesus and his followers: “...vom Kreuz her fällt also auf diese Worte des AT neues Licht.”105 However, he pays a disappointing lack of attention to the question of precisely how the author of Hebrews exegeted specific scriptural texts to understand them as being about Jesus. He does mention that the common Jewish interpretative technique of Stichworte (‘brother’ and ‘rest’, for example) is sometimes employed,106 but on the whole he minimises the connections between Hebrews and the exegetical methods of the rabbis,107 a tendency evident also in the work of previous German commentators. This is partly because of his belief that the letter reflects the theology of Hellenistic Judaism, but as I have argued above, he does not provide sufficient evidence that there was a great difference between the scriptural exegesis of Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism. Michel’s assumption that the author of Hebrews did not share the Torah-centric outlook of rabbinic Judaism also leads him to un102 Michel, Der Brief, 107; cf. p. 26: “Auf jeden Fall spricht die Exegese des Hebr aus der eschatologischen Erfüllung heraus, die mit einer bestimmten Zeit und Erkenntnis zusammenhängt.” See also pp. 26, 56, 76–77, 89, 109–110, 362. 103 See e.g. Michel, Der Brief, 109, and, in reference to the treatment of Melchizedek, p. 254. 104 See Michel, Der Brief, 547. 105 Michel, Der Brief, 336. Cf. “Ein alttestamentliches Wort kann aufleuchten auf Grund des Wortes und Werkes Jesu...” (p. 151). 106 Michel, Der Brief, 151. 107 “Paulus hält sich meist an die rabbinischen Regeln und Methoden des Schriftbeweises; unser Brief dagegen ist in der Schriftbenutzung mehr an Begriffe und Anschauungen gebunden, nicht an Regeln und Methoden.” (Michel, Der Brief, 151).

32

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

derplay the significance of citations from and allusions to the Torah in Hebrews. Thus he writes: Es fällt in der Schriftbenutzung des Hebr auf, wie stark Psalter und Propheten das Schriftzeugnis tragen, wenngleich auch die Tora genügend zu Worte kommt. Diese besondere Wertung des Psalters und der Propheten entspricht der Eigenart des Evangeliums und des Urchristentums, während das Judentum von der Tora als der Grundlage der übrigen Schriften ausgeht.108

Michel is obviously right to draw attention to the number of Psalms citations in Hebrews, and no one would dispute the central place of the Pentateuch in Judaism, yet he seems to have overstated the case for a fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity in their approach to the scriptures. It is often noted, for example, that, despite the reference to the prophets in the opening verse, Hebrews makes relatively little reference to the prophetic books, and passages from the Pentateuch are central to the argument of several sections of the letter, particularly chapters 3, 7, 9 and 11. Comparison with the Qumran texts is also instructive in this regard, as some parallels with the New Testament have emerged in the range of biblical books cited there. A lack of attention to exegetical methods, together with an over-reliance on preconceived ideas about the relationship of the letter to Hellenistic Judaism are, then, significant weaknesses in Michel’s treatment of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews. 2.1.4.4 Conclusions: The Influence on Commentaries on Hebrews of Some Twentieth Century Movements in New Testament Studies The commentaries written during the mid-twentieth century demonstrably reflect some of the prevailing currents of New Testament scholarship. This is especially apparent in the case of Michel, who seeks to approach Hebrews from the perspective of form criticism and with emphasis on the apocalypticism which he, like many of his contemporaries, believed was central to the early Christian movement. Michel’s work also reveals the influence of the History of Religions School, as he attempts to situate Hebrews within the wider process of the Hellenisation of the ancient world. In line with his emphasis on Hellenistic Judaism as the locus of the background to Hebrews, Michel downplays links between the letter and rabbinic Judaism, a tendency which has been noted in other German scholars. Spicq similarly emphasises the connections of the author of Hebrews with Hellenistic Judaism. The question of the place of Hebrews within the history of religion in the ancient world also interests the successor to Michel in the Meyer Series: Hans-Friedrich Weiss devotes a lengthy section of his

108

Michel, Der Brief, 151; cf. “...statt der Tora die Verheißung...” (p. 77)

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

33

introduction to the subject of the religious background to Hebrews.109 The other commentators surveyed here are also affected by contemporary ideas and movements. So Bruce, for example, takes the side of Dodd in the debate about the extent to which the context of Old Testament citations played a part in their use in the New Testament, and increased interest in the Jewish background of the New Testament is reflected in his comparison of the biblical exegesis in Hebrews with midrash and pesher. There is no doubt that these commentators gained much from applying to their work on Hebrews the ideas which were prominent in New Testament scholarship at this time. The comparisons they draw with Jewish sources such as Josephus and Philo are important for understanding Hebrews, and the significance of the Qumran texts was beginning to be appreciated, particularly in the later editions of Michel’s commentary, although work on the Dead Sea discoveries was at too early a stage to really impact on these scholars. Their studies also show that they were able to benefit from the beginnings of research into the structure of Hebrews and forms of ancient rhetoric. However, some of the contemporary movements may also have led them astray, resulting in a one-sided emphasis, for example on the ‘Philonism’ of Hebrews in Spicq’s work, or in the overlysimplistic equation by both Michel and Bruce of the biblical exegesis of Hebrews with the raz-pesher method found in some of the Qumran texts, or in a tendency to go beyond the evidence, as in the case of Michel’s account of the origins of Hebrews in the theology of the Diaspora synagogue. These commentaries are more detailed and nuanced in their treatment of the Septuagint than those of previous eras, but there is still no full discussion of the extent of textual fluidity in the first century CE, or of what scriptural text(s) may have been available to the author of Hebrews. The brief and general treatment of his exegetical techniques, both in the commentaries surveyed here, and in others of the time,110 remains a great weakness. Finally, the issue of the exegetical axioms reflected in Hebrews is again almost untouched. Spicq does make some attempt to address the view of scripture underlying the exegesis in Hebrews, but even he concentrates almost exclusively on the author’s messianic reading of biblical texts; the extent and uniformity of messianic expectation in first century Judaism has, however, been widely called into question in recent decades, partly in the light of the evidence from Qumran.111 109

Weiss, Hans-Friedrich, Der Brief an die Hebräer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991, 96–114. 110 E.g. Montefiore, Hugh W., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1964. 111 Two important studies which emphasise the diversity of messianic expectation in Second Temple Judaism are: Neusner, Jacob, William S. Green and Ernest S. Frerichs,

34

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

2.1.5 Scholarship in the Last Quarter of the Twentieth Century This period saw the publication of several excellent critical commentaries in both English and German, and also the coming more strongly to the fore of American biblical scholarship. The substantial works of Attridge, Lane and Ellingworth have become established as standard texts for the study of Hebrews, so they will all be evaluated here. The major German commentary of this period is that of Herbert Braun, which follows its predecessors in the Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Series in broadly supporting the position that some of the ideas and motifs in Hebrews can be classed as Gnostic,112 but takes account also of the latest scholarly developments in the field of the History of Religions (including research into the Qumran and Nag Hammadi manuscripts), and also in the area of text-criticism (such as the production of new editions of the Greek New Testament). However, as Braun aims primarily at giving a theological profile of the letter, his discussion of the use of the Old Testament is not as valuable for the purposes of this survey as the three major English commentaries of this period, so will be excluded in view of space constraints. 2.1.5.1 Harold W. Attridge Attridge has written an extremely thorough and valuable commentary on Hebrews,113 in which he demonstrates a deep knowledge of the text of the letter and of current thinking about its interpretation, taking account, for example, of Vanhoye’s studies of the structure of the letter,114 and of recent work in the area of rhetorical criticism. He reaches no firm conclusions about a date of writing before or after 70CE,115 but shares the view eds. Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987; and Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. See also: Neusner, Jacob, Messiah in Context: Israel’s History and Destiny in Formative Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984; and Charlesworth, James H., Hermann Lichtenberger and Gerbern S. Oegema, eds. Qumran-Messianism; Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Another excellent study, which appreciates the range of expectation but highlights the dominance of a royal messianism, is Horbury, William, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM Press, 1998; see also Horbury, William, Messianism Among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies. London: Continuum, 2003. 112 “Käsemanns Entwurf, im Gottesvolk passim, der die gnostische Versetzung des Hebräers unterstreicht, sieht grundsätzlich richtig, auch wenn man bei der Zitierung dualistischer Belegtexte wird vorsichtiger sein müssen.” (Braun, An die Hebräer, 1). 113 Attridge, Harold W., A Commentary on The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. 114 See e.g. Attridge, A Commentary, 14–17. 115 See the discussion of dating and addressees in Attridge, A Commentary, 6–13.

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

35

that the author was concerned about his audience drifting away from the Christian community rather than being tempted specifically to return to Judaism. A short section of the introduction is devoted to the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews, in which Attridge points to the use of ‘standard Jewish exegetical methods’ like the argument from silence and gezera shawa. Here he shows himself to be part of a trend characteristic of this time, in which New Testament scholars sought to take serious account of rabbinic sources in their work, but were perhaps somewhat overenthusiastically uncritical in their use as definitive guides to rabbinic interpretation of the lists of seven, thirteen and thirty-two hermeneutical rules or middot attributed respectively to Hillel, Ishmael and Eliezer ben Yose ha-Gelili. In fact, the precise meaning of the rules in these lists is not at all clear, and they do not describe fully or accurately what actually happens in midrashic scriptural exegesis.116 Sometimes Attridge suggests explanations for how the author may have reached some of his conclusions about the meaning of a biblical text (by referring an ambiguous pronoun to Jesus, for example),117 an attempt which is lacking in most commentaries. He mentions other noteworthy aspects of the author’s use of the Old Testament, such as his ability to find significance in another verse of a text used elsewhere in the New Testament such as Pss 8, 22(21), 110(109),118 and the fact that the books of the prophets do not play a major role in Hebrews despite the opening reference to them in 1:1,119 but he does not develop his observations or suggest possible reasons for these features. More usefully, he demonstrates how the author at times uses ‘antithetical oppositions’ (as at Heb 10:8–9),120 or deliberately exploits an ambiguity in a biblical term (such as aa  at

Heb 4:4–5 and   at Heb 9:16–17; cf. 1:8; 2:7). He also comments on the author’s technique of ‘recontextualising’ his citations, for example, applying to Jesus the words of a psalm addressed originally to the Israelite king,121 and of ‘specifying’ a term within a citation, such as the meaning of

116 The rather limited usefulness of these lists will be treated at greater length below (section 3.3). The middot and their relevance for the study of the New Testament have also been the subject of several studies by Philip Alexander: see Alexander, Philip S., “Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament.”, Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1983): 237–246; and “The Rabbinic Hermeneutical Rules and the Problem of the Definition of Midrash.” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 8 (1984): 97–125. 117 See e.g. the discussion of Heb 1:6 in Attridge, A Commentary, 57. 118 See e.g. Attridge, A Commentary, 77, 90. 119 Attridge, A Commentary, 35. 120 Attridge, A Commentary, 275; cf. p. 25. 121 Attridge, A Commentary, 24.

36

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

“the children” in Isa 8:18, cited at Heb 2:13.122 These insights could be further developed, especially in the light of the use of such terminology by midrashic scholars like Alexander Samely (see further below, sections 3.6, 5.2 and 5.3). A particular strength of Attridge’s commentary is his appreciation of the denseness of Old Testament passages underlying the whole argument of Hebrews but not directly cited, for example those dealing with sacrificial rituals which underpin Heb 9. He acknowledges that the author sometimes makes use of the original context of a citation, although his usual tendency is to decontextualise scriptural references.123 I would suggest, however, that the original context may be more important to the author’s interpretation in some cases than Attridge allows. Two of the main weaknesses of the treatment of the Old Testament exegesis in Hebrews in the commentaries surveyed thus far are a rather shallow discussion of the Septuagint text(s) employed by the author and a failure to engage sufficiently with the question of his underlying exegetical axioms. In both of these areas, Attridge is more advanced than many other commentators, but scope for further refinement remains. He discusses significant differences between the citations in Hebrews and the Septuagint, and he ventures some conclusions about whether these are intentional or due to the use of alternative texts.124 There is, however, only limited examination of variant readings and no account is given of current thinking about the textual state of the bible in the first century CE. Attridge stresses the author’s continuing belief in the scriptures as the word of God, who has now spoken definitively in Jesus, God’s son and messiah.125 He has thus identified one possible interpretative axiom underpinning the scriptural exegesis in Hebrews, but other principles could surely be uncovered by further investigation. 2.1.5.2 William L. Lane Lane has provided a thoroughly researched and detailed commentary on the Greek text of Hebrews in two volumes.126 He shares the broadly evangelical outlook of the Word Series editors, stating clearly in the preface his commitment to the authority and continuing relevance of the scriptural

122 See Attridge, A Commentary, 91; cf. p. 116, on the specification of the term ‘heart’ from Ps 94:8 as “wicked, faithless heart” at Heb 3:12. 123 See e.g. Attridge, A Commentary, 24, 91. 124 See e.g. Attridge, A Commentary, 225. 125 Attridge, A Commentary, 24. 126 Lane, William L., Hebrews, Word Biblical Commentary. 2 vols. Dallas, Texas: Word, 1991.

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

37

text.127 This engaged stance can leave him open at times to the charge of imposing his own theological position on the text. It is, for example, surely questionable whether he should really state so definitely in referring to Hebrews chapters 7–8 that: “The writer was convinced that redemptive grace had reached its zenith in the priestly ministry of Jesus...”128 Lane favours a relatively early date for the writing of Hebrews, between 64 and 68CE, but reaches no definite conclusion about its author, beyond suggesting that he was likely to have been a member of the Pauline circle.129 He considers that the intended audience was a Jewish Christian house church in a major city, probably Rome.130 Specifically, he envisages a community from a Hellenistic Jewish background, arguing, in a manner similar to Michel, that the theological outlook and vocabulary of the letter is indebted to the world of the Hellenistic synagogue, with its use of the Greek scriptures and echoes of the divine wisdom traditions.131 Lane also emphasises both the eschatological outlook of Hebrews,132 and the pastoral motivation of its author “...to respond to the sagging faith of older and tired individuals who were in danger of relinquishing their Christian commitment.”133 Lane fully recognises the centrality of the Old Testament for the development of the argument of Hebrews,134 and is familiar with the most important studies of this subject. He tries, as Westcott did, to establish some clarity about the number and distribution of citations and allusions in the letter.135 Although he notes the prominence of citations from the Psalms and the Pentateuch, he does not try to suggest reasons for this selection, nor compare it to the pattern of scriptural use in the Qumran texts or other contemporary Jewish sources. Lane also considers the form of the Septuagint text used by the author of Hebrews. Here he shows some awareness of the wide variety of texts which may have been available to the New Testament authors,136 but he does not discuss this textual pluriformity in 127

Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: xi. See also his statement that: “This commentary...will also seek to advance the claims of the text for unwavering commitment to God, who continues to speak decisively in his Son to a culture not unlike that to which Hebrews was addressed, one that appears to lack order, structure, and meaning.” (Vol. 1: xii). 128 Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: cxxxiii. 129 Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: xlix, lxvi. 130 See the discussion in Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: liii–lx. 131 See e.g. Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: liv: “The roots of this Christian assembly are in a Diaspora Judaism that has been significantly influenced by the Hellenistic synagogue both in theological conception and vocabulary.” 132 See e.g. Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: li, cxi, 184. 133 Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: xlvii; cf. Vol. 1: cxxv–cxxxv; Vol. 2: 406. 134 See e.g. Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: cxiii, cxv. 135 Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: cxvi. 136 Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: cxviii.

38

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

depth, and later in the commentary he notes simply that: “The writer of Hebrews customarily follows the A text...” 137 In discussing the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews, Lane includes a comparison of the letter’s exegetical methods with rabbinic techniques, as these have been summarised by Dan Cohn-Sherbok,138 thereby demonstrating the increasing tendency of New Testament scholars to focus on the Jewish background of the early Christian writings and their authors. This comparison with rabbinic exegetical methods does have the advantage of leading Lane to recognise more clearly than some other commentators the textual basis of much of the interpretation in Hebrews.139 However, the list of techniques from which he starts is incomplete and too general, it does not make first-hand use of the original rabbinic sources, and has since been superseded by the work on early Jewish biblical exegesis of Alexander Samely and others.140 It also includes some terms which are controversial, or at least in need of further specification, such as ‘leading out the implications of a text’ and ‘typology’. However, an appreciation of the Jewish background of the biblical interpretation in Hebrews and of the author’s belief in the continuing validity of the Old Testament revelation is one of the great strengths of Lane’s work, especially when compared to some of the older German commentaries. His views about the author’s understanding of the relationship between Judaism and the new revelation in Jesus lead him to suggest that even those statements in the letter which seem to be negative judgements on the old covenant, its institutions and its mediators (such as Heb 3:1–6; 7:18–19; 8:7, 13; 9:8–10; 10:1–4, 9) are not antiJewish polemic, but rather reflections on scripture which presuppose continuity between the old covenant and the new.141 Throughout the commentary proper Lane sometimes draws attention to significant aspects of the original context of biblical citations and allusions, such as the importance of Num 14 for an understanding of the argu-

137

Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: 453. Cohn-Sherbok, Dan, “Paul and Rabbinic Exegesis.” Scottish Journal of Theology 35 (1982): 117–32; discussed by Lane in Hebrews, Vol. 1: cxix–cxxiv. 139 See e.g. Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: cxix–cxx on the interpretation of Ps 8:4–6 (8:5–7 LXX); cf. Vol. 1: cxxxi; and his comments on the attribution to Jesus of Ps 40:6–8 (Ps 39:7–9 LXX) in Heb 10:5–10 as prompted by the words “See, I have come” (Vol. 1: 262). 140 See my comments above (section 2.1.5.1) about the unquestioning use by Attridge and others of the lists of rabbinic hermeneutical rules, and see the further discussion below in section 3.3. 141 See especially Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: cxxx–cxxxii; cf. “The writer fully recognized that God was at work in the old covenant...” (Vol. 1: cxxxv). See also Lane’s discussion of the relative status of Moses and Jesus in Heb 3:1–6 (Vol. 1: cxxviii). 138

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

39

ment of Heb 3:7–19, for example.142 He is also concerned to identify the scriptural echoes present in the letter,143 and to explain how the Greek translation of a verse may have prompted a messianic interpretation of it (in the case of Hab 2:3–4 at Heb 10:37–38, for example).144 There are several other points made in the commentary which could also be further developed. Lane recognises, for example, the tendency in Hebrews to characterise scripture as ‘witness’ (as at Heb 2:6),145 but he does not consider in detail the possible significance of such an understanding of the biblical texts. Likewise, he identifies the belief “...that Scripture announces a promise of things to come...” as one of the author’s presuppositions,146 but he does not seriously address the issue of the axioms underlying the interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews. A further weakness of Lane’s approach to this subject is a certain lack of terminological precision. He tends, for instance, to summarise the author’s use of scripture as belonging to a Jewish genre of ‘paraenetic midrash’.147 This classification of Hebrews arises from Lane’s overall contention that it is a primarily pastoral work,148 and it does have the advantage of taking seriously the interweaving of exposition and exhortation throughout the letter, and of recognising that the Old Testament texts are the starting point for the author’s theological argument. However, this term is not clearly defined by Lane, nor adequately distinguished from other types of midrash (for example what he, again too loosely, terms ‘midrash pesher’)149 or homily, such as the rabbinic homily form which has been so precisely analysed by scholars of the Goldbergian School.150 It also leaves unexplained the techniques by which the au142

Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: 84–85. See also his discussion of the citation at Heb 1:10– 12, Vol. 1: 30. 143 In the commentary on Heb 1:6, for example, he refers to a possible allusion to Deut 6:10 and/or Deut 11:29, which speak of the entrance into the promised land of Israel, often called Yahweh’s firstborn (Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: 27). 144 Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: 304–305; see also his comments on 2 Sam 7:14 (Vol. 1: 25). 145 Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: 46; cf. Vol. 1: 184, commenting on Heb 7:17. 146 Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: cxxvii; cf. Lane’s quotation (in translation) from Michel’s commentary that in the interpretation of Ps 110(109):4 and Gen 14:17–20 in Heb 7:1–10: “The exegesis presupposes that an antecedent revelation is the pledge of a future eschatological fulfilment...” (Vol. 1: 159). 147 See e.g. Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 2: 406, where the term is used in relation to Heb 12:5–11. 148 See e.g. Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: xlvii: “Hebrews is a sermon rooted in actual life...” 149 The term is used e.g. in Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: 86. 150 See e.g. Lenhard, Doris, Die Rabbinische Homilie. Ein formanalytischer Index, Frankfurter Judaistische Studien 10. Frankfurt: Gesellschaft zur Förderung Judaistischer Studien, 1998.

40

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

thor of Hebrews interpreted his Old Testament texts in order to arrive at his reading of them. A detailed analysis of the exegetical moves at work in the use of the biblical citations in Hebrews remains, therefore, to be undertaken. 2.1.5.3 Paul Ellingworth Ellingworth provides a detailed exposition of the Greek text of Hebrews, and is clearly informed by the work on Hebrews of important commentators writing in several languages. He provides a full introduction to the letter’s themes and provenance, in which he follows most major commentators in suggesting that the evidence about the author, date and original destination of Hebrews is too scanty to permit definite conclusions. However, Ellingworth favours a date of writing before 70CE,151 regards Rome as the most likely original destination,152 and argues for an audience made up of both Jewish and Gentile Christians.153 As well as considering the background of Hebrews, he also outlines important aspects of the theology of the letter, such as the author’s views on God, Christ, the church and eschatology.154 Ellingworth’s introduction includes a short section on the Old Testament in Hebrews, and he pays due attention to this aspect of the letter throughout the commentary. He offers detailed discussion of matters such as the probable source of disputed citations,155 the arguments for and against the idea that the author made use of pre-existing testimonia collections,156 and the differences between an Old Testament citation in Hebrews and extant manuscripts of the Septuagint,157 recognising the author’s willingness to modify a scriptural text for stylistic or theological reasons.158 He notes other interesting features of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews and tries to explain these, for instance the citation of relatively long passages and the division of a text into two separate citations (as at Heb 10:30), which Ellingworth suggests may have been a device to enable the author to omit irrelevant material from his source text.159 His explanation 151

Ellingworth, Paul, The Epistle to the Hebrews. A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans/Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1993, 32. 152 Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 29. 153 See e.g. the discussion of this issue in Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 23–25. 154 Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 63–77. 155 See e.g. his comments on Heb 1:6, Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 118. 156 Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 109–110. 157 Good examples are to be found in Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 128– 129 (discussing Heb 1:10–12) and p. 218 (on Heb 3:7–11). 158 Some examples are given in Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 38. 159 Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 40.

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

41

for the attribution in Hebrews of Old Testament passages to Christ is that the author believed Christ was pre-existent and active in Old Testament history from the beginning.160 Ellingworth’s approach to the treatment of the Old Testament in Hebrews has, I suggest, three particular strengths. Firstly, he is aware of the complexity involved in determining the Septuagint text-type underlying Hebrews.161 Secondly, he looks for clues or possible ambiguities162 in the Old Testament text itself to explain how the author arrived at his interpretation, in a manner reminiscent of the work on midrash of commentators such as Samely and Boyarin. He points, for example, to the fact that some of the cited texts may have hinted at the existence of two divine persons.163 Finally, Ellingworth emphasises the way in which the wider context of the Old Testament citations is reflected in the argument and themes of Hebrews, a view with which I tend to agree.164 He concludes, therefore, that the author read the Old Testament texts which he chose to cite as a whole, rather than atomistically, but then used them selectively.165 Having thus fully acknowledged the strengths of Ellingworth’s meticulous commentary, it is fair to note also that there are ways in which his work on the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews could be further developed. For instance, his recognition of the uncertainties in determining the nature of the Septuagint text used by the author demonstrates the need to establish greater clarity in this area. Similarly, Ellingworth’s comments on interesting features of the author’s exegesis are useful, but could profitably be expanded. He notes, for example, the use of the verb ‘testify’ to introduce citations in Hebrews and in other New Testament writings, particularly Acts,166 but he does not consider what this might indicate about the understanding of scripture and its interpretation within early Christianity. As is the case with many other commentators, Ellingworth does not seek to draw out the exegetical principles underlying Hebrews, beyond his rather controversial suggestion that a belief that Christ was active in the Old Testament is axiomatic for the author of Hebrews. Finally, recent work on bib160 Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 41–42, 351. In this, of course, he agrees with Anthony Hanson, whose work will be considered below, section 2.3.4. 161 See particularly Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 37–38. 162 See e.g Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 41. 163 Ps 45:7(44:8) at Heb 1:9, for example: Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 124; cf. p 169. 164 Examples are found in Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 40–41, 94, 109– 110, 112, 115, 119, 121. 165 This comment is made in connection with Ps 2, but Ellingworth concludes that the author’s “...treatment of this quotation is typical of his use of scripture elsewhere...” (Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 113). 166 Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 147.

42

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

lical interpretation in midrash offers support for some of Ellingworth’s approaches and conclusions, especially his focus on the textual basis for interpretations, but it has also pointed to some potentially fruitful fields for research which he has not considered. Study of the treatment in Hebrews of citations containing first person direct speech, for example, or the distinction drawn by Samely between the ‘use’ and ‘mention’ of scriptural terms (see further below, sections 3.6 and 5.2.5.2) would, I suggest, both develop Ellingworth’s insights and also provide a clearer terminology to bring them together and express them. 2.1.5.4 Conclusions: Strengths and Weaknesses of Late 20th Century Commentaries The commentaries surveyed in this section clearly have a great deal to recommend them. Most benefit from a thorough knowledge of previous studies of Hebrews, and rigorously apply a variety of critical methods to the issues raised by the text. In the area of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews, however, I contend that they reveal weaknesses, or that there are aspects of this subject which they are unable to treat adequately, either because there is not the scope to do so in a general commentary, or because the investigation of early Jewish biblical exegesis has advanced so rapidly since their publication, raising new questions and avenues of thought which did not occur to these commentators. Firstly, there remains a certain lack of clarity around the issue of the Septuagint text available to the author of Hebrews. This area is addressed much more comprehensively by some of these scholars, particularly Ellingworth, than by those of earlier periods, but they still fail to take full account of all the very latest research in this field and apply it to the New Testament. A clear rationale for decisions about whether a scriptural source is being deliberately altered for theological reasons or whether the author was using a variant text, for example, is rarely to be found. Secondly, these commentaries reflect the interest in the Jewish background of the New Testament which is characteristic of the latter part of the twentieth century. This period has seen a growing appreciation of the plurality of Second Temple Judaism, and of the difficulty of distinguishing rigidly between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism,167 especially since the publication of the entire Qumran corpus. It is, therefore, not surprising that all these commentators make great use of comparisons with various Jewish sources to illuminate their discussion of Hebrews, or that Lane, for exam167 As noted above, especially in the evaluation of Michel’s commentary (see section 2.1.4.3); for further discussion of this trend in New Testament study, see Neill and Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, chapter 8.

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

43

ple, tries to draw out more systematically parallels between Hebrews and rabbinic exegesis. However, the whole field of Jewish Studies has moved forward significantly during the last quarter of the twentieth century, yet many of those working in New Testament Studies seem to have remained unaware of these important developments. The research of the Goldbergian School remains virtually unknown in England and America, for example, resulting in New Testament scholars making use of rabbinic commentators whose work is less precise or less well developed than that of Arnold Goldberg. This concern with the ‘Jewishness’ of the New Testament, whilst obviously very valid, has also resulted in an over-enthusiastic application to New Testament texts of terms such as ‘midrash’ or ‘pesher’. This has brought about a confusing lack of terminological precision without leading to a careful thinking through of the relationship between New Testament biblical interpretation and these other exegetical genres. The leap towards a recognition of the Letter to the Hebrews as an example of early Jewish biblical exegesis remains to be made. Thirdly, although some of these commentators, for example Attridge, offer a better account of the exegetical techniques of the author of Hebrews than is to be found in much of the earlier work surveyed here, there is still insufficient precise description of exactly how the Old Testament citations are being used, and very little attempt to draw together the interpretative methods present in Hebrews in order to classify and better understand them. 2.1.6 Twenty-First Century Scholarship To bring this literature survey up to the present time, the substantial critical commentary published by Craig Koester in the Anchor Bible Series in 2001 will be included in this section. Since the latter part of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century have seen an explosion in the application to the New Testament of new, often interdisciplinary, hermeneutical methods such as feminist, literary and various forms of contextual criticism, it seems appropriate to include here also an example of at least one of these approaches. The rhetorical skills of the author of Hebrews, noted since earliest times, mean that the letter has lent itself particularly to rhetorical analysis, so DeSilva’s commentary has been chosen here as an illustration of socio-rhetorical criticism of the text. 2.1.6.1 David DeSilva DeSilva treats Hebrews to the sustained application of the interpretative method termed socio-rhetorical analysis.168 This approach, first developed 168

DeSilva, David A., Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews”. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2000.

44

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

by Vernon K. Robbins, sets out to employ a range of disciplines to analyse biblical texts, including literary criticism, structural analysis, rhetorical analysis and social-scientific criticism. Socio-rhetorical interpretation also seeks to explore the relationships between the work under discussion and other relevant texts (the work’s ‘inter-texture’), which in the case of Hebrews means the Jewish scriptures, other Jewish writings of the Second Temple period, and Graeco-Roman literature.169 The method has not, however, been precisely determined or narrowly fixed, so that the commentators who follow it can choose to develop only certain aspects of it. DeSilva explains, therefore, that one of his main interests is “...the rhetorical strategy of Hebrews (how the author seeks to persuade his audience to remain committed to the Christian movement)...”170 I would suggest that the methodology of socio-rhetorical interpretation needs to be spelled out more clearly, and a more persuasive case made for its unique contribution to the study of the New Testament, if it is to become more widely accepted. The decision to employ a variety of critical methods, for instance, is hardly a new phenomenon or peculiar to this approach, and several other studies relate the structure of Hebrews to the forms of ancient rhetoric. Apart from the detailed structural analyses of the letter undertaken by Vanhoye and Guthrie, for example, Koester takes full account of the rhetorical aspects of the work, and Attridge’s commentary also makes extensive use of a range of interpretative approaches, including rhetorical analysis and narrative criticism. The introduction to the commentary summarises the conclusions DeSilva has reached from his socio-rhetorical perspective about the letter’s author, date and audience, and outlines his interpretation of the overall argument and message of Hebrews. He suggests that the work was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE to try to persuade its hearers, both Jewish and Gentile, not to give in to pressure to drift away from their Christian faith.171 The commentary which follows regularly attempts to ‘bridge the horizons’ between the text of Hebrews and the contemporary situation from DeSilva’s perspective as a committed Christian. There is no doubt that DeSilva’s approach to Hebrews at times helps to illuminate the text. Following the increasing recognition of the power of the cultural values of honour and shame in the ancient world and their influence on the writings of the New Testament, for instance, he explores the author’s frequent appeals to this theme to motivate his addressees. He suggests that this motif helps to explain the great stress placed on establishing 169

For a brief account of the socio-rhetorical methodology, see DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, xi–xiv. Further references to Robbins’ work in this area are given on p. xi. 170 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, xiv. 171 See e.g. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 2, 18.

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

45

the honour and authority of Jesus as ‘son’ in the first chapter of Hebrews,172 for example, and he reads Heb 11:8–16 as a demonstration of Abraham’s willingness to accept a temporary loss of wealth and status (becoming a resident alien in a foreign land) in order to gain a greater status and honour in heaven.173 DeSilva also demonstrates how the language and ideology of the contemporary system of patronage have shaped the christology of Hebrews: Jesus is presented as a particularly powerful ‘patron’ able to provide direct access to God and to bestow many benefits on his Christian ‘clients’, who should therefore respond with loyalty and gratitude as they would to an earthly patron.174 However, useful as some of these insights into Hebrews are, the repetition of similar themes in every chapter of the commentary can appear rather laboured and one-sided. Whilst commentators would not disagree that Hebrews chapter 7 is intended to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus to the Levitical priests, for example, DeSilva’s extended discussion of how the passage follows the form of an encomium by illustrating Jesus’ superior physical strength and use of his advantages to benefit others175 is not particularly convincing and does not really add to our understanding of this chapter. The extent to which set rhetorical forms existed in the first century, and how far these were familiar to and employed by the New Testament authors, remains in any case a matter of debate. DeSilva includes a short section in his introduction on the use of the Old Testament, in which he recognises the role it plays in Hebrews and its importance to the author, and characterises his interpretation of scripture as christocentric.176 He also puts forward the suggestion that the Old Testament was used by the early Christians “...as authoritative witness to provide information on events in Jesus’ career otherwise without any witnesses...”, such as his role in heaven before his coming to earth and after his ascension.177 Certainly the use of the language of ‘witness’ or ‘testify’ in connection with Old Testament citations (see, for example, Heb 2:3–5; 3:5; 10:15) is a significant feature of Hebrews, which has not received sufficient notice from all commentators. DeSilva pays close attention to the Old Testament allusions or echoes underlying even those passages in Hebrews where there is no explicit citation of scripture, and he is also alert to the development of post-biblical Jewish exegesis and to the influence on Hebrews of some of these interpretative traditions (the view that Noah 172

DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 83. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 392–403. 174 See especially DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 62–64. 175 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 271–272. 176 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 32 177 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 91; cf. p. 115. 173

46

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

preached repentance, for example, may underlie Heb 11:7).178 This is clearly a result of the concern for investigating the ‘inter-texture’ of a work which forms part of the socio-rhetorical interpretative approach. However, DeSilva’s intensive focus on the rhetorical strategy of the author of Hebrews means that he does not seek to explain his exegesis of the Old Testament in sufficient detail. Hence only three pages of his lengthy introduction are devoted to the use of the Old Testament in the letter, and even these are partly taken up by a general account of the development of the Septuagint. Although throughout the commentary he does note significant differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, and between Hebrews and the Septuagint, he relies heavily for this on the work of previous commentators, particularly Attridge, and he does not explore the potential significance of many of these variations. He is usually content to leave open the vexed question of how far the author of Hebrews has deliberately altered his Septuagint text or was making use of known variant readings,179 and there is no discussion of the textual state of the Septuagint in the first century CE. As noted above, DeSilva is interested in the writings which make up the inter-texture of Hebrews, and indeed claims that “...the manner in which the author reshapes and applies these other ‘texts’ so as to advance his goals is of primary importance...” to his investigation.180 It is therefore disappointing to find that he does not really examine thoroughly how the author of Hebrews actually exegetes his Old Testament citations to arrive at his interpretation. So he mentions only a small number of exegetical techniques used in Hebrews, seeing two of these as particularly important to the author, namely qal wahomer and gezera shawa.181 In the commentary he refers also to typology,182 and writes somewhat vaguely about the author’s tendency to ‘lead out the implications’ of a biblical text.183 The term DeSilva uses most frequently to describe the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews is ‘recontextualise’, presumably following Attridge. The work of Samely on midrash suggests that this term could be a valuable tool for understanding the Old Testament exegesis in Hebrews, but DeSilva does not explain exactly what he means by it, or develop it to analyse precisely how 178

DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 391 See e.g. the discussion of the citation of Jer 31(38):31–34 in Heb 8:8–12 in DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 288. 180 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, xii. 181 See DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 34. 182 See e.g. his comments on the presentation of Jesus as a priest in Heb 7: DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 262. 183 See e.g. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 322–323, on the significance of the verb ‘sit down’ in Ps 110(109):1 as a pointer to the contrast between Jesus and the Levitical priests. 179

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

47

a biblical text is being interpreted. Finally, as is the case with most other commentators on Hebrews, he does not really address the issue of the author’s exegetical axioms or view of scripture, beyond statements about his christocentric standpoint. 2.1.6.2 Craig R. Koester Koester provides an extensive introduction to the letter and comprehensive commentary on every verse.184 He includes a particularly thorough section on the history of interpretation of Hebrews throughout the centuries, as well as providing an overview of various theories about the author, audience and structure of the epistle, and discussing some of its key theological ideas. He argues that the overall theme of Hebrews is to demonstrate that God’s intention for humanity is to crown people with glory, even though this might not seem obvious from experience.185 Koester draws on the background of classical rhetoric for his outline of the structure of Hebrews, and he comments throughout on the rhetorical devices and themes used by the author, such as the values of honour and shame.186 Some of his conclusions are similar to those put forward by DeSilva in his socio-rhetorical analysis of Hebrews, namely the author’s need to shape a Christian identity for a community which was perhaps tempted not so much to return to Judaism as to give up belief in Jesus because it resulted in their having to accept a lower social status and ostracism from family and friends.187 The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews is discussed in a short section of the introduction and receives attention throughout the commentary. Koester provides a list of the explicit scriptural citations in the letter,188 notes many other allusions to Old Testament passages,189 comments on differences between the citations as given in Hebrews and the Septuagint and Masoretic Text where relevant,190 and is aware of issues such as the possibility of a pre-existing source underlying the catena in Hebrews chapter 1.191 He is familiar with important studies of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews, those by Schröger and McCullough, for instance, and throughout the commentary he treats this area with his customary thoroughness. His explanation of how the Old Testament texts in chapter 1 function to184

Koester, Craig R., Hebrews, Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2001. See the outline of this theme in Koester, Hebrews, 87. 186 See e.g. Koester, Hebrews, 90. 187 See especially Koester, Hebrews, 71–72. 188 Koester, Hebrews, 116. 189 See e.g. Koester, Hebrews, 432, 444. 190 See e.g. Koester, Hebrews, 385, commenting on the citation from Jer 31(38):31–34 in Heb 8:8–12; cf. p. 532, on Deut 29:18 cited at Heb 12:15. 191 Koester, Hebrews, 198. 185

48

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

gether to create an argument,192 and the discussion of the interplay of several texts underlying Heb 3:1–6 which enable Jesus to be reckoned as superior to Moses, are particularly good examples of this.193 Koester places most emphasis, however, on the christological interpretation of scripture which he sees as characterising Hebrews: Hebrews interprets Christ in light of the OT and the OT in light of Christ...the scriptural words create the context in which the meaning of Christ’s work can be discerned (and) ...Christ’s life, death, and resurrection provide the touchstone for understanding what had previously been said in the Scriptures.194

That the Old Testament in Hebrews is interpreted as essentially relating to Jesus is undeniable, but I suggest that this focus solely on the christological dimension of the author’s scriptural exegesis fails to do justice to its depth and complexity. As is the case with many other commentators, Koester’s stress on the author’s christological concerns has perhaps prevented him from paying sufficient attention to his actual exegetical techniques and axioms, and to the possibility that his interpretations may result from something within the scriptural text as well as from his christological perspective. So in the introductory section on “Scripture in Hebrews”, Koester includes only a single paragraph on the author’s exegetical methods and how these compare to those used in other forms of first century Jewish biblical interpretation, concluding that: “Theology, rather than exegetical technique, is the principal factor shaping the interpretation of Scripture.”195 This sort of statement indicates that there is considerable scope for extending the study of the author’s interpretative methods in order to gain a deeper understanding of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews. Koester makes some interesting points about specific texts, but I feel that these could also be further developed. He notes, for example, how often a scriptural text is both cited and paraphrased (Heb 1:2, 9; 3:2, 5; 9:2, 9),196 but he does not go on to consider what this might reveal about the author’s exegetical methods. Finally, although he does demonstrate a detailed appreciation of the differences between some of the Old Testament citations in Hebrews and the Septuagint, the reasons for these variations (whether textual or theological) are not always discussed in detail, and there is no overview provided of the textual state of the Septuagint in the first century CE. 192

Koester, Hebrews, 199. See Koester, Hebrews, 244–248; cf. his comments on the citation from Ps 40:6–8 (39:7–9) in Heb 10:5–7 (pp. 432–433 and 438–440), and his attempt to explain the presentation of Moses and his parents as faithful in Heb 11:23ff (pp. 501–502). 194 Koester, Hebrews, 117. 195 Koester, Hebrews, 118. 196 Koester, Hebrews, 244. 193

2.1 Major Commentaries on Hebrews

49

2.1.6.3 Conclusions: Hebrews Commentary in the Present Standing as they do ‘on the shoulders’ of much learned commentary, these most recent studies, in particular that of Koester, are able to offer very competent and detailed exegesis of Hebrews. Many interesting features of the scriptural exegesis of Hebrews have been noted, such as the manner in which the author uses his citations to develop an argument in Hebrews chapter 1, and the tendency to link an Old Testament citation closely to a paraphrase of the same text. However, a close examination of these modern commentators reveals that they have not been noticeably more successful than their predecessors in being able to clearly describe and fully explain the exegetical techniques of the author of Hebrews. In this respect, research into other ancient Jewish texts has developed beyond current practice in New Testament study. Similarly, these later commentaries have not paid particular attention to the axioms underlying the biblical interpretation in Hebrews, so have not developed our understanding of this important area much beyond the position that it is christocentric exegesis. We have seen that the treatment of the variety of forms of the Septuagint to which the author of Hebrews may have had access is more nuanced in the most recent commentaries. However, much of the latest research in this area has still to find its way into the work of New Testament scholars, and there remains a lack of clarity about the extent to which the scriptural source underlying the citations in Hebrews may have been deliberately altered for theological purposes. Finally, the modern era has seen a proliferation of new and inter-disciplinary hermeneutical methods, such as the socio-rhetorical approach followed by DeSilva. These can clearly open up new perspectives on Hebrews, but they are also open to the danger of taking an unnecessarily narrow and one-sided view of the text. Precise focus on the way in which the author of Hebrews cited, interpreted and employed biblical texts does not appear to be a central concern of these methods, even when in theory they recognise the importance of analysing the intertext of a New Testament writing. 2.1.7 Commentaries on Hebrews: Summary of Achievements and Pointers for Future Directions This evaluation of major commentaries has demonstrated that, whilst more than one hundred and fifty years of critical study of Hebrews has achieved an enormous amount, much still remains to be done in terms of understanding the author’s use of the Old Testament. The English commentators considered here have generally held more firmly than their German counterparts to the conviction that the Old Testament remained authoritative revelation for the author of Hebrews, but the shifting currents of New Tes-

50

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

tament interpretation as a whole are clearly reflected in all these volumes, which have been influenced firstly by changing attitudes to the nature of koiné Greek, and then by the rise and fall of the History of Religions School and form critical movement. One of the most significant developments has been a shift over time in scholarly attitudes to the Jewish background of the New Testament writings. The Qumran discoveries have played an important part in this, by reinforcing the diversity of thought present within Second Temple Judaism. The waning of support for theories of a radical split between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism, and continuing research into biblical interpretation at Qumran and in other Jewish texts have made it more possible in recent years to illuminate the interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews by comparing it to the wider field of early Jewish biblical exegesis. It is in this respect particularly that this study seeks to make a contribution, by considering this body of literature as more than merely background to Hebrews. Three major weaknesses in the treatment of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews have emerged from this review of commentaries. Firstly, the description of the actual exegetical techniques of the author of Hebrews is often general and imprecise. Too many commentators are satisfied with vague summaries referring to ‘standard Jewish exegetical techniques’, or else they explain the theological meaning given to a biblical citation in Hebrews without demonstrating at all how the author has arrived at his interpretation of it. Even where they notice interesting aspects of the use of biblical texts in the letter, such as the frequent occurrence of citations containing first person direct speech, or the language of ‘witness’ to introduce Old Testament passages, they often do not attempt to explain these features. Something akin to the precise descriptive-analytical methods pioneered by Arnold Goldberg on midrash, or to the use by Alexander Samely of the tools of linguistics to analyse the biblical interpretation in the targumim and the Mishnah,197 needs to be applied to Hebrews if we are to be able to determine precisely how the author has exegeted his Old Testament texts, and what clues he may have found in them to make possible his particular interpretation. Secondly, commentators on Hebrews to date have failed to pay sufficient attention to the question of the axioms about scripture which underlie its biblical exegesis. If this issue is considered at all, it is simply assumed that the author of Hebrews read the Old Testament ‘messianically’ or ‘from a christocentric perspective’. Here again, the work of Goldberg and other modern scholars of rabbinic literature may have something to teach New Testament commentators. It is surely time, then, for a new examination of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews, one which draws on the great advances made over the last forty years in 197

The work of both Goldberg and Samely will be discussed at length below, in section 3.6.

2.2 Theological and Structural Studies of Hebrews

51

the area of Jewish Studies, some of which will be outlined in chapter three of this study. Finally, the field of Septuagint Studies is also one in which knowledge has moved on significantly during the period surveyed here. This is reflected in a greater appreciation in some of the later commentaries of the complexity of the textual situation in the first century CE, and most modern scholars are also far freer than those in the early days of New Testament criticism (such as Delitzsch) to acknowledge the possibility of deliberate divergences from the Septuagintal source in a biblical citation in Hebrews. However, even in the most recent studies evaluated here, the writers do not feel it necessary to situate themselves clearly within the debate about the number and variety of biblical texts which may have been available to the author of Hebrews. Yet it would seem to me to be essential to reach some conclusions about the nature of the Septuagint text(s) being cited and alluded to in Hebrews if we are to be able to analyse precisely how far and for what reasons the author may have altered his source. I shall, therefore, return to this issue in chapter four below, where I shall attempt to bring together some of the latest research into the Septuagint and consider its implications for an understanding of the biblical exegesis in Hebrews.

2.2 Theological and Structural Studies of Hebrews 2.2.1 Introduction: Purpose and Scope of the Survey of Hebrews Studies The second context in which I propose to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of existing treatments of the interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews is that of theological and structural studies of the letter. Given the centrality of the Old Testament to the whole argument of Hebrews, it seems improbable that a valuable study of it can be undertaken which does not engage seriously with the author’s use of scripture. If, then, an account of the letter’s theology should demonstrate an insufficient understanding of the author’s exegetical methods and assumptions, its conclusions may validly be called into question, as George Guthrie has explained: The uses to which Hebrews has put the Old Testament are the book’s bone and marrow....Thus, to attempt to study any portion of Hebrews, or the general development of the book’s thought, without thorough consideration of the author’s ways in which he uses his Old Testament texts and the ends to which those ways lead, is likely to be a misguided, or at least an incomplete, exercise.198

198

Guthrie, George H., “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research.” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2003): 271–294, 272.

52

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

This section of the literature review will therefore evaluate a representative sample of studies on Hebrews, to ascertain whether or not they evidence any of the shortcomings revealed in the survey of commentaries above. A very small proportion of the numerous books produced throughout the centuries must suffice here as a demonstration of a more general point. I have therefore identified four areas which a number of scholars have taken as the key to understanding Hebrews and consider here one or two different approaches to each of those, namely: the theme of the covenant; the priesthood of Jesus; the structure of the letter; and the extended use within it of an Old Testament figure or motif. A selection of what might be termed classic studies, such as those by Alexander Nairne and Albert Vanhoye, are included here, together with some examples of more recent work. The focus is not on analysing the strengths and weaknesses of these volumes in their entirety, something which clearly lies outside the scope of this study, but is wholly concerned with evaluating the way in which they deal with the Old Testament exegesis in Hebrews. 2.2.2 Covenant as a Central Theme in Hebrews 2.2.2.1 Susanne Lehne Lehne undertakes an investigation of the concept of the new covenant, drawing comparisons between this theme as it appears in Hebrews and as it is used elsewhere in the New Testament (Paul’s letters, the last supper accounts), in Second Temple Judaism (primarily the Qumran texts), and in the writings of some of the early church fathers.199 She argues that it is not only the use in Heb 8–10 of the new covenant text from Jeremiah which should be considered, but also the presence in Hebrews of several other motifs which became associated with the idea of the covenant both in scripture and in post-biblical Judaism, such as the cultic and royal traditions which also play their part in the letter.200 This contention that the covenant theme has the ability to attract to itself other traditions and symbols is a feature of several recent studies, including that by John Dunnill.201 Lehne concludes that the reinterpretation of the biblical covenant theme by the author of Hebrews allows him to present Christ as being both in continuity with Israel’s cultic heritage and superior to it.202 199 Lehne, Susanne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 44. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. 200 Lehne, The New Covenant, 11–12. 201 Dunnill, John, Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. See e.g. p. 149. 202 Her conclusions are stated in summary form in Lehne, The New Covenant, 119.

2.2 Theological and Structural Studies of Hebrews

53

Near the beginning of this study Lehne notes that the author of Hebrews’ “...lively interest in the OT and his skilful use of various exegetical techniques that were current in his day have been amply documented elsewhere.”203 However, she makes very little reference to other works dealing specifically with the treatment of the Old Testament in Hebrews, and apart from some examples of the use of qal wahomer,204 has almost nothing to say about the author’s exegetical methods. Her contention that the covenant theme is present in Hebrews even when there is no explicit reference to it because of its connection with other traditions may well be correct, but I would have expected Lehne to demonstrate more fully the ways in which scriptural allusion and exegesis function in the author’s development of this particular idea. Surprisingly, even the key new covenant citation of Jer 31(38):31–34 and its use in Hebrews chapters 8 and 10 is not subjected to a detailed analysis. She is, for example, satisfied with the comment that: “Most of the textual variations from the LXX are minor and insignificant.”205 No details are provided about the underlying Septuagint source, and whether any relevant textual variants are attested. In the chapter on the new covenant theme in the Dead Sea Scrolls Lehne does include some general remarks about the hermeneutical axioms of the Qumran community, such as their convictions that they were living in the last days and that they alone truly understood the scriptures.206 There is, however, no similar attempt made to offer suggestions about what the hermeneutical methods of Hebrews might reveal about the self-understanding of the author and his community. 2.2.3 The Priesthood of Jesus as the Key to Understanding Hebrews 2.2.3.1 Alexander Nairne Hebrews’ priestly christology has attracted great interest from commentators throughout the centuries, partly because of its rarity in the New Testament. Nairne’s is one of the oldest studies of this subject still available, and is often referred to by later scholars. He regards the priesthood of Christ as the central theme of Hebrews,207 and the ‘symbol’ which the author thought would best meet the needs of his audience, who were waver203

Lehne, The New Covenant, 19. See her discussion of the use in Hebrews of Mosaic traditions (Lehne, The New Covenant, 22–24), which draws heavily on a study by Mary Rose D’Angelo, which will be considered later in this survey (see section 2.2.5.1 below). 205 Lehne, The New Covenant, 30. 206 Lehne, The New Covenant, 44. 207 As stated explicitly in Nairne, Alexander, The Epistle of Priesthood: Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913, 136. 204

54

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

ing in their faith in Jesus.208 He understands priesthood “after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 109:4; Heb 7:17) as a kind of ‘natural priesthood’,209 a view similar to that of Westcott.210 Nairne emphasises throughout the superiority of this Melchizedekian priesthood of Christ over its Jewish counterpart, often painting a rather negative picture of the Levitical priesthood.211 Whilst the significance of the author’s decision to relate Jesus’ ministry to that of the high priests should not be minimized, there is a difficulty with attempts to present the priesthood of Christ as the main subject of Hebrews, in that it only appears to be a prominent theme in chapters 5–10. Nairne himself recognises this, and so suggests that the rest of the letter functions as an introduction to prepare the audience for the important priestly analogy to follow and a closing exhortation to faith and action.212 I suggest that this judgement about the almost subsidiary role of chapters 1– 4 and 11–13 means that he does not take them seriously enough. His comments about these sections are too brief, and the significant use in these chapters of the Old Testament receives little mention, although it might, in fact, contribute to our understanding of the author’s priestly christology or illuminate efforts to provide a coherent framework for reading Hebrews. Nairne frequently acknowledges how important the Old Testament was to the author of Hebrews, and includes a chapter on “The Epistle and the Old Testament”, in which the impact of the new thinking of the time about the nature of koiné Greek is evident.213 However, he offers very little explanation of how the author actually used the scriptures in his work. As is common in a certain section of Christian scholarly opinion, he wants to defend the author from the charge of having treated his citations too freely.214 However, there are clearly times when the argument of Hebrews depends on an interpretation of the Old Testament which is far from literal, but Nairne’s attempts to explain this are unsatisfyingly general and show a certain Christian bias. He writes, for example: There are two justifications for it. First, that he takes a wide view of the Old Testament as a whole, instead of submitting to the express but really limited authority of some pas208

See e.g. Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood, 300. Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood, 135ff. 210 Westcott, The Epistle, lvii. 211 For example, he states that: “There can be no denial that the mere physical succession of the tribe of Levi...was mechanical not eternal in character...” (Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood, 143). 212 See Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood, 300–301. 213 See Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood, 248–296. A large part of this chapter is devoted to the question of the kind of Greek in which all of the New Testament books, not simply Hebrews, were written, a hotly-debated issue at the time in the aftermath of the publication of Adolf Deissmann’s work. 214 See e.g. Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood, 248. 209

2.2 Theological and Structural Studies of Hebrews

55

sages. Secondly, that he hears the teaching of the Holy Spirit not only in the written word but also in the signs of the times; as the age moved on it had become clear that God intended these ordinances to pass away. 215

Quite how this had ‘become clear’ is not spelled out here, as although passages such as Heb 8:13 do indicate a belief that the former covenant and its institutions are passing away, this expectation is not explicitly linked to the author’s reading of the spirit-driven ‘signs of the times’. Thus a weakness of Nairne’s work throughout is that he does not seek to explain precisely how the author of Hebrews arrived at his interpretations of biblical texts. In common with a number of the commentators surveyed above, Nairne suggests that many of the Old Testament texts chosen for citation in Hebrews were originally messianic in intent,216 but does not attempt to comment further on the selection. His discussion of this point reveals some confusion between the terms ‘apocalyptic’ and ‘messianic’, as Nairne tends to use them as if they were synonyms, or as if all apocalyptic works shared similar messianic expectations.217 In the years since Nairne was writing, more detailed research into Jewish texts such as the apocrypha and rabbinic midrashim, together with new discoveries such as the Qumran manuscripts, have resulted in a greater understanding of the variety of belief possible within first century Judaism, and a more precise use of terminology. 2.2.3.2 Marie E. Isaacs At the beginning of the first chapter of this book, Isaacs situates her work with regard to Nairne’s study, and to others which emphasise priesthood as the key to understanding the letter. Her view is that: “The centrality of the theme of Christ’s priesthood for Hebrews is indubitable, and Nairne did well to draw our attention to it, but whether all else in the Epistle is to be subsumed under it is another matter.”218 She therefore proposes as the key to understanding the letter and its structure the related concept of sacred space, an important concern of all ancient religions, whose adherents sought means of access to the holy and the divine. In the light of their belief that Jesus had replaced the established places of access to God in Judaism like the temple and Jerusalem, the early Christian movement needed to “relocate the holy”,219 identifying it with either the sacrificial death of Jesus, the Christian community, or with heaven, the place where the exalted 215

Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood, 260. Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood, 248–257. 217 See especially Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood, 251–257. 218 Isaacs, Sacred Space, 15; see also p. 17. 219 Isaacs, Sacred Space, 82. 216

56

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

Jesus was now believed to dwell.220 This development may have been hastened by the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, leading Isaacs to posit a date after 70CE for the composition of Hebrews.221 Many of the ideas presented by Isaacs are very interesting, but her approach is in the end no more convincing than that of other studies which try to argue that the entire Letter to the Hebrews can be fitted into one overall theme. Thus, several sections of the letter and some important Old Testament citations, the prologue with its wisdom motifs, for example, or the citation from Prov 3:11–12 in Heb 12:5–8, cannot easily find a place in her overarching schema. Isaacs does offer a fairly detailed exegesis of many passages of Hebrews, including those which cite and interpret Old Testament texts, and emphasises the high regard in which the author held scripture: it is still authoritative revelation, the living word of God, and there is a genuine continuity and correspondence between that word and God’s new word in Jesus. She also notes relevant differences between the Septuagint and the citations in Hebrews, but does not discuss textual fluidity in the first century in depth. As is the case with other studies and commentaries surveyed here, she includes no really precise information about the author’s exegetical techniques, keeping largely to an explanation of how the texts fit in with the overall argument about the redefinition of sacred space. She stresses throughout the author’s christological reading of scripture, which makes it possible for him to attribute its words directly to Jesus.222 Whilst her exposition of this point is very useful, there are surely other exegetical axioms which could be explored, and which could be revealed through paying closer attention to the way in which texts are interpreted to yield a meaning which is about Christ. 2.2.4 Studies of the Structure of Hebrews 2.2.4.1 Albert Vanhoye The structure of Hebrews has long been a matter of debate amongst commentators, in view of the difficulty of determining with certainty whether it has one main theme, and the interweaving throughout of doctrinal and exhortatory material. Vanhoye’s detailed study has therefore become a classic text, referred to by most modern scholars, and serving as a point of

220

See the discussion in Isaacs, Sacred Space, 61–66. See especially Isaacs, Sacred Space, 43–44, 67. 222 See e.g.: “Thus the inspiration of the Old Testament lies precisely in its witness to Jesus as the Christ, that is, in its amenity to such a christological interpretation...” (Isaacs, Sacred Space, 30); cf. pp. 68, 141–144, 202, 220. 221

2.2 Theological and Structural Studies of Hebrews

57

reference for subsequent structural analyses of the letter.223 The difficulty of categorising works about Hebrews for the purpose of a survey such as this is well illustrated by this volume, which could also have been considered as an example of a study on the priesthood of Christ.224 Vanhoye divides Hebrews into five main sections (1:1–2:18; 3:1–5:10; 5:11–10:39; 11:1–12:13; 12:14–13:20), each with two or three subsections. He arrives at this outline largely on the basis of the presence of literary devices such as inclusions, hook words and the announcement and resuming of subjects. He posits a symmetrical and concentric structure, in which parts 1 and 5 correspond to one another, then parts 2 and 4, leaving part 3 as the central and most significant section of the whole text.225 At the heart of this middle section is the presentation of Jesus as high priest: “Thus the name of Christ high priest has been chosen as the keystone for the entire structure. It is at the central point (9:11) of the central section (8:1–9:28) of the central part (5:11–10:39).”226 There is no doubt that the inclusions and repetitions to which Vanhoye calls attention are often useful in helping to determine the boundaries of sections of the text; however, as those not entirely convinced by Vanhoye’s schema often point out,227 it is possible to see inclusions where none were intended, or to attribute significance to repetitions which are merely coincidental. His structure still leaves some sections of the text difficult to account for, such as Heb 5:11–6:12, which Vanhoye terms a preamble or “preliminary exhortation”,228 but which on the surface has little to connect it to the ensuing discussion of Melchizedek. It is also difficult to know how far to extend a section on the basis of key words, as several (‘faith’ and ‘priest’, for example) are scattered widely throughout the letter, and there is inevitably an element of subjectivity in their selection: Vanhoye does not highlight the word ‘enter’ in chapter 9, for instance. I would also contend that he does not consider sufficiently the key role of 223

Vanhoye, Albert, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Subsidia Biblica 12. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989. This volume combines the English translation by James Swetnam of Vanhoye’s structured translation of Hebrews, first published in French in 1974, and also of his Le Message de l’Épître aux Hébreux, first published in 1977. 224 E.g. Vanhoye describes Hebrews as a “sermon on the priesthood of Christ” (Structure and Message, 5–6), and devotes an entire chapter to the subject of Christ’s priestly ministry (pp. 7–17). 225 See especially Vanhoye, Structure and Message, 32–36. Vanhoye is fulsome in his praise of the author’s literary artistry, which he believes has even produced corresponding parts of proportionate length (see p. 34). 226 Vanhoye, Structure and Message, 36. 227 See e.g. Guthrie, George H., The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 73. Leiden: Brill, 1994, 14–17, 76. 228 Vanhoye, Structure and Message, 27, 79.

58

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

the Old Testament citations in Hebrews in determining its overall structure, and suggest that an extended critique of his proposals from this perspective might be fruitful. Surely, for example, there is more to be said than we find here about how the whole catena of citations in chapter 1, not just individual words like ‘son’ or ‘angels’, functions to move forward the letter’s argument. Similarly his description of citations such as Isa 35:3 at Heb 12:12 as transition points to announce a new theme is unconvincing, because his analysis does not attempt to demonstrate how the exegesis of these texts develops that subject. In general, I find Vanhoye’s treatment of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews rather naive. He assumes, for example, that it is unquestionably correct to believe that the Hebrew scriptures have been fulfilled in the New Testament, and that the new is superior to the old.229 A deeper analysis of the exegesis of the biblical texts cited in Hebrews would, then, clearly strengthen Vanhoye’s work. This is also true of other more recent structural analyses, such as that by George Guthrie,230 which similarly fails to address in detail the way in which scriptural citations are exegeted,231 and in which the term ‘midrash’ is used very loosely.232 2.2.5 The Presentation in Hebrews of Old Testament Figures 2.2.5.1 Mary Rose D’Angelo: Moses D’Angelo is particularly interested in the influence of the figure of Moses on New Testament christology. This study therefore focuses primarily on the presentation of Moses in Hebrews, drawing on Heb 3:1–6, 8:1–10:18 and 11:23–27, but also offers some reflections on how this portrayal of Moses compares with that found in other New Testament texts such as Luke-Acts, John and Paul’s letters.233 She concludes that Moses is presented in Hebrews as a Christian martyr,234 and that the author of Hebrews also drew on traditions about Moses as a visionary and a mystic, based on the claim that he glimpsed the glory of God (Ex 33–34), ideas reflected also in John, Paul and in Jewish writers such as Philo. He was therefore able to argue in Heb 11:26 that what Moses actually saw on Mount Sinai was a vision of the risen Jesus.235 229

See e.g. Vanhoye, Structure and Message, 54. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews. 231 I found reference in this study to only one exegetical technique, gezera shawa. 232 Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews, 124. 233 D’Angelo, Mary Rose, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 42. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979. 234 This is stated clearly in D’Angelo, Moses, 12 and 259, and she seeks to demonstrate it through her discussion of Heb 11:23–27 (pp. 17–64). 235 D’Angelo, Moses, 13; see the detailed arguments on pp. 155–199. 230

2.2 Theological and Structural Studies of Hebrews

59

This is an interesting and thorough study of a selection of Old Testament texts and their use in Hebrews. D’Angelo is very aware of the complexity of the biblical exegesis of the author of Hebrews, and of the way in which he uses citations and allusions to act upon one another.236 This enables her to see – sometimes more clearly than scholars specifically concentrating on analysing the structure of Hebrews – the implications of an understanding of the use of the Old Testament for decisions about the letter’s structure and coherence.237 She realises the importance of trying to ascertain the correct source for citations and allusions, suggesting for instance that 1 Chron 17:14 rather than Num 12:7 underlies Heb 3:2,238 and is always keen to find out how a particular interpretation could have been arrived at on the basis of the texts themselves. In explaining Heb 11:24, for example, Moses’ “refusal to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter”, she points to a widespread Jewish interpretative tradition: “The statement that Moses went out to his brothers was generally understood to mean that he chose to disassociate himself from the ruling house of Egypt.”239 This familiarity with the interpretation of biblical texts in a wide range of Jewish sources, including targum, midrash, Philo, Josephus, the Qumran texts and examples of rewritten bible such as Jubilees and Pseudo-Philo, is a particular strength of D’Angelo’s work, and it reflects to some extent the renewed interest in the Jewish background of the New Testament at the time she was writing. Although she does not comment at length on the biblical text(s) available to the author, she does make the very pertinent observation that this development of interpretative traditions in post-biblical Judaism may sometimes explain the instances where his citations, allusions, or exegesis appear to owe more to the Hebrew text than the Septuagint.240 D’Angelo’s exegesis of Hebrews has a very solid basis, then, and it anticipates some of the developments which have occurred in the field of midrashic study over the latter part of the twentieth century, such as the search for a reason within the biblical text itself to explain an exegetical move. She also recognises the significance for interpretation of providing a new setting for scriptural citations, such as those in the catena in Hebrews chapter 1, which she believes the author presents as part of a “precosmic 236

See e.g. D’Angelo, Moses, 36–37, 42, 165ff. So she sees 10:32–12:3 as a complete unit, for example (D’Angelo, Moses, 25), separates 11:28 from 11:23–27 (p. 27), and seeks to demonstrate that the theme of the priesthood of Jesus is addressed in Heb 3, following its introduction in 2:17–18, and is not left hanging until Heb 5 as many commentators maintain (p. 84). 238 D’Angelo, Moses, 69; cf. her discussion of whether Ps 88:51(LXX), in which the promises made to David play such an important part, is a more likely source than Ps 68:8(LXX) for the word    (reproach) in Heb 11:26. 239 D’Angelo, Moses, 43. 240 See D’Angelo, Moses, 62. 237

60

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

drama”.241 Now, however, following the research of Goldberg and Samely in particular, new and more sophisticated tools exist for describing early Jewish biblical exegesis, and there is a greater precision around some of the terminology used by D’Angelo, such as midrash. The application of these methods may well have provided D’Angelo with more and better defined answers to the questions she is rightly asking about how the author of Hebrews has arrived at his interpretations of Old Testament texts. 2.2.5.2 James Swetnam: Isaac In his study Swetnam sets out to demonstrate the extent to which the biblical narrative of the Aqedah or the binding of Isaac (Gen 22), and especially the developing Jewish tradition of interpretation of this passage, has influenced the language and thought of Hebrews.242 He begins by considering the Genesis text itself, and then analyses the exegetical developments evident in the treatment of it in the Septuagint, in later biblical passages (such as Neh 9:8; Judg 8:25–27; 1 Macc 2:52) and in Jewish sources such as Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus, Philo, the targumim and the midrashim. He concludes that the Aqedah became linked in Jewish tradition to ideas of resurrection and sacrifice, and that it became associated with the festival of Passover. He goes on to suggest that the developing emphasis in postbiblical Judaism on Isaac’s willingness to offer himself as a sacrifice fitted in with Jewish attempts to establish a theology of martyrdom. It then becomes easy to see how this theme was useful for the early Christians, who presented Jesus as voluntarily sacrificing his own life. They were able to counteract the Jewish tradition by claiming that, unlike Isaac, Jesus actually did die to achieve the expiation of sins, and was then raised from the dead.243 Swetnam then turns to a consideration of some of the New Testament texts which can be read against the background of the story of the sacrifice of Isaac (Rom 8:32; Jas 2:21–23). The main part of the book is devoted to an analysis of the influence of this theme in Hebrews, focusing particularly on Heb 11:17–22 and 2:5–18 and more briefly on Heb 5:7–10; 6:13–15; and 9:22. Swetnam’s starting point for his study is that some of the long-standing interpretational cruces in Hebrews can be illuminated by his exposition of their relationship to the theology of the Aqedah. For instance, commentators have long wrestled with the question of how Jesus “was heard” when he cried out to “the one who was able to save him from death” in Heb 5:7, when he was not delivered from this fate. Swetnam’s solution to this prob241

D’Angelo, Moses, 165. Swetnam, James, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah, Analecta Biblica 94. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. 243 Swetnam’s conclusions are summarised in Jesus and Isaac, 76–80. 242

2.2 Theological and Structural Studies of Hebrews

61

lem is to read it in the light of the developing interpretation of the Aqedah: like Isaac in later exegetical tradition, Jesus is asking not to be saved from death but to die, and God who was able to save his son allowed him to be killed.244 Swetnam demonstrates persuasively here the benefits of taking serious account of Jewish interpretative traditions when studying the New Testament. A great strength of his work is his detailed exegesis, in which he searches out the precise meaning of critical Greek terms ( in Heb

11:11, for instance, and    in Heb 2:16), and considers how a

passage might be explained in the context of the letter as a whole. He is concerned to try to analyse the text precisely, and seeks to find an explanation for features of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews which, though frequently noted, are often not examined closely. In discussing the introductory formulae used for the citations, for example, Swetnam proposes that both here and elsewhere in the New Testament (such as Mt 5–7): Old Testament citations are introduced with an active verb when they are meant to be applied to Christians (as in Heb 3:7; 4:7), but with a passive where they are being taken as limited to the Old Testament context (for example, Heb 11:18).245

This is a suggestion which certainly merits further consideration, and which might profitably be tested out in a wider range of New Testament books and against corpora of Jewish texts such as the Qumran material. There remain some important questions which Swetnam does not raise, such as why the author of Hebrews selected so many citations from the Psalms and so many which contain direct speech. This study is, however, a valuable example of what can be achieved by a thorough analysis of sections of the text of Hebrews. This approach could be further developed by the employment of precise language to describe the author’s exegetical moves, such as that which has since been developed by the Goldbergian School, particularly by Alexander Samely (see further below, section 3.6). 2.2.6 Conclusions: The Treatment of the Use of the Old Testament in Studies of Hebrews This brief review of some representative theological and structural studies of Hebrews has highlighted the difficulties inherent in the task of trying to find one over-arching theme under which the whole letter can be subsumed, or one structure on which all commentators can agree. Some of these studies offer valuable insights into the use of the Old Testament in the letter, but on the whole they demonstrate weaknesses in their approach to this subject similar to those evident in the commentaries reviewed in 244 245

Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac, 182. Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac, 160.

62

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

section 2.1 above. It is no surprise to find that those scholars who are dealing specifically with the interpretation in Hebrews of specific biblical figures, namely Swetnam and D’Angelo, devote most attention to the author’s use of the Old Testament, and they do provide useful and detailed exegesis of the text. Swetnam’s suggestion that there is a deliberate difference between the introduction of a scriptural citation with an active or a passive verb is a particularly valuable insight, for instance, and one of the important strengths of D’Angelo’s work is her insistence on searching for some clue in the biblical text itself to explain its interpretation in Hebrews. This kind of analysis of the interpretation of the Old Testament is lacking in some of the other studies, however, even where it might have been expected, as in the surprisingly brief examination of the key citation from Jeremiah in Lehne’s discussion of the new covenant theme in Hebrews. Apart from this paucity of treatment of the actual exegetical techniques of the author of Hebrews, or of the ways in which he uses the Old Testament texts to develop his argument, these studies share with many of the commentaries a lack of awareness of the complexity of the question of the Septuagint text(s) available to him. Several of these scholars do not seem to be clear about the frequency with which the Septuagint source is being deliberately altered in Hebrews, or to have reached conclusions about the principles for determining whether his text form may reflect a genuine variant reading. These studies also demonstrate how much more work remains to be done on analysing the interpretational axioms of the author of Hebrews. This question is addressed in some of them, for example, by Isaacs, but there is the same tendency evident in the commentaries not to move beyond discussion of the author’s christological reading of the scriptures. The developing trend of utilising disciplines beyond the field of biblical studies found amongst some commentators on Hebrews is evident in these studies too, particularly in the increasing use of literary analysis since the pioneering study of Vanhoye.246 The growing interest in the Jewish background to the New Testament characteristic of the latter part of the twentieth century is also reflected here: Lehne, D’Angelo and Swetnam all found Jewish writings of the Second Temple period invaluable for an understanding of Hebrews. Their work was greatly enhanced through their use of this material, but, as was the case with the commentaries, they do not regard Hebrews as an example of Jewish biblical exegesis, which might lead them to consider its scriptural interpretation in a new way. Developments in

246 Dunnill (Covenant and Sacrifice) is another example of this trend, as he draws on the discipline of social anthropology to illuminate the use of sacrificial ritual and imagery in Hebrews.

2.3 Studies of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

63

Jewish Studies over the past two decades have provided new tools and a more precise language of description for exegetical techniques and axioms, the application of which could extend the conclusions of these studies. The research of the Goldbergian School also illustrates the advantage of beginning textual analysis by focusing on a small section, and then building up to the macro-structure, an approach which might benefit studies of Hebrews, some of which, for example those by Nairne and Isaacs, seem to take one theme as the key to the entire letter and then try to fit every small section into this framework. The studies surveyed here, then, have many good features, but most would be strengthened by a more serious analysis of how the Old Testament texts underlying Hebrews are exegeted.

2.3 Studies of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews 2.3.1 Introduction: The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament I turn now, in the final part of this chapter, to an investigation of the strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews in the many books and articles devoted specifically to this subject. It is the contention of this section that detailed evaluation of some of the most significant of these existing studies demonstrates that, despite their many achievements, they share similar weaknesses to those already highlighted in respect of commentaries and theological and structural studies of Hebrews, so that there remains a need for further research in this area. A selection of important publications from the last fifty years is analysed here, beginning with an article by G.B. Caird which signalled a reevaluation of the importance of the Old Testament exegesis in Hebrews, and ending with George Guthrie’s review of the scholarly trends evident at the turn of the twenty-first century. Some of the studies included offer a general overview of the subject, whilst others concentrate on investigating one particular aspect of it, or on examining certain passages of Hebrews in detail. Again, the decision has been taken to consider them in chronological order of publication, rather than to group them according to their main focus (for example, whether they deal primarily with the relationship between Hebrews and the Septuagint, or with the author’s exegetical techniques), in order to see more clearly the extent to which approaches to this subject and the understanding of it have evolved over time. These studies need to be seen not only against the background of significant movements within the wider field of New Testament scholarship, some of which have been discussed above in relation to commentaries on Hebrews, but also in the context of developments in the understanding of

64

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

the use of the Old Testament within the New. There have been many notable battlegrounds in this area, not least the extent to which the scriptural texts cited in the New Testament carry their larger contexts with them, as C.H. Dodd so famously claimed.247 The interpretation of the Old Testament within the New has been labelled variously as prophecy-fulfilment, as inspired by a belief in the sensus plenior of scripture,248 and as typological.249 Some commentators, for example E. Earle Ellis,250 have sought to explain the biblical exegesis of the New Testament writers, especially Paul, in terms of its similarities to and differences from rabbinic methods, and since the Qumran discoveries, numerous comparisons have been drawn with the pesharim.251 Timothy Lim is currently one of those most engaged in the task of situating the use of scripture in Paul’s letters in terms of its relationship to the Qumran texts and to other forms of early post-biblical Jewish exegesis.252 These developments have certainly encouraged a greater recognition of the value of placing the use of the Old Testament in the New in the context of contemporary Jewish biblical interpretation,253 but, as I have already argued above (especially in sections 2.1.5.1 and 2.1.5.2), not all of these studies are based on a solid and accurate knowledge of rabbinic sources. The original setting for the scriptural interpretation recorded within the New Testament is also an area of some scholarly interest; Krister Stendahl, for example, was the first to propose that it may have arisen within a school setting, perhaps similar to that 247 Dodd, Charles H., According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952. A position similar to that of Dodd is taken by Barnabas Lindars; see e.g. Lindars, Barnabas, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of Old Testament Quotations. London: SCM Press, 1961. 248 See e.g. Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux (see above, section 2.1.4.1); or Van der Ploeg, John, “L’Exégèse de l’Ancien Testament dans l’Épître aux Hébreux.” Revue Biblique 54 (1947): 187–228. 249 Typology is discussed in full in Goppelt, Leonhard, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1982. 250 Ellis, E. Earle, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957. 251 E.g. Fitzmyer, Joseph A., “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament.” New Testament Studies 7 (1960–61): 297–333. See also Longenecker, Richard N., Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1975, which also emphasises connections between New Testament biblical exegesis and the pesharim. 252 See Lim, Timothy H., Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. 253 See e.g. Black, Matthew, “The Theological Appropriation of the Old Testament by the New Testament.” Scottish Journal of Theology 39 (1986): 1–17; and Wilcox, Max, “On Investigating the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” Pages 231–243 in Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black. Edited by E. Best and R. McL. Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

2.3 Studies of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

65

which existed at Qumran,254 and this theory has won some support amongst contemporary scholars like Philip Alexander.255 Most recently, valuable work has been undertaken by Martin Menken and others to try to establish very precisely the original textual form and source of the scriptural citations in the New Testament.256 2.3.2 George B. Caird The starting point for Caird’s study257 is that many previous commentators on Hebrews have been unduly negative about its author’s Old Testament exegesis, regarding it as far-fetched, and over-emphasising its supposed links with the allegorical methods of Philo. He sets out to counter these views and to demonstrate that, on the contrary: Hebrews is one of the earliest and most successful attempts to define the relation between the Old and New Testaments, and that a large part of the value of the book is to be found in the method of exegesis which was formerly dismissed with contempt.258

He argues that for the author of Hebrews, the Old Testament covenant remains a valid revelation of God, completed and fulfilled in Christ, but not totally set aside (Heb 1:1; 2:2; 5:4). There is, then, a relationship of correspondence between the old and new covenants,259 but the main point of Hebrews is to demonstrate that the Old Testament itself witnessed to its partial and temporary revelation.260 The author therefore structured the letter around four main citations, all of which he interpreted as examples of the Old Testament itself declaring that its religious institutions are ineffective or in need of future fulfilment: Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant in Heb 8; the promise of a new order of priesthood in Ps 110(109) (Heb 7); Ps 95(94) (Heb 3–4) which can be taken to imply that the ancient

254

Stendahl, Krister, The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament, Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsalienis 20. Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1954. 255 Alexander, Philip S., “The Bible in Qumran and Early Judaism.” Pages 35–62 in Text in Context. Edited by A.D.H. Mayes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 256 Menken has worked particularly on John’s Gospel; see: Menken, Maarten J.J., Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. Similar recent studies on Hebrews by Gert Steyn will be mentioned below in chapter 4. 257 Caird, George B., “The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Canadian Journal of Theology 5 (1959): 44–51. 258 Caird, “The Exegetical Method”, 45. 259 See e.g. Caird, “The Exegetical Method”, 49: “For between the ineffective institutions of the old Israel and the effective work of Christ there are real and meaningful parallels...” 260 See especially Caird, “The Exegetical Method”, 47.

66

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

Israelites had not fully entered into God’s rest; and Ps 8 (Heb 2), read as foretelling true human destiny which is fulfilled only in Christ.261 Caird’s article is important as it marks the beginning of a re-evaluation of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews, sparked in part by a general move away from the once popular view of the dependence of the author of Hebrews upon the allegorical exegesis of Philo. His explanation of the letter offers a way of reconciling its claims about the replacement of the old covenant institutions with its positive acknowledgement that the former revelation did contain the words of God and remains instructive for Christian believers.262 Although the earliest of the studies reviewed here, Caird’s ideas have had enduring influence, as several other writers have taken up the theme of the contribution of Hebrews to solving the problem of the relationship between the Old and New Testament, notably Clements and Hughes.263 Later commentators have also followed Caird in seeing a small number of Old Testament citations as the core around which the work is structured,264 although debate continues about the exact number and identity of these texts. However, the title of this article is something of a misnomer, and illustrates a problem with numerous studies of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: it has in fact virtually nothing to say about the author’s exegetical methods and how these enabled him to read the texts in the way he did. This study is more about the approach to the scriptures which underpins the author’s exegesis, as he reads the texts again in the light of his belief in Christ. I would suggest that even this explanation of the author’s underlying exegetical axioms needs to be considerably developed, especially in the light of current research into the attitude to scripture revealed in other examples of ancient Jewish literature, such as the Qumran texts and the rabbinic corpus. 2.3.3 Markus Barth Barth’s focus in his study is on the christological nature of the biblical interpretation of the author of Hebrews.265 Like many commentators, he 261

Caird, “The Exegetical Method”, 47–50. This is also the concern of Stephen Motyer, who sees his study as building on the work of Caird (see below section 2.3.9). 263 Clements, Ronald E., “The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 28 (1985): 36–45; Hughes, Graham, Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New Testament Example of Biblical Interpretation, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. 264 See e.g. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis. 265 Barth, Markus, “The Old Testament in Hebrews: An Essay in Biblical Hermeneutics.” Pages 53–78 in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation. Essays in Honour of Otto A. Piper. Edited by W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder. London: SCM Press, 1962. 262

2.3 Studies of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

67

draws attention to the predominance of verbs of speaking rather than writing to introduce Old Testament citations in Hebrews.266 This leads him on to a discussion of how the God to whom the reader is invited to listen actually speaks in scripture. Here, Barth develops a theory that the author of Hebrews believed that through the Old Testament we can “…listen in…to the innertrinitarian dialogue…” between God, the Son and the spirit,267 and also to the conversation between God and human beings: “Exegesis is for the author of Hebrews the hearing participation in the dialogue that goes on within God and between God and man.”268 He also proposes that the Old Testament citations and allusions employed in Hebrews might all relate to particular festivals, Tabernacles (Heb 1–2), for example, the Day of Atonement (Heb 5–10), or the celebration of the giving of the Law (Heb 12–13).269 The particular value of Barth’s study lies in his serious attempt to understand the author’s underlying beliefs about the nature of exegesis, an area which, as has been demonstrated throughout this survey, is frequently neglected by commentators. His emphasis on the christological nature of the scriptural interpretation in Hebrews is, however, too narrow and influenced by his own obvious commitment to Christian faith.270 It needs to be supported by a much more thorough exploration of the actual exegetical techniques at work in the letter, which might reveal other axioms underlying the author’s interpretation. His suggestion that the biblical interpretation in Hebrews should be characterised as the listening in to an ‘innertrinitarian dialogue’ is highly problematic, as it seems to assume a fairly developed belief in the Trinity, for which there is very little evidence in the text, especially when references to the holy spirit speaking in the scriptures are not unusual in a variety of contemporary Jewish writings. Barth is also concerned to find a possible reason for the preference in Hebrews for verbs of saying to introduce citations, suggesting that it may be because the alternative ‘it is written’ carried polemical and legalistic overtones, or implied a number of competing interpretations of the text when for the author there was only one valid meaning.271 These are not, however, particularly convincing explanations, since God’s spoken word can surely be wielded as a weapon against opponents as effectively as the written word, and the writer of Hebrews is far from unique amongst interpreters in be266

Barth, “The Old Testament in Hebrews”, 58–61. See e.g. Barth, “The Old Testament in Hebrews”, 62. 268 Barth, “The Old Testament in Hebrews”, 64. 269 See Barth, “The Old Testament in Hebrews”, 71–76; here he is, of course, drawing an analogy with studies of the Fourth Gospel. 270 This is evident throughout the article, but see especially p. 78, where he praises “...the witness born to Christ by Hebrews...” 271 Barth, “The Old Testament in Hebrews”, 60. 267

68

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

lieving that his explanation of the scriptural text is the only true one. Introductory verbs of saying are also used elsewhere in early Jewish bible exegesis, featuring, for instance, in Philo. The relationship proposed in this article between the Old Testament passages used in Hebrews and Jewish festivals has not been taken up by later commentators, with the recent exception of Gelardini.272 This attempt to explain the choice and combination of particular texts in the letter is a very valid undertaking, but some of the links made by Barth strike me as rather tenuous, particularly those he draws between the celebration of the giving of the law and Hebrews 12– 13, and he perhaps overstates the extent of our knowledge about the form and content of Jewish liturgies in the Second Temple period. 2.3.4 Anthony T. Hanson Hanson’s work on the Old Testament exegesis in Hebrews emphasises the author’s christological and eschatological approach to the scriptures.273 In his study “Christ in the Old Testament According to Hebrews”, he sets out the rather controversial thesis that a belief that Christ was active in Old Testament times was quite widespread in early Christianity (reflected in passages such as Jn 12:40–41; 1 Cor 10:4; 2 Cor 3:13–16; and Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho), encouraged by the Septuagint’s use of the title   for God, and that this conviction lies behind a number of passages in Hebrews. He discusses in detail three texts which he regards as exemplifying this view: Heb 3:1–6; 7:1–25; and 12:22–27, arguing, for example, that the author regarded Melchizedek not as a ‘type’ of Christ, but as something much more exalted: as Christ himself, pre-incarnate.274 In response to the obvious objection that Hebrews does not actually say that it was Christ who appeared to Abraham in the person of Melchizedek, he can only offer the rather unsatisfactory explanation that the author did not quite have the nerve to state this openly, but hoped that his audience would draw their own conclusions from his exegesis, and that this belief could be part of the difficult teaching alluded to in Heb 5:11.275 272

Gelardini regards Hebrews as a homily written for a celebration of 9 th Ab, a suggestion which has not gained wide support; Gelardini, Gabriella, ed. Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Leiden: Brill, 2005. 273 Hanson, Anthony T., “Christ in the Old Testament According to Hebrews.” Studia Evangelica 2 (1964): 393–407. See also Hanson, Anthony T., “Hebrews.” Pages 292–302 in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988. 274 Hanson, “Christ in the Old Testament”, 398–402. See e.g.: “I think that according to our author’s own belief Melchizedek was the Christ, pre-incarnate...” (p. 400). 275 Hanson, “Christ in the Old Testament”, 402.

2.3 Studies of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

69

Hanson’s approach certainly highlights ambiguities in the text of Hebrews which should not be ignored, such as the correct identification of the speaker(s) and builder(s) in Heb 3:1–6, and there may well be some validity in his contention that typology is not the best way to describe the relationship between Melchizedek and Christ proposed in Hebrews chapter 7, as the term is used without precision by some commentators. However, interesting though some parts of Hanson’s argument are, the case made here fails to convince. He acknowledges himself that if the author of Hebrews did hold a belief that Christ was active in the Old Testament, he did not state it very clearly. His premise that the same speaker must be envisaged throughout passages like Heb 3:1–6 and 12:22–27 is also open to question. The author of Hebrews might not have perceived much difference, for instance, between God speaking and Moses speaking on God’s behalf, or between God speaking and Christ the son of God speaking. Hanson is right, then, to raise the question of how words of scripture originally spoken by God, or by people such as Moses and Melchizedek, can be applied in Hebrews to Christ, especially in view of the frequency with which Old Testament citations containing first person direct speech are used in Hebrews, but there may be better explanations for these phenomena than a claim that the pre-incarnate Christ was viewed as the speaker. 2.3.5 Kenneth J. Thomas Thomas offers a detailed investigation of the text form of the Old Testament citations in Hebrews, particularly their relationship to the two main Septuagint witnesses, Codices Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, and from his findings draws some conclusions, both about the kind of Greek biblical text in use in Hebrews and more generally about the origins and development of the Septuagint.276 The evidence suggests that the relationship between Hebrews and the major Septuagint witnesses is close: “Six passages are cited verbatim according to these texts. Only 56 variations of any kind from LXXA/B are found in the 29 direct citations from the OT.”277 His analysis of these variations leads Thomas to conclude that although some may be the result of the author’s intentional choice of a variant reading (for example Deut 32:43 at Heb 1:6; Deut 32:35 at Heb 10:30a), or be influenced by a liturgical text (some of the differences in the citations of Jer 38:31–34 at Heb 8:8–12 and 10:16–17, for instance), in almost all cases the differences are due to the author making deliberate, theologicallymotivated changes to the scriptural text before him: “Our research yields a 276 Thomas, Kenneth J., “The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews.” New Testament Studies 11 (1964–65): 303–325. 277 Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations”, 303.

70

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

pattern of significant changes which must be more than accidental.”278 Thomas also suggests that the author of Hebrews knew the biblical text used by Philo and on occasions was concerned to counteract his interpretation of a passage (Gen 2:2 at Heb 4:4; Ex 24:8 at Heb 9:20; Deut 32:35 at Heb 10:30a).279 He concludes that the Septuagint text used in Hebrews was relatively primitive, as it does not seem to have undergone much editing, either in the direction of the Hebrew text, or to bring about stylistic or interpretational improvements.280 A similar judgement is reached by Howard in a study covering much the same ground.281 Finally, Thomas argues that his investigation has demonstrated that it is much more likely that LXXA and LXXB developed variously from one common translation than that they arose as two separate translations.282 Thomas adopts a very sound model for his analysis of the scriptural text form underlying Hebrews, in that he begins with an examination of individual citations, and then draws out some conclusions from them about the author’s sources and about the origins and development of the Septuagint. His view of the freedom with which the author of Hebrews approached the biblical text could perhaps be said to lie at the opposite end of the spectrum from that of McCullough (see further below, section 2.3.7), who is reluctant to see any intentional departures from the Septuagint text in the citations, making much of the probable existence of variant readings, whereas Thomas attributes even small differences between Hebrews and the two major Septuagint witnesses to the author’s theological motives. I am inclined to the view that some sort of middle way between these two extremes offers the best solution to the issues. The choice of a variant reading was of course a recognised interpretational technique in ancient Judaism, as the Qumran texts amongst others clearly demonstrate, and there certainly are instances in Hebrews where a good case can be made for a deliberate alteration of the scriptural source to suit the author’s argument.283 However, some of Thomas’ suggestions seem to me to be going too far; his description of the addition of “like a garment” in the citation from Ps 101:26–28 at Heb 1:10–12 as a deliberate theologically motivated change,284 for example, is not very convincing, and his explanation of the differences in the citation from Jer 38:31–34285 has been successfully chal278

Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations”, 320. See Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations”, 307–308, 313–315. 280 Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations”, 322–324. 281 Howard, George, “Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations.” Novum Testamentum 10 (1968): 208–216. 282 Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations”, 324–325. 283 See e.g. Thomas’ discussion of Heb 3 in “The Old Testament Citations”, 307. 284 Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations”, 305–306. 285 Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations”, 310–313. 279

2.3 Studies of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

71

lenged in places by McCullough. Also, Thomas does not always distinguish carefully enough in his statistics between a citation and an allusion, where a greater degree of divergence from the underlying text might be expected.286 However, his study certainly points to the need to explore further the question of the attitude to scripture underlying the exegesis of the author of Hebrews, and the accuracy with which he felt he needed to reproduce his biblical text. 2.3.6 Friedrich Schröger In his survey of the Old Testament interpretation of Hebrews, Schröger examines all thirty-five of the direct citations he finds in the letter, paying particular attention to the meaning of the texts in their original scriptural contexts, and to the extent to which they could readily have been interpreted as messianic.287 He also considers the exegetical methods at work in Hebrews, comparing these to the techniques evident in rabbinic literature, in what he calls apocalyptic-Essene interpretation (i.e. the Qumran pesharim) and in the literature characteristic of the Hellenistic synagogues.288 In the light of the work of Windisch and Michel (see above, sections 2.1.3.2 and 2.1.4.3), it is interesting to see another German commentator indicating an interest in the possibility of differences between Hellenistic and rabbinic or Palestinian Judaism in the use of scripture. Despite the apparently detailed investigation of all the citations, however, Schröger does not in the final analysis have anything new to say about the author’s exegetical methods or his relationship to his Septuagintal source, concluding simply that he made use of all the interpretative approaches available to him.289 Swetnam’s review of this book reaches the similar conclusion that Schröger’s study is derivative, and that he fails to tackle in particular the question of the presuppositions underlying the author’s scriptural exegesis.290 Schröger does go beyond many commentators of his time in acknowledging the connections between the biblical interpretation in Hebrews and rabbinic literature as well as with Philo and Qumran, but his survey of these early Jewish exegetical methods is very general, and scholarly understanding of the hermeneutics of both the rabbinic 286

See e.g. the discussion of the use of Ex 19:12–13 at Heb 12:20: Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations”, 317–318. 287 Schröger, Friedrich, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger, Biblische Untersuchungen 4. Regensburg: Pustet, 1968. 288 Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes, 269. 289 See e.g. Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes, 26, 269, 311–313. 290 Swetnam, James, “A Review of F. Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger (Biblische Untersuchungen 4. Regensburg: Pustet, 1968).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (1969): 130–132.

72

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

midrashim and the Qumran pesharim has moved on considerably since the publication of this study. 2.3.7 J. Cecil McCullough In the first of his major articles on the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews, “The Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews”,291 McCullough sets out to examine how far the author’s citations diverge from his Septuagintal source, and goes on to draw some conclusions from this about his attitude to scripture. He acknowledges the importance of recent research into the Septuagint, which emphasises the extent of textual variety in the first century CE. Earlier investigations into the relationship of Hebrews and the Septuagint with which McCullough is in dialogue here (especially the study by Thomas considered above, section 2.3.5), focus almost exclusively on the text forms of the most well known codices, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus. This tends to result in the attribution to the author of Hebrews of numerous modifications of his text, whereas it is McCullough’s contention that many of these supposed alterations were actually the readings present in the author’s Vorlage.292 He quite frequently, therefore, takes a different position from that espoused by Thomas about the freedom the author felt he had to alter his biblical source. The complexity of the textual state of the Septuagint in the first century CE, and the importance of approaching this question on a book-by-basis rather than in a more general way, are highlighted again in another article published by McCullough in the following year: Codices A and B are just two codices of the LXX which happen to have been preserved. It would be a rare coincidence indeed if history happened to preserve the precise LXX manuscript used by the author of Hebrews....it is perfectly possible and indeed likely that the author’s textual Vorlage differed from one OT book to another.293

His own view is that the author probably made use of a local version of the Septuagint, either because he knew of no other recension, or because he deliberately chose to use one that was familiar to his audience. McCullough’s basic thesis is, then, that the majority of variations from the Septuagint in the Old Testament citations in Hebrews are minor stylistic changes without theological significance, which were either already present in the author’s Vorlage, or were introduced by him to make for a smoother reading without altering the sense of the passage. To this latter 291 McCullough, J. Cecil, “The Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews.” New Testament Studies 26 (1980): 363–379. 292 See especially McCullough, “The Old Testament Quotations”, 363–364. 293 McCullough, J. Cecil, “Some Recent Developments in Research on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Part II.” Irish Biblical Studies 3 (1981): 28–45, 30.

2.3 Studies of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

73

category belong, for example, the use of  for   in the

citation from Jer 38:31 at Heb 8:8,294 of   for   in Ex 24:8

at Heb 9:20,295 and the various differences found in the citation from Ps 94:7–11 in Heb 3:7–11.296 He does accept that some changes were made by the author to his source text for the sake of emphasis (for example, the placing of  at the beginning of the citation of Ps 101:26–28 at Heb 1:10– 12),297 for clarification (such as the use of   rather than    in the citation from Ex 24:8 at Heb 9:20 to highlight that it was God, not the Lord Jesus, who was speaking),298 or to bring out more clearly the messianic implications of a text or its applicability to Jesus, but he considers that even these modifications only heightened what the author already believed was there in the text; in commenting on Heb 10:5–10, for instance, he writes: “His application of the psalm (Ps 39) to Jesus Christ, however, did not depend on his change of wording, but rather his change of wording came about as a result of his application.”299 Following his thorough investigation of sixteen citations in the letter, he draws out some of the implications of his conclusions for an understanding of the author’s underlying attitude to scripture. McCullough suggests that he viewed it as “...a divine oracle which was relevant to the readers of his day and, which, therefore, had to be interpreted and made understandable to them.”300 In order to do this, he was willing to make alterations to the text, but he was much more conservative in doing so than other contemporary Jewish interpreters, such as the Qumran group. McCullough is surely correct in his contention that developments in the field of Septuagint Studies necessitate a re-evaluation of the text form used by the author of Hebrews. It is no longer sufficient to simply compare the Old Testament citations in Hebrews with the major codices, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, as some previous studies did. The continuing work of the Göttingen project and other recent research means that this area has moved on even further in the three decades since McCullough published this paper, so that there remains scope for still greater clarity about the relationship of Hebrews to the various versions of the Septuagint. He is also unusual, and certainly correct, in emphasising the results to be gained by approaching the form of the Greek bible on a book-by-book basis, and in trying to draw out the implications of his analysis of the individual citations 294

McCullough, “The Old Testament Quotations”, 366. McCullough, “The Old Testament Quotations”, 375. 296 McCullough, “The Old Testament Quotations”, 369–372. 297 See McCullough, “The Old Testament Quotations”, 372. 298 See McCullough, “The Old Testament Quotations”, 375. 299 McCullough, “The Old Testament Quotations”, 369. 300 McCullough, “The Old Testament Quotations”, 379. 295

74

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

for the wider picture of the attitude to scripture of the author of Hebrews. One of the great strengths of his work is the detailed examination of individual citations offered, in which all available evidence is analysed, the general characteristics of each manuscript are described, and there is even consideration given to the question of how some of these divergent readings could have arisen (for example, the possibility of translating the Hebrew verb spr in Ps 21:23 (Heb 2:12) with either  ""# or  " ).301 On the whole I am in agreement with McCullough’s view that many of the textual variants present in the Old Testament citations in Hebrews are minor and make no difference to the sense of the passage. However, I suggest that he is inclined to over-use the notion of ‘stylistic change’. Views about what constitutes good style are too subjective and variable to allow us to be certain whether the form of a citation in Hebrews would have been considered an improvement on the Greek style of the Septuagint as known to us through most extant witnesses. Similarly, it is little more than speculation to suggest that the author might have wanted to ring the changes in the vocabulary of a passage he was citing (see, for instance, the comments on the use of verbs other than   in the citation from Jer 38:31–32 in Heb 8:8–9), particularly when the whole thrust of McCullough’s argument is that he generally reproduces his Vorlage faithfully. Sometimes there is more to an alteration from the Septuagint than simply style, and even a very small change can be highly significant, as in the case of the addition of  before $ (Hab 2:3 at Heb 10:37), which McCullough agrees was probably done deliberately to emphasise the messianic import of this passage.302 Again, although he is right to draw attention to the possibility of the existence of textual variants to explain unexpected forms in the citations in Hebrews, it should be noted that some of his suggestions are only possibilities rather than definitely attested readings. He is not, for example, able to point to any strong textual evidence for a Septuagint reading of  or  rather than   and   at Jer

38:31–32, which might favour Thomas’ suggestion that the author of Hebrews deliberately selected these verbs to distinguish between the covenant which will be kept and the covenant which was broken.303 Nor does McCullough ever consider fully the possibility that the author may have been choosing between different available readings to find the one which best suited his theological purposes. His conclusion that Hebrews demonstrates a reverent and cautious attitude to the text of the Old Testament 301

McCullough, “The Old Testament Quotations”, 368. See McCullough, “The Old Testament Quotations”, 376–377. 303 Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations”, 310–313, discussed by McCullough in “The Old Testament Quotations”, 366–367. 302

2.3 Studies of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

75

also fails to take sufficient account of those occasions where the author has decided to cite only part of a verse, so may be overstated, and will need to be tested further in the analysis of the text form of selected passages which will be undertaken in chapter four below. 2.3.8 Dale F. Leschert Leschert is a conservative Christian who seeks to justify the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews as enduringly valid.304 In the introduction to his study he points to the difference between his approach and that taken by other commentators, who he believes attempt to excuse rather than vindicate the author of Hebrews, by, for example, explaining that his exegesis was culturally conditioned, acceptable in his own day if not ours (Kistemaker), or seeing it as a form of divinely inspired revelatory exegesis which is not permissible today (Longenecker).305 Leschert sets out, however, to investigate whether the interpretation of the Old Testament citations in Hebrews is in line with the intended meaning of their original authors, arguing that: “We must at least consider the possibility that the OT genuinely contained evidence in support of his (the author’s) beliefs long before he discovered it.”306 He tests out this thesis through an examination of some of the letter’s core scriptural texts: Ps 44:7–8 (Heb 1:8–9), Ps 8:5– 7 (Heb 2:5–9), Ps 94:7–11 (Heb 3–4), and Ps 109:4 (Heb 7). He concludes that these passages were all understood messianically within ancient Judaism, or at least that such an interpretation is implicit in them and is consistent with their original meaning.307 In the case of Ps 44, for instance, Leschert claims: The king for whom this psalm was composed failed to realize the high hopes that were set out for him. But as a potential candidate to be the promised seed, he is a fitting type to foreshadow the one who was yet to come. In a typological sense, this psalm was likely messianic in its original intention.308 304 See e.g. this statement of the perceived problem: “If it is indeed true that the writer of Hebrews uses inferior methods of interpretation to distort the meaning of the OT, the credibility of his message must also be called into question to the extent that it rests upon a faulty foundation.” (Leschert, Dale F., Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some Core Citations From the Psalms. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994, 4). 305 Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 15. 306 Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 14–15. 307 See e.g. his conclusion that: “Although Hebrews’ application of Ps 8 to Christ extends beyond the contextual meaning of the quotation in the OT, it flows out of ideas implicit in the psalm and develops them along natural lines.” (Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 121). 308 Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 77; cf. pp. 95–97, where he argues that Ps 8 was messianic ‘by association’ with the more clearly messianic Psalms 2 and 109.

76

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

This is a view reflected also in the work of several other commentators, particularly Motyer (see below, section 2.3.9). Leschert concludes his study with a section focusing specifically on the interpretative methods of the author of Hebrews, in which he devotes most space to proving him innocent of the charge of using midrashic techniques!309 Here he dismisses midrashic exegesis with the sweeping generalisation that it distorts the meaning of the Old Testament text through fanciful speculation. Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, he reaches the conclusion that even where Hebrews manifests some characteristics of midrash, these are only “innocent stylistic and hermeneutical devices”,310 and the author’s exegetical methods have no real connection with those practised in rabbinic Judaism. Leschert’s study is flawed because of this strong over-riding determination to prove that the interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews can be considered legitimate and valid today. In his efforts to thus ‘justify’ the author, he fails to fully explore how the biblical citations in the letter are actually exegeted. His claim that many of them had a long history of messianic interpretation sometimes rests on rather slender evidence,311 and there is too much subjectivity underpinning his view that a christocentric reading of the texts is implicit within them, or is a natural development of their original meaning. His attitude to midrash is wholly negative and very biased, and takes no account of the work of serious midrashic scholars who have argued for the rootedness in the scriptural text of midrashic exegesis (see further chapter three below). A generally conservative approach to the scriptures, which would not be accepted by many other commentators, also characterises Leschert’s work; he is, for example, content to regard David as the most likely author of Ps 8,312 and in a section defending a typological reading of the Old Testament, he asserts “...the logical possibility that some specific things in the OT might be divinely intended to teach special NT truths.”313 He also fails to deal in any depth with the relationship of the 309 “We must first of all come to an understanding of what midrash is and then identify those features in Hebrews that are midrashic so that we may distinguish any innocent hermeneutical and literary devices from the midrashic methods that are hermeneutically objectionable.” (Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 172). 310 Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 250; cf. his claim that: “We should be careful not to slip into the fallacy that because Hebrews’ interpretation matches some stylistic characteristics of midrash, it must follow the objectionable methodology which we found in rabbinic midrash.” (p. 196). 311 He suggests, for example, that the use of the phrase “oil of gladness” (found in Ps 44:7) in Isa 61:3 ‘in a messianic context’ may be a clue that the psalm “...was understood messianically at a very early date...” (Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 53), but has to admit that such ‘clues’ are indirect and inconclusive. 312 Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 93. 313 Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 238.

2.3 Studies of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

77

author of Hebrews to his Septuagintal Vorlage, being content to merely conclude that in view of the uncertainty which persists in this field of study, it is difficult to reach firm judgements about when deliberate alterations were being made to the source text.314 Nevertheless, in keeping with the general tenor of his argument, he still feels entitled to claim that even where the author did make changes, this is not an instance of his “...wilfully distorting Scripture…”, but rather of his choice of a form of words which better express what he felt was its real meaning.315 Whether, or to what extent, Leschert regards the activity of the author of Hebrews as different from the desire of rabbinic or other early Jewish exegetes to bring out what they believed to be the true meaning of the scriptures, is not made clear. 2.3.9 Stephen Motyer Motyer’s starting point is a concern evident in the work of a number of evangelical Christian commentators on Hebrews, like Leschert, namely that the way in which the Old Testament is employed in Hebrews does not seem useful for contemporary Christians. He therefore offers a summary and critique of four main approaches to the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews taken by commentators: the ‘Schriftgnosis’ approach associated with, for example, Bultmann and Weiss, which sees citations as being selected from the Old Testament at random and used as proof-texts because they appear to support faith in Christ; the suggestion of Hanson (see above section 2.3.4), followed by Ellingworth, that a belief in the pre-existence of Christ underlies the biblical exegesis in Hebrews; the sensus plenior view associated particularly with Roman Catholic scholars like Spicq (see above section 2.1.4.1); and the typological approach.316 Motyer then examines the citations from the Psalms employed in Hebrews chapter 1, to try to identify more precisely how they are being used. He suggests that it may have been part of the author’s rhetorical strategy to baffle his readers by citing these puzzling texts in his opening chapter, leaving it until later in the letter to fully draw out their meaning.317 He also concludes that these texts were all either already interpreted as messianic or could easily be read in that way,318 as they contain within them a tension between the promises made to the Davidic dynasty and the reality of history, which did

314

Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 19–20. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 192. 316 Motyer, Stephen, “The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?” Tyndale Bulletin 50 (1999): 3–32, 7–13. 317 Motyer, “The Psalm Quotations”, 15. 318 See especially Motyer, “The Psalm Quotations”, 15–21. 315

78

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

not see fulfilment of these hopes,319 a view which he sees as building on Caird’s work, and which is also similar to that espoused by Leschert. This leads him to argue that the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews should be understood as generally typological, and to claim that the author’s hermeneutic remains acceptable for Christians today.320 Motyer’s survey and evaluation of the main approaches to the exegesis of the Old Testament in Hebrews is useful. He points, for example, to some significant weaknesses in the suggestion that the author was citing proof-texts drawn at random from the scriptures. However, I do not consider it sufficient to simply call the use of scripture in Hebrews ‘typological’, and in order to fully justify his position, Motyer would need to provide more evidence that the texts employed in Hebrews were indeed understood messianically elsewhere in Judaism or early Christianity. Also, like other studies considered here, this one does not offer any detailed analysis of the actual techniques by which the author interpreted his Old Testament citations. I also find a difficulty with Motyer’s starting point, as he begins from the concern of some contemporary Christians, rather than with the situation of the author,321 and somehow the reader is not surprised when he ends by claiming that the hermeneutical method of Hebrews is still acceptable today, as the article reads at times as if proving this conclusion was its intention from the beginning. 2.3.10 George H. Guthrie Guthrie begins by pointing to the increased interest in studying Hebrews which has characterised the past two decades.322 As part of that general movement, greater attention has been paid by commentators to the issue of the author’s uses (note the plural, chosen by Guthrie to highlight the multiplicity of ways in which scripture is employed in Hebrews) of the Old Testament, a subject which is of fundamental importance to understanding the 319 See e.g. Motyer, “The Psalm Quotations”, 20–21, commenting on Ps 101: “...the underlying hermeneutic...that discrepancy between aspiration and historical reality which creates a typological projection into the future, making the text available (as word of God) for a re-reading in relation to Jesus Christ...” (p. 20). 320 See especially Motyer, “The Psalm Quotations”, 20–22. 321 See e.g. Hanson’s warning: “When we try to assess the worth of the Epistle to the Hebrews as a piece of scriptural exegesis, we must at all costs avoid making the mistake of judging the author by the standard of our methods of scriptural exegesis...We must judge the writer of Hebrews by the standards of exegesis of his own day.” (Hanson, “Hebrews”, 300.) 322 Guthrie, George H., “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research.” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2003): 271–294. This revival of interest in Hebrews since 1980 was also noted by McCullough, J. Cecil, “Hebrews in Recent Scholarship, Part 1.” Irish Biblical Studies 16 (1994): 66–86.

2.3 Studies of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

79

letter. So in the first part of this article, he offers a brief introduction to the topic, focusing on issues such as the distribution of biblical citations, the methods of introducing them, and the difficulty commentators have in reaching consensus on the exact number of them present in Hebrews. Guthrie attributes this disagreement partly to a lack of clarity in terminology, with, for example, terms such as allusion, echo, and indirect quotation being used to describe the same phenomenon.323 He is particularly interested in the echoes or resonances of biblical texts underlying Hebrews, especially those derived from the broader context of a citation, an aspect of the author’s use of the Old Testament which he believes merits further exploration.324 He connects, for instance, the term ‘name’ in Heb 1:4 and the motif of Jesus as builder of a house (Heb 3:3–4) with the wider context of 2 Sam 7:14 (cited in Heb 1:5), where God is said to promise to make for David “a great name” and to foretell that his son would “build a house for my name” (2 Sam 7:10, 13). In the second, and much longer part of the article, Guthrie identifies four trends which he regards as having characterised recent research into the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews. First, he discusses approaches to the biblical text form underlying Hebrews. After briefly summarising the main studies in this area, including those by Thomas and McCullough, he concludes that at least some of the differences between the citations in Hebrews and the Septuagint are likely to be due to deliberate alterations on the part of the author for stylistic and/or theological reasons.325 The second trend which Guthrie notes is a growing tendency to regard Old Testament citations as an important key to understanding the structure of Hebrews. He summarises the views of Caird (who proposed that there are four key citations), Longenecker (five), France (seven) and J.R. Walters (six). The major strength of this approach, for Guthrie, lies in the fact that it takes “...seriously how major (scriptural) expositions in Hebrews guide its flow 323 See e.g. Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament”, 272. This confusion in terminology is also discussed in another recent study; see Stamps, Dennis L., “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament as a Rhetorical Device: A Methodological Proposal.” Pages 9–37 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Edited by S.E. Porter. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006. See also, Porter, Stanley E., “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology.” Pages 79–96 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Edited by C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. 324 Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament”, 272–273. 325 See Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament”, 275–277; cf. “In terms of the form of the author’s Greek text of the scriptures, there appears to be a move toward seeing some variations in form as the author’s own, crafted either for stylistic purposes or to clarify inherent theological points.” (p. 290).

80

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

of thought.”326 Thirdly, Guthrie considers studies of the author’s exegetical methods, especially in comparison to early Jewish forms of biblical interpretation. He points to nine exegetical techniques found in Hebrews which also occur in contemporary Jewish sources, for example, midrash, chain quotations, example lists, and attempts to dispel potential confusion in a text.327 He mentions two techniques in particular which have not been widely discussed by other commentators, and yet which correspond to recent research into biblical interpretation in the targumim and midrashim: drawing out the implications of a text (such as the significance of the promise in Jeremiah of a new covenant), and focusing on the precise meaning of a word (like ‘today’ in Heb 4:7–8).328 The final trend noted is the effort made by some scholars to understand the hermeneutical programme of the author of Hebrews. In this section,329 Guthrie surveys and critiques several of the main approaches to this subject, including the links with Philonic exegesis stressed by Spicq, the theory of dialogical exegesis put forward by Barth, and the suggestion that the pre-existent Christ was believed to be present in the Old Testament (see, for example, the work of Ellingworth and Hanson discussed above, sections 2.1.5.3 and 2.3.4). This account of the current state of research into the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews is extremely sound and valuable. Guthrie not only gives useful summaries of a wide range of studies, but highlights significant differences between the approaches taken by leading commentators, identifies key trends surfacing in recent work, and suggests areas which merit further research, several of which correspond to my own aims for this investigation. He is surely right to draw attention to the lack of precise terminology evident in some studies, and to stress the absolute importance of understanding the author’s use of the Old Testament for any meaningful account of the theology or structure of Hebrews, something which a surprising number of commentators on Hebrews seem to fail to recognise, as demonstrated above in section 2.2. However, he might have indicated more clearly the fact that there still remains great scope for further research to try to establish more definitely the state of the Septuagint in the first century in order to better understand the amount of freedom with which the author approached his scriptural source. Guthrie’s examples of the biblical echoes and the links with the wider contexts of the citations underlying Hebrews are persuasive, and this is an aspect of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews which could also fruitfully be explored further. His insistence on the plural ‘uses’ in connection with the Old Testament in He326

Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament”, 278. Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament”, 279–283. 328 Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament”, 282. 329 See Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament”, 283–290. 327

2.3 Studies of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

81

brews is very helpful in drawing attention to the variety of exegetical techniques evident in the letter and the different purposes for which they are employed. Guthrie’s section on hermeneutical methods is much more detailed than most other studies reviewed here, and illustrates the potential for developing a fuller picture than currently exists of the range of exegetical resources evident in Hebrews, along the lines of the catalogue of hermeneutical operations produced by Alexander Samely for the Mishnah (see below section 3.6.4). 2.3.11 The History of Research: Final Conclusions The studies considered in this section contain much sound scholarship and useful information. They also testify to the growing acknowledgement of the importance of grappling with the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews for a full understanding of the structure and theology of the letter, and many of them follow Caird’s lead in accepting the positive place which the Jewish scriptures have in the author’s thought. I contend, however, that misconceptions and gaps remain in our understanding of this important area. Guthrie’s review of the current state of research into Hebrews serves as a valuable starting point for the conclusions to this section, as he identifies four important trends in recent scholarship on Hebrews, which tie in very well with the argument I have been seeking to make here about the strengths and weaknesses of existing work on the interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews. Firstly, I agree with Guthrie that a fuller appreciation of the complexity of the textual state of the Septuagint in the first century is gaining ground. This is particularly clear in the work of McCullough, and is paralleled in the research into the gospels of Menken, but many of the commentators discussed in this chapter do not seem to have applied this current thinking on the Septuagint to their studies of Hebrews. I suggest, therefore, that the time is now ripe for a drawing together of the most recent work on the Septuagint in order to attempt to arrive at some principles for determining where the author of Hebrews has modified his scriptural source, and where he was probably making use of a genuine variant reading. This will be the subject of chapter four of this study. The second trend noted by Guthrie is the suggestion by Caird and others that the Old Testament citations in Hebrews should be seen as the key to the vexed question of the letter’s structure. This survey, too, has noted, particularly in the evaluation of the work of Vanhoye (see above section 2.2.4.1), that such studies of the structure of Hebrews are indeed flawed if they fail to take sufficient account of the author’s exegesis of scriptural texts, so further close attention to the Old Testament interpretation in Hebrews could undoubtedly add to our understanding of this question.

82

Chapter 2. The History of Previous Scholarship on Hebrews

Thirdly, Guthrie draws attention to studies of the exegetical techniques operative in Hebrews, and especially to their relationship to those practised by other early Jewish interpreters. This is an important concern of many contemporary New Testament scholars, and it is a central focus of this study, which differs from others in not seeing these Jewish texts merely as useful comparative material for an investigation of Hebrews, but in seeking to understand the letter as an actual example of Second Temple Jewish bible exegesis. In the more recent commentaries and studies, for instance those by Attridge and Guthrie himself, interesting terms are beginning to arise to describe the interpretative techniques of the author of Hebrews, such as ‘recontextualisation’, and there is a growing recognition that his exegesis may be based at least partly on some ambiguity or problem which he perceived within the scriptural text itself, rather than be due entirely to the arbitrary importing of his own ideas into it. A great deal of work still remains to be done on identifying and describing the exegetical methods employed in Hebrews, and this study aims to make a contribution to that task, especially by drawing on the research into midrash of the Goldbergian School (see further below, section 3.6). The sort of precise analysis of the Old Testament citations in Hebrews which I intend to undertake in chapter five of this study will include a consideration of how far the wider context of each text has influenced its selection and the way in which it is used, and the extent to which there are differences in the ways in which scripture functions in direct citations and allusions, both areas of interest noted by Guthrie. Finally, the studies surveyed in this section demonstrate how much scope there is to uncover more precisely the hermeneutical axioms of the author of Hebrews. There have been accounts of Hebrews as typological exegesis, such as that of Motyer,330 as christological exegesis, such as those of Barth and Hanson, but a real analysis of this important aspect of the Old Testament interpretation in Hebrews is only in its infancy, and again, commentators on midrash have much to teach their New Testament counterparts in this area. Recent developments in the study of midrash will, therefore, be the subject of the next chapter of this study.

330

See also Goppelt, Typos.

Chapter 3

Developments in the Study of Midrash 3.1 Introduction: The Interpretation of Scripture in the Rabbinic Midrashim The review of existing studies of Hebrews undertaken in the previous chapter has indicated the presence of significant gaps and weaknesses in many treatments of the use of the Old Testament in the letter. As part of my reading of Hebrews as an example of early Jewish biblical exegesis, I contend that our understanding of it could be enhanced by a close engagement with the methods and results of contemporary scholarship on scriptural interpretation in other ancient Jewish texts. As already demonstrated through the survey in chapter two above, the importance of the Jewish background to the New Testament has increasingly been recognised in the latter part of the twentieth century, and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has contributed greatly to this reawakening of interest in Second Temple Judaism. Despite this changing attitude to the Jewish context of the New Testament, however, recent advances in research into another corpus of ancient Jewish texts, the rabbinic midrashim, appear to have largely passed unnoticed by New Testament scholars. Yet some commentators on midrash have progressed far beyond many of their New Testament counterparts in developing a highly sophisticated analysis of how scriptural texts are cited and interpreted in the midrashim, sometimes making use of the insights of other disciplines such as literary theory and linguistics. The comparative studies of the biblical exegesis in the New Testament and the Qumran scrolls which have been undertaken in the last fifty years are to be explained primarily by the fact that these texts are in part to be dated contemporaneously, and I am not, of course, suggesting that the same is true of the midrashim. The latter do, however, provide valuable evidence of how another group of ancient Jews approached the task of biblical interpretation, so that some of the methods and findings of current research in this field could inform a more precise investigation into the exegetical techniques and axioms employed in Hebrews. The work on midrash of Arnold Goldberg and his students in particular deserves to be more widely known amongst English-speaking New Testament scholars. In order to set Goldberg’s methods in context, this chapter will begin with an

84

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

overview of the field of modern critical study of midrash, which I suggest can be divided into six main approaches. The key features of each of these will be summarised and evaluated, and then the main issues arising from this comparative survey highlighted. Finally, I shall draw out some conclusions about the aspects of contemporary research into midrash which have particular relevance for the study of Hebrews. Some of these important recent developments which I consider to have most potential for application to the letter will then be employed in the analysis of its scriptural interpretation in chapter five below.

3.2 The Tradition-Historical Approach: Bloch and Vermes 3.2.1 Summary of the Work of Renée Bloch The period following the Second World War saw a renewed scholarly interest in the field of Jewish Studies, following the discoveries at Qumran, ongoing work on the targumim, and the publication of new editions of first century Jewish texts such as the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo. It was in this climate that Renée Bloch put forward her proposals for a new approach to midrash, one based on investigating the historical development of exegetical traditions and the relationship between the rabbinic midrashim and other types of ancient Jewish literature. She argued also for the application to midrash of the methods of historical criticism already commonly employed in the field of biblical studies.1 Her views are set out most fully in an article “Midrash” in the Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible,2 in which she identifies five basic characteristics of rabbinic midrash: it has biblical roots and takes the text of scripture as its starting point; it evinces a generally homiletic intent,3 implying an origin not in an intellectual or school setting, but probably in synagogue homilies; it pays close attention to the text of scripture, seeking to explain perceived difficulties within it and making connections between passages; it has the practical goal of ‘actualising’ scripture, making it applicable to contemporary times and needs; and two types of midrash can be distinguished, halakhic and haggadic. Many of her conclusions develop ideas first outlined by 1

See especially Bloch, Renée, “A Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 51–75 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice. Edited by W.S. Green. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1978. 2 Bloch, Renée, “Midrash.” Columns 1263–1281 in Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible Vol. 5. Edited by H. Cazelles and A. Feuillet. Paris: Le Touzey, 1950. 3 For example: “Le souci pratique d’enseignement et d’édification est évident...ce n’est pas seulement expliquer l’Écriture, mais exposer en public le sens de l’Écriture, ‘prêcher’.” (Bloch, “Midrash”, Column 1264).

3.2 The Tradition-Historical Approach

85

Leopold Zunz in his classic nineteenth century study of rabbinic haggadah.4 Bloch’s most significant contribution to midrashic study lies in her insistence on the need to trace the historical development from biblical times of both midrash as a genre,5 and of particular midrashic interpretations of a passage. In a number of articles Bloch began the task of comparing exegetical traditions found in various Jewish sources and attempting to date them.6 Her untimely death sadly prevented her from working out her historical approach to midrash in greater detail, but some of her conclusions were taken up and developed by other scholars, most notably Geza Vermes. 3.2.2 Summary of the Work of Geza Vermes Vermes’ views about midrash and the development of Jewish biblical exegesis are clearly stated in his article “Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis”,7 and developed in more detail in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism.8 Here he sets out a case for a more historical approach to midrash to replace the syntheses of haggadic exegesis which dominated the work of his predecessors such as Strack and Ginzberg. He took forward Bloch’s approach in an attempt to demonstrate that by detailed study of rabbinic and comparative material (such as the targumim, Dead Sea Scrolls and rewritten bible texts) it is possible to trace the historical development of exegetical traditions. Vermes’ main conclusions are very much in line with those reached by Bloch. Firstly, he points to evidence that the midrashic process was in operation within the bible itself, in, for example, the formulation of the later law codes, the post-exilic books like Chronicles, Daniel and Ecclesiasticus, and also in scribal corrections to scriptural texts. Secondly, he emphasises that the midrashic enterprise is essentially an exegetical one, driven predominantly by a perceived need to harmonise 4

Zunz, Leopold, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt. Ein Beitrag zur Altertumskunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte. 2nd edition. Frankfurt: J. Kauffmann, 1892. 5 Thus, in her article on midrash she concludes that: “Les premiers développements du midrash sont à chercher dans la Bible même, et dans la littérature qui s’y rattache: versions, apocryphes. La littérature postérieure de caractère purement midrashique restera en continuité avec la Bible et constitutera par là un lien organique entre la Bible et la littérature rabbinique.” (Bloch, “Midrash”, columns 1269–1270). 6 See further the summary of Bloch’s work in Vermes, Geza, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2nd edition. Leiden: Brill, 1983, 7–9. 7 Vermes, Geza, “Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis.” Pages 199–231 in The Cambridge History of the Bible Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Rome. Edited by P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. 8 Vermes, Geza, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2nd edition. Leiden: Brill, 1983.

86

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

scripture and make it intelligible and relevant for the contemporary situation. Although exegesis could obviously be affected by the particular theological concerns of the interpreters, or by their historical circumstances such as the wars with Rome (‘applied’ exegesis), on the whole they were seeking answers to real questions which they encountered in their reading of biblical texts (‘pure’ exegesis).9 Thirdly, Vermes’ attempts to describe and date the historical development of exegetical traditions led him to conclude that the Palestinian targumim often preserve very early interpretations of scripture, and that some of the haggadic traditions may even date back to biblical times, having been handed on to the earliest interpreters of the scriptures by their final editors: “At one time...there must have been no divergence at all between biblical and interpretative tradition. The exegesis of the primitive Haggadah must coincide with that of the last redactors of the written Torah.”10 3.2.3 Evaluation of the Tradition-Historical Approach There can be no doubt that Bloch’s pioneering work opened up new avenues in the study of midrash, many of which have since been usefully explored by Vermes and others. There are three main ways in which the tradition-historical approach has contributed to advances in midrashic research. Firstly, Bloch’s awareness of the need to situate midrash in relation to other forms of post-biblical Jewish literature such as apocalyptic and targum is important. Although her inclusive use of the term ‘midrash’ would not be widely accepted today, several scholars, notably Philip Alexander, are engaged in the search to try to define more clearly the similarities and differences between the various literary genres present in the extant writings of ancient Judaism. Secondly, Vermes has demonstrated with some success that it is possible to apply the historical approach first suggested by Bloch to specific exegetical traditions and to chart their development over time and in a range of sources. This opens up the possibility of a much greater understanding of the historical evolution of exegetical traditions and of some of the reasons for the development of new interpretations. His work in this area is characterised by clarity of thought and attention to detail, and he benefits from being able to draw on his comprehensive knowledge of both the Hebrew bible and a wide range of postbiblical Jewish sources. Finally, the stress of both Bloch and Vermes on the biblical roots of midrash has been further validated by the work of Michael Fishbane, and their insight into its primarily exegetical (as opposed 9 For this distinction between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ exegesis, see Vermes, “Bible and Midrash”, 202–227. 10 Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 127; cf. p. 176.

3.2 The Tradition-Historical Approach

87

to ideological) motivation is important to a newer generation of scholars such as Daniel Boyarin and Alexander Samely. Whilst later scholarly work has confirmed some of the insights of the tradition-historical approach, it has, however, also highlighted some of its weaknesses. Firstly, attempts to plot the historical development of exegetical traditions have met with only limited success. It has not proved possible to date with certainty many of the ancient Jewish sources and the interpretative traditions which they contain, partly because of the complex nature of their compilation and transmission, matters to which, it can be argued, Vermes paid too little attention. His reconstruction of the origins and development of Jewish biblical interpretation seems, therefore, to be somewhat ambitious and over-confident. In particular, his suggestion that interpretative traditions were passed on directly from the final editors of the Hebrew bible must remain a matter of conjecture, and it may be that in this claim Vermes was trying too hard to give midrashic exegesis the legitimacy he thinks it deserves. More recent attempts to identify the various genres of ancient Jewish exegetical writings11 and to describe precisely the features and techniques characteristic of midrash (such as the work of Goldberg and Samely, see further below, section 3.6) now make Bloch’s description of midrash appear too loose and imprecise. Applying the term as she did to such divergent texts as the targumim, Jubilees and the New Testament Letter to the Hebrews12 would be impossible today, when commentators tend to a much narrower definition, and stress the importance of recognising the various dates and purposes of the ancient Jewish texts.13 Similar criticisms can be applied to Vermes’ studies of the historical development of exegetical traditions, as he does not explore the actual mechanisms by which a particular meaning was derived from a text, nor distinguish between the various forms which biblical exegesis takes in different genres such as rewritten bible and midrashic commentary. His distinction between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ exegesis is also questionable, as it is often difficult to differentiate clearly between the two, and the same exegetical techniques appear to be 11

See e.g. Alexander, Philip S., “Retelling the Old Testament.” Pages 99–118 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. 12 See Bloch, “Midrash”, column 1279. 13 This ‘uncritical’ use of the term has been noted by Teugels, Lieve M., “Two Centuries of Midrash Study: A Survey of Some Standard Works on Rabbinic Midrash and its Methods.” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 54 (2000): 125–144; see especially pp. 140–141. See also her comment that: “Recent scholarship tends to distinguish more carefully (than Bloch and Vermes) between the different forms in which ancient biblical interpretation is presented.” (Teugels, Lieve M., Bible and Midrash: the Story of the ‘Wooing of Rebekah’ (Gen 24). Leuven: Peeters, 2004, 144).

88

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

used in both. The emphasis placed by Bloch and Vermes on the fundamental importance of the scriptural text in generating the midrash is now widely shared.14 However, this understanding of midrash is perhaps rather one-sided, unable to recognise the role of extra-biblical factors (such as historical circumstances and the development of theological ideas) in forming interpretations. Bloch’s insistence on a homiletic, synagogal setting for midrash is also not proven: the possibility that it originated and/or was developed and promulgated in rabbinic centres akin to ‘schools’ cannot be dismissed.

3.3 The Rabbinic Hermeneutical Rules: Heinemann 3.3.1 Summary of the Work of Isaac Heinemann Isaac Heinemann’s major study first published in Hebrew in 1949, Darkhe ha-Aggadah,15 is an important attempt to offer a theoretical description of midrash, and to distinguish clearly between different genres of rabbinic literature and different forms of midrash (halakhic and haggadic). Almost all subsequent commentators either cite and make use of his work,16 or engage in some critique of it in order to situate their own approach in relation to his.17 Heinemann’s primary concern is haggadic midrash, as is clear from the title of his book, and his explanation of it centres on the hermeneutical methods (the darkhe, ‘ways’, of the title) it uses to interpret scripture, as these are summarised in the various lists of exegetical rules or middot found in the rabbinic literature and associated respectively with Hillel, Ishmael and Eliezer ben Yose. He was aware that these middot were probably not originally formulated by the named rabbis, but he considered it important to take full account of what the rabbinic tradition itself said about its exegetical enterprise before expanding his explanation with more modern terminology. He suggested that most haggadic midrash can be explained as the result of either ‘creative historiography’, filling out details of the biblical narratives, or ‘creative philology’, paying close attention to the interpretation of individual words.18 In response to the charge that 14

Although see the discussion of the work of Jacob Neusner (section 3.5 below) for a different approach. 15 Heinemann, Isaac, Darkhe ha-Aggadah. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1949. 16 See, e.g. Stemberger, Günter, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1966. 17 For example, Boyarin, Daniel, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990, 1–11. 18 A fuller explanation of Heinemann’s use of these terms is to be found in Stemberger, Introduction, 238.

3.3 The Rabbinic Hermeneutical Rules

89

midrashic exegesis of scripture is too fanciful and far-fetched, he pointed to the distinction drawn by the rabbis themselves between the ‘plain sense’ (peshat) and ‘interpretation’ (derash) of the text. He argued that some parts of the haggadah derive from genuine exegetical enquiry, whilst others offer an insight into the real essence and continuing relevance of a scriptural passage, even if they appear to have nothing to do with its literal meaning.19 3.3.2 Evaluation of Heinemann’s Work Heinemann’s study has impacted considerably on subsequent research, and his conclusions have been taken up by a number of other scholars, for example Jonah Fränkel.20 He was the first commentator to try to set out a theoretical framework for midrash, and to take seriously traditional rabbinic descriptions of their methods of biblical interpretation as a valid starting point for his explanation of it. His efforts to provide a clearer terminology, and his recognition of the genuinely exegetical motivation of at least some traditional interpretation, are particularly important achievements, and have since been further developed by Alexander, Boyarin, Samely and others. Aspects of Heinemann’s work have, however, also been subject to criticism. Boyarin, for example, has suggested that he was too heavily influenced by the German Romantic movement, leading him to idealise the creativity and the lived experience of the rabbinic interpreters.21 The most significant critique, however, of both Heinemann’s approach and its widespread appropriation within New Testament Studies, has been made by Philip Alexander. In a detailed treatment of the extant lists of middot, he outlines the serious difficulties inherent in accepting them uncritically as a full and accurate account of rabbinic biblical interpretation.22 Significant textual issues arise, for example, in terms of dating the lists and assessing variant texts. Then the actual meaning of many of the rules is a matter of debate, as the vocabulary and grammar of the lists is often difficult, and the commentaries accompanying them are secondary, so cannot be taken as a definitive explanation of the norms, but simply as the opinions of later rabbis about their meaning.23 Nor are the lists comprehensive – other exegetical techniques are clearly being used throughout the midrashim and, on 19

See the fuller discussion in Boyarin, Intertextuality, 1–11. His indebtedness to Heinemann is evident even from the title of his book: Fränkel, Jonah, Darkhe ha-Aggadah veha-Midrash. Jerusalem: Yad le-Talmud Press, 1991. 21 See Boyarin, Intertextuality, 7–11. 22 Alexander, Philip S., “The Rabbinic Hermeneutical Rules and the Problem of the Definition of Midrash.” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 8 (1984): 97–125. 23 See especially Alexander, “The Rabbinic Hermeneutical Rules”, 107. 20

90

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

the other hand, some of the middot are not much in evidence in the rabbinic literature. Alexander explains this as being largely due to the nature of the lists as both descriptive and prescriptive; that is, they should be regarded partly as attempts to describe the hermeneutical methods which can actually be seen at work in the midrashim, and also as statements about what ought to happen within midrashic exegesis.24 It must therefore be recognised that these lists are later formulations which “...cannot be used as a short-cut to the definition of midrash…”,25 as they have been by a number of New Testament scholars, who have taken the middot as a satisfactory account of midrash, and then searched for examples of their application by various New Testament authors.26 The evaluation of commentaries on Hebrews in chapter two above has demonstrated that this uncritical approach still characterises some scholarly discussion of the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.27 It is, therefore, one of the main arguments of this study that there is a need to go beyond this rather shallow treatment of midrash if the biblical exegesis of the Jewish authors of the New Testament is to be better understood.

3.4 Intertextuality and Midrash: Fishbane and Boyarin 3.4.1 Summary of the Work of Michael Fishbane Michael Fishbane’s work on both the Hebrew bible and later Jewish texts shares with that of Vermes and Bloch a great interest in the historical development of scriptural interpretation. His book Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel28 is one of the most thorough and influential studies available of the phenomenon of inner-biblical exegesis, providing detailed ex24

See Alexander, “The Rabbinic Hermeneutical Rules”, 123–124. Alexander, “The Rabbinic Hermeneutical Rules”, 101. 26 See e.g. Doeve, Jan W., Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Assen: van Gorcum, 1954; Jeremias, Joachim, “Paulus als Hillelit.” Pages 89–94 in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black. Edited by E.E. Ellis and M. Wilcox. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969; Longenecker, Richard N., Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1975; Patte, Daniel, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975. For these and other examples, see Alexander, “The Rabbinic Hermeneutical Rules”, 100. See also Alexander, Philip S., “Midrash and the Gospels.” Pages 1–50 in Synoptic Studies. Edited by C.M. Tuckett. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 1–18. 27 See especially my comments in section 2.1.5.2 on Lane, William L., Hebrews, Word Biblical Commentary. 2 vols. Dallas: Word, 1991. 28 Fishbane, Michael, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. 25

3.4 Intertextuality and Midrash

91

amples of the interpretative techniques employed in every part of the Hebrew scriptures to rework older traditions. Like Vermes, Fishbane suggests that later Jewish interpretative practices are firmly rooted in the bible itself: Is it possible that the origins of the Jewish exegetical tradition are native and ancient, that they developed diversely in ancient Israel, in many centres and at many times, and that these many tributaries met in the exile and its aftermath to set a new stage for biblical culture which was redirected, rationalized and systematized in the lively environment of the Greco-Roman world? 29

He considers the factors which influenced the origins and development of exegesis, recognising the role of both external pressures, such as historical or social context, and internal issues related to the text itself or perceived difficulties with it. He introduces also the idea of the ancient Jewish interpreters bringing their lively ‘exegetical imagination’ as well as their extensive knowledge of Israel’s traditions to their task of making sense of an ancient text to enable it to speak to people in new situations.30 Fishbane makes some attempt to identify the principles underlying the approach to exegesis found in rabbinic texts, stressing the rabbinic understanding of scripture as an inter-connected whole, for example, enabling one text to be read in the light of another, and the belief that scripture had innumerable latent, God-given meanings, which could all be uncovered by creative exegesis in order to keep the divine word alive in every generation.31 3.4.2 Evaluation of Fishbane’s Work Fishbane provides an extremely comprehensive treatment of the history and practices of Jewish biblical interpretation which has informed all subsequent work in the field. He is aware of the need to introduce greater methodological precision into the discussion about what constitutes deliberate inner-biblical exegesis, as opposed to unconscious echoes or the use of shared vocabulary,32 and his working out of textual examples is detailed and interesting. He makes a convincing case for his overall thesis that postbiblical Jewish exegesis has its roots in the bible itself, and his recognition of the creative imagination of the early interpreters of scripture is a valu-

29

Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 19; cf. p. 525. See e.g. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 316ff. on Jeremiah. This aspect of his work is further developed in Fishbane, Michael, The Exegetical Imagination: On Jewish Thought and Theology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998. 31 See e.g. Fishbane, Michael, The Garments of Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989, 2–3, 12–13; cf. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 134ff., 228. 32 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 288–289. 30

92

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

able insight, and a counterweight to the view that their exegesis involved merely the rather mechanical application of rules. There are other aspects of Fishbane’s method and conclusions which might be questioned, most of which he himself acknowledges. Firstly, not all commentators would agree with his assessment of the extent of innerbiblical exegesis within the scriptural texts. He does recognise that it is necessary to make careful distinctions between a deliberate reworking of an older tradition on the one hand, and a shared use of common imagery or vocabulary on the other, but in reaching decisions on this point it is difficult to avoid some subjectivity, or the charge of reading more into the texts than is actually there. Fishbane’s claim that there is evidence in the Old Testament of the beginnings of a “unifying scriptural vision”33 would also not meet with general acceptance, and depends in part on the position taken about the formation of the biblical text and the validity of the approach of canonical criticism. Even though he makes a persuasive case for the historical development of Jewish exegesis from the traditions and practices found in the Hebrew bible, he accepts that this trajectory must remain unproven, and that it is complicated by the composite nature of most biblical texts and their complex and lengthy transmission-history. Sometimes an apparent connection between biblical exegesis and later interpretation may simply “...reflect parallel technical solutions to parallel technical problems...”34 Finally, although Fishbane does make an attempt to draw out the axioms underlying Jewish biblical exegesis, the presuppositions he identifies are sometimes stated rather generally, and a more precise account could be developed of them and of their operation in practice. 3.4.3 Summary of the Work of Daniel Boyarin Daniel Boyarin does not claim to be particularly indebted to Fishbane, but I suggest that there are sufficient connections between his views and those of Fishbane to warrant discussion of them within the same section here. The title of Boyarin’s first major book on midrash, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash,35 indicates the two main planks of his approach. Firstly, he is influenced by contemporary literary theory, particularly the work of Jacques Derrida. Although stressing that he is not himself a deconstructionist, he finds in the post-modern assumption that a text can have multiple valid meanings scope for a rehabilitation of the rabbinic interpretations, which can appear far removed from the literal meaning of the biblical text. He is quite explicit about his ‘engaged’ attitude to the study 33

See e.g. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 407. See e.g. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 525. 35 Boyarin, Daniel, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990. 34

3.4 Intertextuality and Midrash

93

of midrash, explaining that as a practising Jew he hopes to find a way of reading midrash that will lead to a wider appreciation amongst non-Jews of its value.36 Boyarin therefore argues that the bible is an inherently dialogical text, with ambiguity present throughout. The rabbinic exegetes assumed that this heterogeneity was part of the divine revelation, so the presentation in the midrashim of several different interpretations of a verse should be understood as “...a literary representation and doubling of the antithetical voices to which the Author Himself has given speech within the Torah.”37 Boyarin also devotes a chapter to the idea that the Mekhilta brings to the surface again cultural and mythical ideas such as polytheism which have been repressed in the biblical text, but not entirely removed from it.38 Secondly, like Fishbane, Boyarin emphasises the importance of intertextuality in midrashic exegesis, and also points to its roots within the bible itself. The closest he comes to a definition of midrash is “...a radical intertextual reading of the canon, in which potentially every part refers to and is interpretable by every other part.”39 He therefore gives examples of the intertextual re-use of biblical texts through their citation and rearrangement in the Mekhilta. This re-grouping of biblical verses obviously removes them from their original contexts, so central to Boyarin’s argument, in line with his literary theory, is a claim that midrashic exegesis both ‘disrupts’ and ‘reconstructs’ the meanings of biblical texts.40 In the Mekhilta on Ex 15:2, for example, Jer 2:6 is cited out of context and given a positive interpretation in contrast to the negative connotation of the original text. However, Boyarin contends that this use of the verse preserves and confirms the overall picture given in the Book of Jeremiah that the time spent by the Israelites in the desert after the Exodus was a period of great faithfulness to God. Finally, Boyarin also argues, against some other midrashic scholars, that the midrashim should be regarded as genuine biblical exegesis, motivated primarily by hermeneutical concerns, and not seen simply as a response to a particular historical situation, or a vehicle to promote a certain theology. As already noted in the introduction to this study in chapter 1, Boyarin is one of those contemporary scholars who suggest that the old model of a definite dateable ‘parting of the ways’ between Judaism and Christianity should be abandoned. Referring to the biblical narrative of Esau and Jacob, 36

See e.g. Boyarin, Intertextuality, xi. Boyarin, Intertextuality, 48. 38 Boyarin, Intertextuality, 93–104. 39 Boyarin, Intertextuality, 16; cf.: “The sovereign notion informing the present reading of midrash is ‘intertextuality’...” (p. 12). 40 See in particular Boyarin, Intertextuality, 24–26. 37

94

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

for example, commonly used in Jewish and Christian discourse to claim priority or superiority over the other, he argues that: Esau and Jacob...continued ‘jostling with each other in her womb’ at least well into late antiquity, and perhaps will do so forever. Like many twins, Judaism and Christianity never quite formed entirely separate entities. 41

He goes so far as to claim that Judaism’s very existence as a religion owes much to Christianity’s invention of it in opposition to itself.42 Boyarin’s particular contribution to this debate has been to examine rabbinic texts in detail to demonstrate their witness to continuing interaction between Jews and Christians. He makes a persuasive case for accepting that early Jews and Christians learned from and responded to one another, and were mutually influenced in their biblical interpretation, for at least four centuries. His intertextual reading of the prologue to the Fourth Gospel, for example, emphasises the rootedness of the theology of this text in Judaism.43 3.4.4 Evaluation of Boyarin’s Work Boyarin has made a valuable contribution to the study of midrash by drawing attention to the importance for it of a real engagement with current developments in literary theory. In particular his detailed explanation of the concept of intertextuality is useful, as also is his suggestion of an intentional inherent ambiguity in the biblical text and its rabbinic interpretations. His determination to approach midrash primarily as biblical exegesis is also welcome, and is shared by other contemporary midrashic scholars such as Alexander Samely. It cannot, of course, be denied that rabbinic interpretations of scripture were coloured by the political and historical situation in which they were formed, or were influenced by a particular theological outlook, but it should also be fully recognised that something within the biblical text as well as outside it can motivate the interpretations given and itself influence the development of theology. Thus the questions which Boyarin brings to his reading of midrash deserve widespread consideration: “What in the Bible’s text might have motivated this gloss on this verse? Can I explain this text in such a way that this gloss makes sense as an interpretation of this verse?”44 His understanding of the relationship between rabbinic and Christian biblical interpretation as one of mutual influence is supported by other significant contemporary scholars such as 41

Boyarin, Daniel, Dying for God. Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1999, 5. 42 See e.g. Boyarin, Daniel, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004, 11. 43 Boyarin, Border Lines, 89–111. 44 Boyarin, Intertextuality, ix.

3.4 Intertextuality and Midrash

95

Philip Alexander. This offers an important counter-argument to those who claim that it is not legitimate to use the midrashim to illuminate the scriptural exegesis of the New Testament or patristic texts because of the late date of their final composition. It is now possible to see Jewish and Christian interpretation as part of one continuing tradition or process carried on for centuries in dialogue, both conscious and unconscious, with the other. There are, however, weaknesses in Boyarin’s work. Firstly, although he does engage in dialogue with other commentators on midrash, critiquing the positions of Joseph Heinemann and Jacob Neusner in particular, he does not seem to be familiar with more recent developments in this field, such as the work of Arnold Goldberg. Boyarin’s discussion of the mashal,45 for example, might have been enhanced by a consideration of the precise description and analysis of this hermeneutical operation offered by Goldberg, but he makes no mention of it. Even Fishbane receives only the occasional fleeting reference, although Boyarin is obviously indebted to his pioneering work on intertextuality in the bible, and his recognition of the importance of both internal and external factors in the development of exegesis. Clearer indications from Boyarin about where he feels his work has moved on from that of Fishbane, or areas of difference between them, would, therefore, be helpful. In a review article on Boyarin, Basser concludes with a similar critique: “Boyarin’s treatment of previous views and the presentation of his own, lack sufficient sophistication.”46 The second potential difficulty with Boyarin’s study is that it is an avowedly committed reading. This point has been noted by several reviewers, with Samely, for example, stating: “Boyarin is not objective in that he attempts to ‘justify’ midrash from his own faith-position...”47 His desire to rehabilitate midrash as an acceptable reading of scripture has perhaps influenced his appeal to the philosophy of Derrida, which allows for the validity of multiple interpretations of a text. Samely, however, warns of the dangers of reading ancient rabbinic texts through the lens of post-modern cultural and literary theories which have developed in the West as a direct consequence of the Enlightenment: There can thus be no question of the rabbis somehow anticipating, by some ahistorical magic, the post-modern aesthetics and epistemology of de-centering. So while the abstract similarities between post-modernism and rabbinic discourse are important and in45

Boyarin, Intertextuality, 105–116. Basser, Herbert W., “A Review Article on D. Boyarin’s Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990).” Jewish Quarterly Review 81 (1991): 427–433, 427. 47 Samely, Alexander, “Justifying Midrash: On an ‘Intertextual’ Interpretation of Rabbinic Interpretation; A Review Article on D. Boyarin’s Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990).” Journal of Semitic Studies 39 (1994): 19–32, 30. 46

96

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

structive, they do not constitute an appreciation of that discourse in its historical context.48

Other commentators would argue that some of the biblical interpretation found in the midrashim is not, in fact, useful today, even though the exegetical methods used were acceptable in their own time and place. Finally, it is doubtful whether some of Boyarin’s central theses can be maintained. Basser, for example, does not agree with Boyarin’s reading (discussed above) of the interpretation of Jer 2:6 in the Mekhilta, arguing that in the midrash as in the biblical verse, the text is used to show that the people should have sought God.49 However, even if Boyarin is correct to suggest that this is an example of a rabbinic interpretation which supports the overall message of a biblical verse whilst taking it out of context, I do not think that his claims about the disruption and preservation of meaning in midrashic interpretation are generally true. It is perhaps significant that this is the only clear example quoted by Boyarin in support of his argument, yet there are many occasions throughout the midrashim when a biblical text is cited with no regard to its original context or surface meaning. He also, I suggest, overstates the case for seeing the presentation of several interpretations of a text in midrash as a deliberate affirmation of the ambiguity of scripture. These alternative views are almost always attributed to different rabbis, each of whom presumably regarded his interpretation as the correct one, especially as disputes between named rabbis about the true meaning of a text are a common feature of the midrashim. Samely has also commented on this point, noting that, in general, midrashic interpretation actually seeks to remove perceived inconsistencies and to harmonise apparent contradictions in the biblical text, because of a presupposition that it is whole and coherent.50

3.5 Documentary Analysis: Neusner 3.5.1 Summary of the Work of Jacob Neusner Neusner has devoted decades to studying first the Mishnah and Talmud and then the rabbinic midrashim, and has published widely in the field of 48 Samely, Alexander, Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, 6. 49 Basser, “A Review Article”, 430. 50 Samely, “Justifying Midrash”, 24–25. He does note elsewhere that a unified picture of interpretation is not always given in the midrashim: “...in some sense, exclusivity is indeed routinely claimed...(but)...the exegetical midrashim do not present their midrashic units as providing a rounded, co-ordinated, or exhaustive account of the meaning of any biblical passage.” (Samely, Forms of Rabbinic Literature, 71–72).

3.5 Documentary Analysis

97

Jewish Studies. He argues strongly that it is necessary to treat each extant midrash as a whole, or a final document. Only when it has been read on its own terms should it be compared to other texts,51 and take its place in the historical ‘canon’ of rabbinic Judaism. Neusner is aware of the difficulties of attributing the midrashim to an author, in view of the lack of definite evidence that interpretations attached in the texts to named rabbis really did derive from these authorities. He speaks rather of each midrashic document having an ‘authorship’, purposeful compilers, who set out a coherent programme of themes which runs throughout the work, and made consensual decisions about the organisation of the material and the literary forms to be used in it. 52 For Neusner, the issues and beliefs brought to the reading of scripture by the authorship of each midrash from outside, particularly the growing challenge of Christianity,53 were far more important for generating its content and form than the scriptural verses being commented upon. This explains how the same scriptural passage can be treated very differently in different midrashim.54 Neusner has produced a whole series of ‘analytical translations’ of the rabbinic midrashim. In these he sets out the text in small paragraphs, showing clearly where he considers each new unit of thought begins and ends, and highlighting the themes and formal traits connecting them. Each unit is numbered according to a consistent notation or reference system,55 which enables him to identify what he regards as the distinctive formal and theological features of each midrashic document. Amongst the texts which he sees as having the most coherent overall plan and programme are Leviticus Rabbah and Sifré to Deuteronomy. He argues that the latter, for instance, is a highly purposeful composition, a fine example of how Jewish literature “...competes, in intellectual vigour and in sustained, systematic reason, with the Western philosophical tradition...”56 Neusner attempts to prove this claim by first identifying the distinguishing rhetorical, logical and topical traits of Sifré to Deuteronomy and then comparing these to 51

This view is at the heart of all Neusner’s work, but is outlined straightforwardly in e.g. Neusner, Jacob, What is Midrash? Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987, 14–15. 52 See e.g. the discussion of the concept of ‘authorship’ in Neusner, Jacob, Sifré to Deuteronomy: An Introduction to the Rhetorical, Logical and Topical Program, Brown Judaic Studies 124. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987, 2, 6–7. 53 Neusner, What is Midrash?, 44–45. 54 Neusner, What is Midrash?, 69ff.; cf. Neusner, Jacob, Midrash as Literature: The Primacy of Documentary Discourse. Lanham/New York: University Press of America, 1987, 15. 55 He explains this reference system in Neusner, Jacob, Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael: An Analytical Translation, Brown Judaic Studies 148. 2 vols. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988, Vol. 2: xi. 56 Neusner, Sifré to Deuteronomy: An Introduction, xi.

98

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

other rabbinic texts. So, for example, he notes that the use of narrative forms such as parables and stories to explain laws is relatively infrequent in this work,57 and concludes that one of the principal elements in its topical programme is a desire to prove that human reason is unreliable unless supported by divine revelation.58 If Sifré to Deuteronomy is a particularly coherent text, the Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael represents the other end of the spectrum. Although Neusner does find in this work some examples of thematic collections and sustained arguments, he also at times has to acknowledge its composite character,59 and the lack of any common theme or coherent argument linking together the units in each section very frequently leads him to make an admission such as: “This potpourri lacks any cogent traits.” 60 Neusner’s insistence on studying each rabbinic midrash separately and as a unity has brought him into conflict with other scholars such as Ed Sanders. Neusner believes that Sanders and many other commentators have been too quick to draw up an overarching framework for an entity called ‘ancient Judaism’ into which they then fit the available material, choosing to emphasise only those parts of the texts which suit their picture, and failing to recognise the distinctive theologies and forms of each individual work.61 Neusner likewise criticises intertextual approaches for paying too much attention to texts in relation to other texts rather than on their own terms,62 and he has, therefore, no interest in Vermes’ attempts to reconstruct the history of the individual units of tradition found in the midrashim. 3.5.2 Evaluation of Neusner’s Work Neusner’s work is original and thorough, and it provokes the reader to think again about the nature of Judaism in the early centuries of the Christian era. It is true, for example, that some descriptions of Judaism in this period can give an exaggerated importance to ideas which, although present in some texts, may be peripheral to them, so Neusner is right to argue that the extant writings should not be conflated and their theological and/or literary differences overlooked.63 This insistence on starting from the evidence of individual texts is, then, refreshing and Neusner has also sought 57

Neusner, Sifré to Deuteronomy: An Introduction, 134. Neusner, Sifré to Deuteronomy: An Introduction, 72, 155, 181. 59 See e.g. Neusner, Mekhilta, Vol. 2: 9. 60 Neusner, Mekhilta, Vol. 1: 247. 61 He rehearses this debate in e.g. Neusner, Sifré to Deuteronomy: An Introduction, 172–180. 62 See e.g. Neusner, Sifré to Deuteronomy: An Introduction, 180. 63 A similar point is made by Samely, Forms of Rabbinic Literature, 19–23. 58

3.5 Documentary Analysis

99

to bring some much-needed clarity to the meaning of the term midrash.64 His detailed working through of each pericope in every midrash illustrates clearly how precise description of what is happening in a text is itself useful analysis. It is, for example, interesting to compare his analytical translation of the Mekhilta with the more impressionistic reading of this text found in Boyarin’s Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Perhaps his most valuable contribution to the study of midrash is his notation system, which definitely facilitates a better understanding of the boundaries of each section of a midrash and of the links between sections. Even if his entire thesis about the coherence of each midrashic document cannot in the end be defended, he has successfully demonstrated the presence of interconnections within some small units and larger sections, so his work provides a valuable counterbalance to the view that the midrashim are made up only of random exegetical comments. There are, however, several problems with Neusner’s approach. Firstly, he may have been able to prove the existence of a coherent plan and programme in the texts on which he first worked, namely the Mishnah, Toseftas and Talmuds, which are more tightly organised into tractates on related laws, but that does not mean that these findings translate successfully into study of the midrashim. There are, for example, numerous common interpretative traditions to be found throughout the midrashim, which make it difficult to argue for a unique programme on the part of different authorships. The whole concept of authorship is also questionable, and at the very least we surely need to think about layers of authorship, as the extant manuscripts offer divergent texts, and the collections of midrashim have been amended and added to over time. This is the main point of Peter Schäfer’s important critique of Neusner’s work, as he argues that to focus only on the textus receptus, as Neusner does, is to ignore the long history of development and redaction of rabbinic works.65 Neusner acknowledges this briefly, but still insists: “If people added materials, the established program is what dictated their choices.”66 This argument appears circular and generally unsatisfactory, however; there is no firm evidence that Jewish biblical commentators in different centuries did perceive exactly the same programme of themes in the midrashim as Neusner identifies. Secondly, Neusner makes much of the claim that he looks at the internal evidence of each text first, and then draws his conclusions about its themes and structure, but in fact he may approach the documents with established

64

See especially the opening chapters in Neusner, What is Midrash? Schäfer, Peter, “Research Into Rabbinic Literature: An Attempt to Define the Status Quaestionis.” Journal of Jewish Studies 37 (1986): 139–152; see especially pp. 146–147. 66 Neusner, Sifré to Deuteronomy: An Introduction, 7. 65

100

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

presuppositions of his own.67 Thus he does not alter his view of the programmatic nature of each midrash when faced with evidence such as sections of texts in which he can identify no coherent theme, or an entire work (for instance the Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael) which clearly resembles a random collection more than a tightly argued set of thematic or logical propositions, as he himself is compelled at times to acknowledge.68 It could also be argued that his analytical translations are themselves a way of imposing his own reading of the texts on the material. Whilst many scholars appreciate Neusner’s setting out of the texts in smaller units of thought and his reference system, Hammer, for example, finds this presentation of the midrashim arbitrary, obtrusive and subjective.69 Neusner does not really acknowledge that his system, however useful, is actually an artificial method of dividing up the texts which could be done differently. For all his attempts at methodological precision, Neusner has also been criticised by Goldberg for undertaking ‘form-analysis’ whilst using the term ‘form’ or ‘pattern’ too loosely, without providing a clear explanation of what actually constitutes a form.70 Thirdly, the themes Neusner identifies as constituting a text’s ‘topical programme’ are often very general and could be applied to virtually any Jewish work. So, for example, he names as two of the principal topics present in Sifré to Deuteronomy the covenant and the law. That these themes occur in a text commenting on the Book of Deuteronomy is hardly surprising, and almost identical themes are cited by Neusner as the central message of several other midrashim (God’s love for Israel and the Torah in Leviticus Rabbah, for example).71 The same criticism can be levelled against the rhetorical and logical features which Neusner finds in each text, which again are general and repetitive, and usually relate to the theme of the role of revelation as well as reason in the search for truth. It is very easy for commentators to find patterns which are not really there, or indeed 67

A similar point is made by Reuven Hammer in his “A Review of J. Neusner’s Sifré to Deuteronomy (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987).” Jewish Quarterly Review 81 (1990): 170–174: “All too often he is trying too hard to fit the material into his preconceived theory.” (p. 172). See also Fraade, Steven D., “Interpreting Midrash 1: Midrash and the History of Judaism. A Review Article on Jacob Neusner’s Judaism and Scripture: The Evidence of Leviticus Rabbah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.)” Prooftexts 7 (1987): 179–194: 186. 68 Neusner, Mekhilta, Vol. 2: 17–18. 69 Hammer, “A Review”, 172. 70 “Neusner’s definition (of form) is somewhat pragmatic. It does not define what constitutes a form, but only when a form is present. That which is repeated constitutes a pattern, and it would seem that pattern and form are to be equated.” (Goldberg, Arnold, “Form-Analysis of Midrashic Literature as a Method of Description.” Journal of Jewish Studies 36 (1986): 159–174, 160. 71 See Neusner, Midrash as Literature, 198.

3.5 Documentary Analysis

101

to fail to see in an arrangement of material a logic which may have been obvious to its original authors. His account of the coherent structure of the midrashim frequently seems to overstate the case, as it could be argued that several texts accumulate examples making the same point, or offer alternative interpretations of a disputed phrase, rather than develop a particular argument. Neusner also appears to set up an unnecessarily dualistic opposition between the forms of commentary and logical proposition, as if, in the words of Stephen Fraade, a midrash must be either exegetical or syllogistic, either a scrapbook or a cogent system.72 Thus Neusner argues that a midrashic text like Sifré to Deuteronomy should be regarded as more than a commentary, because it is the logical propositions of its authorship which give it shape, not the structure or individual verses of the Book of Deuteronomy.73 Certainly the midrashim draw on biblical verses far beyond the one from which they start, and the wider theological views of the exegetes doubtless influenced their interpretations in places. However, in several of Neusner’s examples of where an underlying proposition supposedly takes over from biblical commentary, I do not agree with his conclusions, and see the pericope rather as a series of attempts to explain a puzzling phrase in the basetext. His work, then, needs to be balanced by the studies of other scholars such as Samely and Boyarin, who have stressed the primarily exegetical motivation of rabbinic commentators. Finally, as well as being overly committed to his own approach to midrash, Neusner is possibly also overcommitted to his own understanding of Judaism, so that personal or apologetic reasons may lie behind his desire to present the rabbinic texts as philosophical and intellectual works comparable to those of Plato and Aristotle.74 He seems unable to accept that pericopes or sentences in a midrash might be linked by ‘free association’ because that would, in his view, undermine the intellectual standing of the rabbis.75 Whether the kind of rationalism which he places at the heart of Judaism is either a faithful presentation of the religion or a generally appealing one is another matter.

72

Fraade, “Interpreting Midrash”, 185. See e.g. Neusner, Sifré to Deuteronomy: An Introduction, 140. 74 For a similar view, see Fraade, “Interpreting Midrash”, 184. 75 Neusner, Sifré to Deuteronomy: An Introduction, 107. Interestingly, Neusner himself criticises some other commentators for being more dependent for their conclusions on their Orthodox Jewish faith than on academic rigour (Neusner, Midrash as Literature, 23). 73

102

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

3.6 Form-Analysis: The Goldbergian School 3.6.1 Summary of the Work of Arnold Goldberg From the mid-1970s until his death in 1991, Arnold Goldberg pioneered a new approach to the study of rabbinic literature which has important implications for current and future research. Goldberg’s methodology begins with the detailed description and precise analysis of the various literary forms which he identified as being present in the texts. It therefore came to be known as form-analysis, a term which should be carefully distinguished from form criticism, as Goldberg offers a synchronic rather than diachronic analysis of the texts and is not interested in the Sitz im Leben or historical development of the forms,76 although he does postulate literary or school origins for the composition of midrash rather than the popular, liturgical setting assumed by many earlier scholars like Bloch and Heinemann. His form-analytical method begins with the identification and description of the smallest forms present in rabbinic texts, such as the ma‘aseh, and then moves to a consideration of how these basic forms inter-relate and are combined to produce more complex forms such as a rabbinic homily. There are, then, essential differences between this approach and both Vermes’ interest in the historical development of exegetical traditions and Neusner’s stress on the meaningful programme of the document as a whole. Goldberg produced a series of studies describing in detail each basic form (Grundform), making use of a consistent terminology. Some of these forms, such as the mashal, had already been recognised by scholars, but others (for instance, Questem), are identified by Goldberg for the first time, and some previously known forms are called by new or more precise terms (such as Semikha and Citem). He regarded the midrashic sentence, in which a small section of scripture is interpreted, as the most important basic form, occurring throughout rabbinic literature, being present in, for example, rabbinic homilies and the Mishnah, as well as in texts specifically called midrashim. He therefore devoted several articles77 to its detailed description and definition, concluding that this form consists of a lemma (L), or small scriptural segment which becomes the focus of exegesis, such as a verse, phrase or even single word; a hermeneutical operation (o) which 76 Goldberg, Arnold, “Entwurf einer formanalytischen Methode für die Exegese der rabbinischen Traditionsliteratur.” Pages 50–79 in Rabbinische Texte als Gegenstand der Auslegung. Gesammelte Schriften II. Edited by M. Schlüter and P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. 77 See in particular “Entwurf einer formanalytischen Methode”, and also “Die funktionale Form Midrasch.” Pages 199–229 in Rabbinische Texte. (Note the slightly unusual spelling Midrasch, which is used consistently throughout Goldberg’s work.)

3.6 Form-Analysis: The Goldbergian School

103

produces the rabbinic interpretation of the text, such as a fortiori or gezera shawa; and a dictum (D), a statement about the scriptural segment.78 Central to Goldberg’s approach is his characterisation of rabbinic literature as a whole as ‘tradition literature’ as opposed to ‘author literature’.79 In other words, each text is made up almost entirely of citations from the tradition which have been collected, arranged and placed into a new literary unit. This was a method of composition which was designed to give authority to a work, and which also illustrates the strongly-held rabbinic convictions that there is nothing new under the sun and that the whole of their tradition was part of divine revelation.80 These citations have, however, been removed from their original contexts which are now lost to us, and so the same words may be employed to say different things by virtue of their new context and arrangement.81 This led Goldberg to distinguish between the Aussage (message or statement) and Bedeutung (meaning) of a citation. The content or actual wording of the quotation, the Aussage, remains constant, but the meaning can change, depending on how it is placed and used in the new text: Form und inhaltliche Aussage können konstant bleiben, Funktion und Bedeutung oder Aussage sind in einem jeweils neuen Kontext variabel, mit den gleichen Worten wird etwas anderes bedeutet und gesagt. 82

He claims that the editors of the rabbinic works were in fact not interested in what their citations were meant to say in their original contexts, but in what they can say now, presumably regarding this new meaning as being inherent in the original words.83 This important distinction between the message and meaning of a statement led Goldberg to analyse not only the individual basic forms present in the rabbinic literature, but also to consider what he called ‘functional form’, the way in which a citation actually functions in a text in order to communicate its meaning.84 So the midrashic sentence form, for ex78

See e.g. Goldberg, “Die funktionale Form Midrasch”, 202–203. See in particular his article “Der verschriftete Sprechakt als rabbinische Literatur.” Pages 1–21 in Rabbinische Texte; cf. his “Distributive und kompositive Formen. Vorschläge für die descriptive Terminologie der Formanalyse rabbinischer Texte.” Pages 107–111 in Rabbinische Texte. 80 Goldberg, “Entwurf einer formanalytischen Methode”, 51–56. 81 Goldberg, “Der verschriftete Sprechakt”, 7–8; cf. “Entwurf einer formanalytischen Methode”, 57. 82 Goldberg, “Entwurf einer formanalytischen Methode”, 65. 83 Goldberg, “Entwurf einer formanalytischen Methode”, 57, 64. 84 “Im Midrasch wenigstens ist das Ganze nicht nur die Summe, sondern auch die Funktion seiner Teile.” (Goldberg, “Entwurf einer formanalytischen Methode”, 67). The importance of the inter-relationship of the micro-forms in producing the macro-form of the rabbinic homily is also the subject of Goldberg’s “Form-Analysis of Midrashic Lit79

104

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

ample, always functions as a means of interpreting a section of scripture, but it can appear in a variety of literary contexts: it may be related to several others in a list or be given in isolation, and the hermeneutical operations by which the scriptural lemma is exegeted may or may not be made explicit on the text surface depending on the literary form (they are not, for example, usually presented in the targumim).85 He also argues that another way of better understanding the texts is to look at them from the point of view of spoken communication, especially when citations containing speech are being used.86 He therefore draws on some aspects of linguistics in support of his work, gaining particularly useful insights into the importance for the meaning of a citation of its co-text, or surrounding text.87 Finally, throughout his work, Goldberg demonstrates a particular concern to go behind the forms and hermeneutical methods evident in the texts to ask what these might reveal about the underlying theological presuppositions and the view of scripture held by the rabbis. This issue is discussed in most detail in his study “Die Schrift der rabbinischen Schriftausleger”,88 in which he went far beyond the familiar statements about the divine authority, inerrancy and continuing relevance of scripture. Goldberg makes the exciting claim that rabbinic exegesis does not focus on the events recorded in scripture but on scripture as a collection of linguistic signs, or “objektives schriftliches Kommunikat”.89 It was this belief that the graphic signs or individual letters of the scripture were an intended part of divine revelation that enabled the rabbinic interpreters to employ devices such as gematria, and to find meaning in apparent redundancy or the unusual spell-

erature as a Method of Description.” Journal of Jewish Studies 36 (1986): 159–174; cf. Goldberg, “Entwurf einer formanalytischen Methode”. 85 Goldberg, “Die funktionale Form Midrasch”, 200–201. Goldberg argued similarly that although the functional form ma‘aseh must include a case, a question and a decision, it can be expressed differently in various literary formats; the question may not be explicitly stated, for example, or the case can be set out in a detailed narrative; see his “Form und Funktion des Ma’ase in der Mischna.” Pages 22–49 in Rabbinische Texte. 86 Goldberg, “Der verschriftete Sprechakt”, 19. 87 See “Das schriftauslegende Gleichnis im Midrasch.” Pages 134–198 in Rabbinische Texte; see especially pp. 192–194. Goldberg also made use of works on discourse analysis and narrative discourse in his “Der Diskurs im babylonischen Talmud.” Pages 263– 296 in Rabbinische Texte. 88 Pages 230–241 in Rabbinische Texte. This article has also been translated into English by Alexander Samely: see Goldberg, Arnold, “The Rabbinic View of Scripture.” Pages 153–166 in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History. Edited by P.R. Davies and R.T. White. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. See also Goldberg, “Die funktionale Form Midrasch”, 204–206. 89 Goldberg, “Die funktionale Form Midrasch”, 204. See also Goldberg, “The Rabbinic View of Scripture”, especially pp. 154, 162.

3.6 Form-Analysis: The Goldbergian School

105

ing of a word.90 It also helps to explain their willingness to separate a scriptural text from its context: “Scripture, then, is distinct from what it communicates. What is communicated are things past, while the communication as such is valid and present at any given time.”91 Whilst the number of graphic signs is finite, determined by the limits of the written text of scripture, the meaning of the signs is infinite, as they remain open to constant interpretation and are understood as polysemic by divine intent.92 3.6.2 Evaluation of Goldberg’s Work An important strength of Goldberg’s work is the detail with which he describes exactly what he finds in the rabbinic texts. This enables him to offer a much more precise analysis than that provided by most other commentators of the various basic forms, the macro-forms and their constituents, and of how the citations of which rabbinic texts are made up are arranged to produce a new meaning. His identification and explanation of the main forms of rabbinic literature and his use of consistent and narrow terminology has certainly brought a greater clarity to the whole field of Jewish Studies, especially to midrashic scholarship. It seems to me that Goldberg was right to take as his starting point the smallest literary units present in the texts, and that the ‘bottom-up’ approach of form-analysis is ultimately more successful in promoting an understanding of a text than Neusner’s documentary analysis. The second area where Goldberg has made a major contribution is in his focus on the presuppositions about the nature of scripture which underlie rabbinic exegesis. Few other commentators have addressed this question at all, and none with the depth and originality of Goldberg. Particularly interesting is his characterisation of the rabbinic view of scripture as a set of linguistic signs, and his understanding of the importance of the co-text for providing a citation with its meaning. This aspect of Goldberg’s work definitely merits further consideration and development. Goldberg’s work has not, however, been as widely received as might be expected. For scholars in the English-speaking world, this is doubtless partly because the rather dense and technical nature of his original German articles has made access to his ideas difficult. However, the availability since 1999 of his most important form-analytical studies in a single collection, and the further development and wider application of his methods by some of his former students who are now working in both Europe and America may help to overcome this barrier. Yet Goldberg’s very precise 90

Goldberg, “The Rabbinic View of Scripture”, 159; cf. Goldberg, “Die funktionale Form Midrasch”, 204. 91 Goldberg, “The Rabbinic View of Scripture”, 154; cf. p. 156. 92 Goldberg, “The Rabbinic View of Scripture”, 164.

106

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

terminology, which can be difficult to translate accurately into other languages, and his use in a specific new sense of terms which already had a traditional meaning (for example Goldberg’s term for the form used at the end of a rabbinic homily, often called a peroration, is hatimah, which more usually refers to the last part of a prayer)93 remains a possible source of confusion. Indeed, in her review of Goldberg’s collected essays, Lieve Teugels comments that: “Goldberg is so precise that his definition of midrash is stricter than that of the rabbinic Sages themselves.”94 Goldberg’s approach has been critiqued by Schäfer, who argues that the essentially synchronic nature of the form-analytical method does not allow for any diachronic or historical analysis of the texts. In other words, Goldberg (and also Neusner, see above section 3.5) can analyse only one text of a rabbinic work, ignoring the complexity of the manuscript tradition and not dealing overtly with questions of historical development.95 Goldberg’s former student, Doris Lenhard, has countered this criticism, arguing that the form-analytical method can be applied not simply to one textual witness of a rabbinic work, but to all extant manuscripts.96 However, there is undoubtedly some validity to Schäfer’s critique: perhaps the biggest drawback of form-analysis is that it is a one-sided approach to understanding a text, not just because it does not deal with historical-critical questions, but also because it is concerned only with investigating forms, not content. It is, of course, true that several other commentators on midrash stress one aspect of study above all others, and Schäfer readily acknowledges that Goldberg does not consider his method as necessarily excluding other approaches.97 A promising way forward, then, would seem to lie in an attempt to complement the precision of Goldbergian form-analysis with the insights of some other methods. 3.6.3 The Goldbergian School Goldberg’s methods have been carried forward by some of his students, who have applied them to the rabbinic homily in particular. Thus Doris 93 For this and other examples, see Teugels, Lieve M., “A Review of D. Lenhard, Die Rabbinische Homilie. Ein formanalytischer Index (Frankfurter Judaistische Studien 10. Frankfurt: Gesellschaft zur Förderung Judaistischer Studien, 1998), and A. Goldberg, Rabbinische Texte als Gegenstand der Auslegung. Gesammelte Studien II (Edited by M. Schlüter and P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999).” Journal for the Study of Judaism 31 (2000): 97–105: 98, 101. 94 Teugels, “A Review of D. Lenhard and A Goldberg”, 104. 95 Schäfer, “Research Into Rabbinic Literature”, 145–149. 96 Lenhard, Doris, “Document or Individual Homily? A Critical Evaluation of Neusner’s Methodology in the Light of the Results of Form Analysis.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 4 (1997): 339–356; see particularly p. 351. 97 Schäfer, “Research Into Rabbinic Literature”, 151.

3.6 Form-Analysis: The Goldbergian School

107

Lenhard has published a full study of the rabbinic homily and its constituent forms,98 which includes an explanation of Goldberg’s form-analytical method, and Rivka Kern-Ulmer has undertaken a detailed examination of Pesiqta Rabbati.99 Lieve Teugels has likewise applied Goldberg’s methods to analysing rabbinic midrashim which treat Genesis chapter 24.100 All of these studies follow Goldberg’s methodology in their emphasis on the need for a precise description of midrashic forms and hermeneutical operations, and their concern to uncover the presuppositions of the rabbis about the nature of scripture and of interpretation. 3.6.4 Summary of the Work of Alexander Samely The work of one of Goldberg’s former students now based in England will be discussed at some length here, because of both its significance for the study of rabbinic Judaism in general, and its potential usefulness for an analysis of the interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews. Alexander Samely’s starting-point is Goldberg’s form-analytical method, but he has developed this approach by applying it to the Pentateuchal targumim and the Mishnah, and by making greater use of the discipline of linguistics than did Goldberg. In his first book, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums,101 Samely contends that targum should be understood as a literary form with its own set of rules, rather than as a development of an oral tradition, and that the differences between the Hebrew scriptural text and its Aramaic targum are largely to be explained by exegetical rather than ideological or theological concerns.102 He demonstrates these basic convictions through a detailed study of around one hundred passages in which a verse from the Pentateuch containing direct speech has been altered in some way when presented in the targumim, either by changes to the wording of the speech or to the narrative setting in which it is placed. He has brought to this investigation some of the terminology widely used in linguistics for the description and interpretation of direct and indirect speech, for example the term co-text to mean the purely linguistic environment of a text, as opposed to context, its non-linguistic setting.103 This 98

Lenhard, Doris, Die Rabbinische Homilie. Ein formanalytischer Index, Frankfurter Judaistische Studien 10. Frankfurt: Gesellschaft zur Förderung Judaistischer Studien, 1998. 99 Kern-Ulmer, Rivka, A Synoptic Edition of Pesiqta Rabbati Based Upon all Extant Manuscripts and the Editio Princeps. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. 100 Teugels, Bible and Midrash. 101 Samely, Alexander, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. 102 Samely, The Interpretation of Speech, 1; see also his discussion of “Exegesis and Theology in the Targum” on pp. 81–85. 103 This distinction is set out in Samely, The Interpretation of Speech, 4–5.

108

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

has helped him to identify some recurring features or rules of targumic exegesis such as: the tendency to fill in more precisely than the original scriptural text a speaker or addressee; the apparent requirement to preserve the exact wording and sequence of the Hebrew as far as possible with relatively few additional words from the interpreter; the linking of originally independent biblical passages; and the strengthening of connections between a speech report and its immediate co-text. As Goldberg argued that the placing by the rabbinic interpreters of citations from the tradition in a new literary context could give them a new meaning, so Samely has persuasively demonstrated in his work how in the targumim the range of meaning of a scriptural word can be narrowed down or modified by the creation for it of new co-text, and how the significance of a biblical speech report can be altered by means of placing it in a new setting, for example through giving a statement a legal context by specifying that it was uttered at the gate of the Sanhedrin.104 In a further series of articles105 and his book, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah,106 Samely similarly applies a descriptiveanalytical approach to a detailed investigation of biblical exegesis in the Mishnah. He examines every single passage of the Mishnah in which Scripture is alluded to or explicitly cited (he counts one hundred and forty two such passages) in an effort to understand exactly how the rabbis have reached their interpretation of the biblical text. He then names and describes all the hermeneutic procedures or ‘resources’ he thus discovers, sometimes drawing on the technical vocabulary of linguistics for his terminology. His indebtedness to Goldberg is clear from his determination to break down complex hermeneutic operations into individual components which can each be defined.107 In total, Samely has identified over one hundred separate interpretative techniques employed in the Mishnah. These are grouped together into sixteen larger ‘resource families’. As with Gold104 Examples are given throughout The Interpretation of Speech; see especially pp. 81–85. 105 Samely, Alexander, “Scripture’s Implicature: The Midrashic Assumptions of Relevance and Consistency.” Journal of Semitic Studies 36 (1992): 167–205; “Stressing Scripture’s Words: Semantic Contrast as a Midrashic Technique in the Mishnah.” Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995): 196–229; “Scripture’s Segments and Topicality in Rabbinic Discourse and the Pentateuch Targum.” Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999): 87–123; and “Delaying the Progress From Case to Case: Redundancy in the Halakhic Discourse of the Mishnah.” Pages 99–132 in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible. Edited by G.J. Brooke. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 106 Samely, Alexander, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 107 See e.g. Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture, 1–2.

3.6 Form-Analysis: The Goldbergian School

109

berg’s description of rabbinic forms, some of these exegetical operations are named and described for the first time by Samely, whilst others are already familiar to scholars, though perhaps known by different names; for example Samely uses the term ‘analogy’ to cover arguments a fortiori, and ‘keying’ to describe the interpretation of a word at one biblical location in the light of its meaning elsewhere in scripture. He also draws a distinction between the ‘reduplication’ or citation of scripture and its ‘expressive use’, or allusion, in which scriptural words or phrases are used to express the interpreters’ views without being directly quoted.108 Two resource families appear to have been particularly significant for Mishnaic hermeneutics, those called by Samely ‘Topic’ and ‘Co-text’. The ‘Topic’ group of resources relate to the fact that the Mishnah imposes a thematic approach on all its scriptural citations, so that the interpreter had to make an initial decision about the topic to which any text should be assigned. Sometimes there is no obvious link between the original context of a scriptural passage and the subject identified for it in the Mishnah, but there are other occasions when the surrounding biblical text plays an important role in the interpretation, with a causal or other connection between the citation and a neighbouring word or verse being assumed. The importance of the ‘Co-text’ resources depends on the apparent freedom of the rabbis to ‘segment’ scriptural texts, to cut out a sentence or an even smaller unit such as a word or phrase from its surroundings. Once a segment has been isolated from its context in this way, its meaning becomes more ambiguous, so that it can then be surrounded by new Mishnaic cotext and interpreted specifically according to the perspective of the Mishnah.109 Several of the hermeneutical resources identified by Samely depend on such a decision to either segment or heavily stress a scriptural word or phrase; for example those belonging to the group he calls ‘Opposition’, in which a term is highlighted and then interpreted as intended to exclude its opposites: the word ‘son’ in Deut 21:18 is, for instance, read in mSan 8:1 as ruling out reference to daughters and adult males.110 It is no surprise, then, that Samely’s most recent book, Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought: An Introduction, offers an explanation of rabbinic Judaism which starts from the meaning of the literary forms in the sources, rather than at-

108 See Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture, 81–94. This phenomenon is discussed also in Samely, “Scripture’s Segments and Topicality”, and in both publications he suggests that these two ‘hermeneutic formats’, present in various genres of ancient Jewish literature, may result from different ‘hermeneutic attitudes’. 109 See Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture, chapter 2; cf. Samely, “Scripture’s Segments and Topicality”, passim, and Samely, Forms of Rabbinic Literature, 82. 110 Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture, 288.

110

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

tempting to reconstruct a rabbinic system of thought.111 Here he takes forward some of the ideas first developed in his Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah, explaining the technique of segmentation, for instance,112 and bringing elements of linguistic theory to bear on his discussion of rabbinic literature.113 Samely has given some consideration to the underlying axioms about the nature of scripture and of language which made possible the hermeneutical operations evident in the rabbinic sources. He accepts Goldberg’s view that some of their exegetical techniques indicate that the rabbis regarded scripture as a series of graphic signs. In the resource families termed by Samely ‘Grapheme’, ‘Icon’ and ‘Word’, for example, interpretation often depends on such techniques as gematria, metathesis of consonants, breaking a word down into its semantic components, reading a word as its homonym, or even bringing the shape of the letter into the argument, all methods which privilege the linguistic signs above the meaning of the word as a whole. It is this focus on the linguistic signs which also enabled the interpreters to subject any word or part of a word (a single letter, for example, or a suffix) to heavy stress. Particularly in his article “Scripture’s Implicature”, Samely argues that the presuppositions most important for rabbinic exegesis were an absolute belief in the relevance and consistency of scripture. Here he first outlines the work of the linguist H.P. Grice, who sought to demonstrate how far ordinary human conversation depends on underpinning assumptions about the truth and relevance of the contributions of other speakers. He then suggests that these presuppositions were applied by the rabbis to scripture even more radically than to human language, presumably because scripture as God’s word could be assumed to be absolutely true and relevant.114 Every biblical story can therefore be used to explain another, and scripture is read as applying directly to the contemporary situation. 3.6.5 Evaluation of Samely’s Work Many of the strengths of Samely’s research are to be found also in the work of his former teacher Goldberg. So Samely, like Goldberg, pays close attention to what is actually present in the texts, analysing with great precision and detail exactly how scripture is handled in various genres of rabinic literature. His stress on the exegetical underpinning of both the targumim and the Mishnah has proved fruitful: the use of scripture in the rab111 “Rabbinic literature offers no articulation of systems of which its single statements could be said to be the summary.” (Samely, Forms of Rabbinic Literature, 4). 112 Samely, Forms of Rabbinic Literature, 64–71. 113 See especially Samely, Forms of Rabbinic Literature, 78–85. 114 See also Samely, Forms of Rabbinic Literature, 85–88, 183–184.

3.6 Form-Analysis: The Goldbergian School

111

binic literature is very often found to be far from arbitrary when he demonstrates how something in the biblical text has made possible the interpretation it receives. Earlier commentators like Isaac Heinemann had sought to explain the exegetical techniques of the rabbis and their underlying view of scripture, but the precision and depth of Samely’s analysis goes far beyond any previous studies. His approach has enabled him to identify and describe numerous hermeneutical resources which are not named or explained in the rabbinic texts themselves. He sees as a particular contribution to a fuller understanding of Mishnaic exegesis his recognition of the individual components into which each operation can be broken down.115 Samely is to be credited with extending the descriptive-analytical approach of the Goldbergian School into the new areas of the targumim and the Mishnah. His development of the application of linguistics to the texts has also produced some extremely interesting results, and can help to explain both the exegetical techniques employed by the rabbis and the important issue of their underlying axioms. He is convinced that his catalogue of the hermeneutical resources found in the Mishnah will prove applicable to the wider body of rabbinic literature, and hopes also that his use of descriptive terms drawn in part from linguistic terminology will facilitate comparison between ancient Jewish hermeneutics and the interpretation of authoritative texts in other cultures, such as Greek commentaries on Homer, Muslim commentaries on the Qur’an, and patristic exegesis of scripture.116 Samely’s work shares also some of the same weaknesses as that of Goldberg. As Goldberg concentrated exclusively on the forms present in rabbinic literature, so Samely focuses narrowly on exegetical operations, never discussing the content of the interpretations or any interesting ideas which have resulted from the application of a hermeneutical procedure. Some of his terminology is perhaps also rather too technical or too unusual to become widely used: ‘Icon1’ is the name given to gematria and ‘Grapheme5’ to the revocalisation of consonants in his catalogue of Mishnaic exegetical resources, for example.117 It should, however, be acknowledged that Samely was partly constrained in this project by his decision to select names for each resource family beginning with a different letter of the alphabet for ease of abbreviation in the hermeneutic profiles which he set 115

“This project of description started out as an attempt at defining each hermeneutic operation as a whole. This is the standard modern as well as traditional approach for most individual units of rabbinic interpretation. However, it became evident that this merely means that the most conspicuous feature of the operation lends its name (if it has one) to the complex whole, and other features are not named, let alone explicated. Most Mishnaic units of interpretation turn out to be unsuitable for description by one undifferentiated hermeneutical technique.” (Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture, 11). 116 See Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture, 393. 117 Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture, 406.

112

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

out to produce for each section of the Mishnah which cites scripture, a procedure which has sometimes dictated the use of a cumbersome term. The provision of a whole catalogue of resources is an outstanding original contribution to our understanding of rabbinic exegesis, but some questions about Samely’s method remain. Firstly, as he acknowledges,118 some Mishnaic interpretations cannot be fully explained by the application of the resources he has identified. Secondly, some resources are too similar to one another to separate out in practice, and there are instances where the same interpretative results could have been achieved by employing two different sets of resources. This suggests that his catalogue is not as fixed and precise as it might seem, and that some subjectivity must enter into its application to the texts. It is also not quite clear how consciously and consistently he thinks the rabbinic interpreters went about selecting which of the available resources to bring to bear on each scriptural passage. Samely recognises most of these issues himself, but suggests that their very surfacing demonstrates the strength of his work: This approach involves the researcher in new difficulties which are neither negligible in quantity nor trivial in quality. But I think that many of them surface because the new procedures make it less easy for us to be satisfied with vague explanations, or the absence of explanations.119

Finally, Samely has directed some welcome attention to the theological presuppositions underlying scriptural exegesis in the targumim and Mishnah, but there is scope to further develop this aspect of his work.

3.7 Defining Midrash as a Literary Genre: Alexander 3.7.1 Summary of the Work of Philip Alexander Philip Alexander’s work on midrash is characterised by a search for precision in the definition of the term, which he suggests is sometimes used in an unhelpfully loose sense to mean nothing more than an example of early Jewish bible interpretation.120 He has therefore attempted to identify the key literary features of midrash, and to determine which texts should be classified as belonging to this genre, taking as his starting point the corpus

118

Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture, 396. Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture, 397. 120 See e.g. Alexander, “Midrash and the Gospels”, 1; and Alexander, Philip S., “Midrash.” Pages 452–459 in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by R.J. Coggins and J.L. Houlden. London: SCM Press, 1990, 453. 119

3.7 Defining Midrash as a Literary Genre

113

of rabbinic midrashim. In order to draw out the key features of midrash in this way, Alexander argues that it is necessary to distinguish clearly between midrashic form and midrashic method. So the targumim, for example, are not midrashic in form, but do have midrashic elements.121 The term ‘midrash’ can therefore be understood in two senses: it is both a process, a method of interpreting scripture using certain techniques, and also an artefact, the written text which is produced when this hermeneutical process is applied.122 Midrashic texts always have the literary form lemma plus comment, and several other formal characteristics are identified by Alexander, such as the stringing together of numerous verses of scripture, the presentation of alternative interpretations of a verse, and the quotation of named authorities within anonymous, collective writings.123 The second major focus of Alexander’s work lies in categorising other genres of ancient Jewish biblical interpretation, such as rewritten bible, pesher and anthologies. Midrash can thus be compared to these and more precisely situated within the broad field of early Jewish bible commentary.124 He has then tried to draw out the underlying axioms about the nature of scripture which made possible midrashic interpretation, noting for example the rabbinic belief that scripture as divine speech is polyvalent, containing innumerable latent meanings to be exposed by the authoritative interpreter, and that even apparent contradictions in scripture can be tolerated as they exist only at the human level and not in the mind of God.125 He follows Goldberg in identifying as the locus of inspiration for the rabbis the graphic signs in the consonantal text.126 Alexander has also considered the question of the Sitz im Leben of the midrashim, concluding that

121

Alexander, “Midrash and the Gospels”, 2. Alexander, “Midrash”, 453; cf. Alexander, Philip S., “The Bible in Qumran and early Judaism.” Pages 35–62 in Text in Context. Edited by A.D.H. Mayes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 37. 123 For a full list of these characteristics see Alexander, “Midrash”, 456; cf. Alexander, “Midrash and the Gospels”, 3–4. 124 See e.g. Alexander, “Midrash”, 456 and “The Bible in Qumran and Early Judaism”, 38, 51–52. For a full description of the genre of rewritten bible see also Alexander, Philip S., “Retelling the Old Testament.” Pages 99–118 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. He does, of course, recognise that these exegetical genres are not self-contained and mutually exclusive: see e.g. “The Bible in Qumran and Early Judaism”, 51. 125 Alexander, “Midrash”, 457–458; see also Alexander, “The Bible in Qumran and Early Judaism”, 48–50. 126 See Alexander, Philip S., “Why No Textual Criticism in Rabbinic Midrash?” Pages 175–190 in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible. Edited by G.J. Brooke. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement Series 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000: 186–187. 122

114

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

the texts are the products of rabbinic schools.127 On several of the issues which divide contemporary scholars of midrash, Alexander takes a mediating position. An analysis of each pericope and the history of the traditions it contains (as proposed by Vermes), for example, can thus be fruitfully combined with a consideration of the whole midrashic document (as called for by Neusner).128 Likewise he accepts that both real hermeneutical questions posed by the scriptural text and also the ideological or theological stance of the interpreter (particularly the perceived need to validate the oral tradition) contribute to the formation of midrashic exegesis: “The darshanim are adept at exploiting real problems in the text as a way of reading their own ideas into Scripture.”129 He stresses, however, the disciplined nature of midrashic exegesis and its contact with the scriptural text.130 3.7.2 Evaluation of Alexander’s Work Alexander’s particular contribution to the scholarly understanding of midrash lies in his search for clarity and precision in the definition of midrash and in the identification of its distinctive literary form. This kind of descriptive-analysis has similarities to the approach of Goldberg, but helpfully supplements Goldberg’s narrow concentration on formal characteristics with a concern also for midrashic method and interpretation.131 He is surely correct to argue that some of the current work on the exegetical techniques present in midrash lacks depth and sharpness, especially those studies which rely too heavily on the later lists of middot for their descriptions of interpretative methods,132 and I suggest that a deeper analysis of rabbinic hermeneutical resources such as that advocated by Samely will further complement his work. Alexander has also moved forward the study of midrash by seeking to situate it within the wider context of early Jewish biblical interpretation. He has paid more attention than most other commentators to the important question of the principles underlying midrashic exegesis, and this is an area of his work which could fruitfully be further 127

Alexander, “Midrash”, 454; cf. Alexander, “The Bible in Qumran and Early Judaism”, passim, where he argues for the ‘scholastic’ nature of the biblical interpretation characteristic of several groups which arose within late Second Temple Judaism, including early Christianity. 128 See e.g. Alexander, “Midrash”, 455. 129 Alexander, “Midrash and the Gospels”, 7. 130 Alexander, “Midrash and the Gospels”, 10. 131 As noted in Teugels, Bible and Midrash, 164. 132 See the discussion in section 3.3.2 above. See also Alexander, “Midrash”, 458; cf. Goldberg, “Die funktionale Form Midrasch”. Goldberg also makes the point that, for example, the semikha form is not mentioned in the lists of middot, nor indeed defined anywhere in rabbinic literature; see his “Die Semikha: eine Kompositionsform der rabbinischen Homilie.” Pages 347–394 in Goldberg, Rabbinische Texte, 349.

3.8 Critical Issues in the Study of Midrash

115

developed. Finally, his ability to recognise clearly the strengths and weaknesses of competing approaches to the study of midrash, such as those of Vermes and Neusner, enables him to mediate effectively between unnecessarily polarised positions.

3.8 Critical Issues in the Study of Midrash This survey of the work of leading commentators has highlighted important similarities and differences in their approaches to midrash and in the conclusions they have reached. Several issues have emerged as focal points of controversy and as critical in forming an outlook on midrash. In this section I draw out five of these key questions, as clarity about them would seem to be necessary, in terms of both reaching a better understanding of midrash itself, and of assessing how far aspects of the study of midrash can be useful in an analysis of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews. 3.8.1 Defining Midrash The first issue to be considered is how narrowly midrash should be defined, or what exactly constitutes midrash. Heinemann was one of the first to seek a clear answer to this question, which continues to preoccupy those working in the field. The earlier scholars reviewed here, for example Bloch and Vermes, understand the term midrash in a very inclusive sense, considering as midrash any ancient Jewish text based on scripture, including the targumim, apocalyptic writings and works of rewritten bible. Commentators like Boyarin, on the other hand, are concerned only with the rabbinic collections of midrashim. Of all those surveyed here, Goldberg probably uses the term midrash in the most precise way, applying it to a particular rabbinic form (scriptural lemma plus comment). He recognises, however, that this form is present throughout rabbinic literature, and is not simply confined to the texts called midrashim. Neusner, too, focuses on the rabbinic midrashim in his analyses, but calls for careful distinction between these midrashic documents and midrash-exegesis, an approach to interpreting the scriptural texts which can be found outside the rabbinic corpus, in for example the New Testament or the Qumran material. In his work, Alexander also distinguishes between midrash as artefact and midrash as process. In the latter looser sense, many texts can be called midrashic, but midrash as a literary form should be more carefully defined if it is to be properly understood and usefully compared to other genres of Jewish biblical commentary. There seems, then, to be a trend towards a fuller investigation of the literary features of midrash, noticeable particularly in the work of Goldberg

116

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

and Alexander. The Goldbergian School emphasises the study of form above content, so the distinction drawn by Alexander between the various senses of the word midrash would seem to be useful for avoiding an unnecessarily narrow definition of the term. The search for a more precise description of midrash, the undertaking of solid analyses of its literary features, and Samely’s work on identifying the exegetical techniques present within it can all be of benefit to New Testament scholars. Commentators in the past may have been too quick to label an exegesis of the Old Testament in the New as ‘midrash’, without probing more deeply to see whether the passage really does apply the exegetical techniques of midrash or share the literary features of the genre. Comparing the interpretation of biblical passages in various sources as Vermes was able to do is obviously interesting, but this approach needs to be balanced by precise differentiation between works of different dates and type. Alexander’s studies of the characteristics of various genres of early Jewish biblical commentary therefore provide a valuable way forward. Samely has also begun to investigate whether different hermeneutical forms may reveal different underlying hermeneutical attitudes. So in the case of Hebrews, for example, it may be possible to define more clearly the genres of biblical interpretation which are in use in different parts of the text, and then ask important questions about whether these different genres reveal distinct or common exegetical axioms. 3.8.2 Midrash: Scriptural Exegesis or Rabbinic Ideology? The second important issue on which commentators differ is the extent to which they regard midrashic interpretation as exegesis or eisegesis of scripture. Historically, the influence of rabbinic ideology on midrash has been stressed, and many scholars have viewed midrashic comments on the scriptures as being little more than pegs on which to hang a justification of a theological position rather than genuine attempts to explain a difficulty in the biblical text. The work of Bloch and Vermes in highlighting the essentially exegetical nature of midrash is therefore very significant. Fishbane also emphasises the biblical roots of midrash, and this focus on the exegetical motivation of midrashic interpretations characterises the work of contemporary scholars like Samely and Boyarin. Neusner is now the only one of those surveyed here who regards the ideology of the rabbinic ‘authorship’ of a midrashic text (in particular the need to respond to the rise of Christianity) as more important in generating its content than the text of scripture. Alexander is doubtless correct to argue that both attempts to deal with real exegetical issues in the text and a reading into it of an interpreter’s own ideas (especially the perceived need to validate rabbinic tradition) are at work in creating midrash. I suggest that this reevaluation of the role of exegesis in midrash could usefully be applied to

3.8 Critical Issues in the Study of Midrash

117

study of the New Testament. It may well be possible to reach a deeper and more precise understanding of how the New Testament writers were using their scriptural sources if commentators were to follow Samely and Boyarin in asking whether their interpretations resulted from something in the original text, rather than simply assuming they must have been reading the Old Testament christologically or with the intention of finding in it some sort of ‘proof’ for their beliefs about Jesus. 3.8.3 Parts and Wholes, Collections and Compositions Having considered ways of defining midrash and of evaluating its relationship to the scriptural text, it next becomes important to address the question which lies at the heart of the debate between Neusner and most other commentators, particularly Goldberg, namely whether the midrashim are loose collections of material assembled over time from available traditions, or purposefully authored compositions with coherent themes and an overarching plan. For Vermes, the correct starting point for a full understanding of midrash is each individual unit of interpretation and its traditionhistory; for Neusner it is the text as a whole and the unit only in that textual context; for Goldberg, it is firstly the precise analysis of the smallest literary forms, and secondly how these work to make up the whole; and for Samely also it is the ‘midrashic unit’ and the individual hermeneutical operations employed within it rather than the overall meaning of a text. Most other commentators do not see evidence in the texts for the kind of overarching programme for each midrashic document put forward by Neusner, and do not agree with him that the only alternative to accepting midrashic texts as purposeful compositions is to regard them merely as meaningless random collections. Sections within a midrashic work may be carefully arranged and tightly bound together, for example, even if the same cannot be claimed for the whole document, and a study of both the micro- and the macro-forms is necessary. This question is obviously one which affects the study of midrash in a particular way, so is not as directly applicable to the writings of the New Testament as some of the other issues highlighted here. However, commentators approaching Hebrews must make a decision about whether to start by attempting to make sense of particular sections of the text, or by focusing on its overall theology. There are also questions to be asked about how far the author relied on already existing material, in the collection of Old Testament citations in chapter 1, for example. Current research into midrash would suggest that the best starting point for a precise understanding of a text is a detailed analysis of its small units, without neglecting to consider how these operate within the larger whole.

118

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

3.8.4 Underlying Presuppositions of Midrashic Exegesis The attempt being made by some contemporary scholars to draw out the presuppositions about the nature of scripture and revelation underlying midrashic exegesis strikes me as one of the most important developments in the field. Not all of the commentators surveyed in this study address this issue of the interpreters’ axioms in detail. Vermes, for example, is more interested in the historical development of specific exegetical traditions than with investigating the view of scripture which made possible such interpretations; Heinemann’s main focus is on the hermeneutical rules listed by the rabbis; and Neusner does not consider midrash as having a particularly close relationship to the scriptural texts at all. Fishbane, Boyarin and Samely do all give this subject some attention, however, and Alexander and Goldberg have treated it more fully. Samely has also initiated some consideration of the underlying rabbinic presuppositions about language in his work on the relationship to midrashic exegesis of the assumptions of relevance and truth in human conversation. This aspect of midrashic research could certainly be developed, and perhaps extended to include an investigation of the extent to which different axioms underlie different literary forms of biblical interpretation such as pesher or anthology. New Testament study would surely also benefit from a deeper consideration of this issue. Many commentators do not raise it as a question, or else are satisfied with a general statement about christological exegesis of the Old Testament or prophecy-fulfilment, without going beyond this to ask, for example, what view of scripture would make it possible to find in some texts a reference to Jesus, or to believe that some verses would only be fulfilled in the future. Goldberg’s suggestion that scripture was regarded by the rabbis as ultimately a set of graphic signs could also potentially have a really significant impact on studies of the use of the Old Testament in the New, but to date it does not appear to have been taken up. An exploration of whether the New Testament authors shared a similar understanding of scripture and of how this shaped their exegetical methods could be extremely fruitful. 3.8.5 Theories for Reading Midrash Finally, this survey has demonstrated the variety of theories which midrashic scholars have applied to the texts in their efforts to better understand them. So Vermes and Bloch take a historical approach, and apply to midrash some of the methods of biblical criticism. Heinemann’s notion of midrashic historiography is characterised by Boyarin as deriving ultimately from the German Romantic movement, which valued ‘poetry’ above ‘sci-

3.9 Conclusions

119

ence’.133 Fishbane’s framework for reading midrash centres on its intertextual nature and the role of the exegetical imagination of the interpreter. Boyarin makes a conscious effort to draw on post-modernism and literary theory, with, perhaps, more success than some other commentators,134 and Neusner also offers a kind of literary analysis of the midrashim. Goldberg made use of some of the insights of linguistics and this area has been developed further by Samely. Various branches of literary theory have similarly been applied by some commentators to the writings of the New Testament, and there have been many studies of the intertextual relationships between different parts of the New Testament and between New Testament texts and passages from the Jewish scriptures. The time may now be ripe for an investigation of whether the field of linguistics can be of as much value in analysing the exegesis of the Old Testament in the New as it has been in Samely’s work on biblical exegesis in the targumim and the Mishnah. The use of linguistics to explain specific features such as the segmenting of the biblical text, the creation of new co-text, and the treatment of citations containing first person direct speech, for example, would appear to have direct relevance to a study of Hebrews.

3.9 Conclusions: The Relevance of the Study of Midrash for New Testament Interpretation This survey of the work of leading midrashic scholars has highlighted important recent developments in this field which deserve to be more widely known amongst New Testament commentators. These new approaches to the midrashic texts and their exegesis of scripture confirm the contention of this study that there is considerable scope to develop existing work on the interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. In particular, I suggest that there is a great deal to be learned from the following aspects of the research into midrash discussed in this chapter: (i) the search for more precise definitions of the different literary forms and genres of Jewish biblical commentary, many of which are reflected in the writings of the New Testament as well as in the corpus of extant literature of Second Temple Judaism; (ii) the renewed emphasis on exegetical questions above external theological concerns as the impetus for biblical interpretation; 133

See Boyarin, Intertextuality, 7–11. Generally critical reviews have been generated by, for example, Handelman, Susan A., The Slayers of Moses: The Emergence of Rabbinic Interpretation in Modern Literary Theory. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982. 134

120

Chapter 3. Developments in the Study of Midrash

(iii) the highly detailed description and analysis of exegetical techniques to be found particularly in the work of Arnold Goldberg and Alexander Samely; (iv) the application to the study of scriptural exegesis in the New Testament of some of the insights and technical vocabulary of linguistics; (v) the concern to go beyond a description of exegetical methods to an identification of the axioms about the nature of scripture, of language and of exegesis which underlie them; (vi) a growing recognition of the inter-connectedness and mutual influence of early Christian and early Jewish biblical interpretation. An analysis of the interpretation of the Old Testament in the Letter to the Hebrews informed by these features, such as I propose to undertake in chapter five below, will be concerned to explain precisely how the scriptural source is being treated in its new context, what in the original text may have caused the new interpretation given, why that aspect of the text was considered problematical by the interpreter, and what all this reveals about the underlying presuppositions about scripture and its interpretation of the author of Hebrews.

Chapter 4

The Study of the Septuagint and its Implications for Hebrews 4.1 Introduction: Developments in Septuagintal Studies and the Study of the New Testament I have argued in the review of existing treatments of the interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews (chapter two above) that many of these studies fail to deal adequately with the question of the Septuagintal sources underlying the scriptural citations in the letter. This claim will be examined and developed in more detail in this chapter. A thorough engagement with significant current developments in the field of Septuagintal Studies seems to me to be a pre-requisite for any new attempt to analyse the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews. For recent years have seen exciting advances in this field, stimulated in part by the important manuscript finds at Qumran and Nahal Hever, and facilitated by modern developments in computer software. New and very useful introductions to the Septuagint have become available in the last decade, such as those by Jennifer Dines, Natalio Fernández Marcos, and Karen Jobes and Moises Silva.1 Several projects (notably La Bible d’Alexandrie and the New English Translation of the Septuagint) to render the entire Septuagint into modern languages are underway, and a series of commentaries in English on the individual books has also been commissioned.2 The need for New Testament commentators to be more alert to this recent research and more sophisticated in their approach to the use of the Greek bible in the early Christian texts has already been recognised, by, for example, Timothy McLay.3 Thus significant studies of the Vorlage of the Old Testament citations in some New Testament books is currently be1 Dines, Jennifer M., The Septuagint. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Fernández Marcos, Natalio, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Jobes, Karen H. and Moises Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2000. 2 The Septuagint Commentary Series, edited by Stanley Porter, Richard Hess and John Jarick; the first volume on Joshua by Graeme Auld was published in 2005. 3 McLay, R. Timothy, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2003.

122

Chapter 4. The Study of the Septuagint and its Implications for Hebrews

ing undertaken by a small number of scholars, notably Maarten Menken4 and Gert Steyn,5 who has written recently of the need to firmly establish an author’s scriptural text as the first step in assessing his hermeneutical methods,6 a step which is vital, but which is missed out by New Testament exegetes with surprising frequency. Considerable scope remains, therefore, for the expansion of efforts such as these. In this chapter, then, I first highlight what I consider to be the most significant trends in recent study of the Septuagint, especially those which have the potential to impact on research into the New Testament in general and into Hebrews in particular. This section informs the ensuing examination of the Old Testament citations in Hebrews chapters 1 and 3–4, which aims to draw some precise conclusions about the nature of the text form employed by the author. As these chapters of Hebrews, and indeed the letter as a whole, make particularly extensive use of the Psalms, it will be necessary to discuss the issues surrounding the existing critical editions of the Greek version of this biblical book. This kind of detailed analysis of the sources of the scriptural citations in Hebrews and the extent to which the author reproduces them accurately is in my view a pre-requisite for a full understanding of his exegetical methods and axioms. It may well have implications also for the general picture of the textual form and diversity of the Greek bible in the first century CE.

4.2 Current Issues and Trends in Septuagintal Studies 4.2.1 Terminology: ‘Septuagint’ Versus ‘Old Greek’ The search to establish a more precise terminology is a priority for scholars in this field. ‘Septuagint’ is the term which has long been used to refer to the ancient Greek translation of either the Hebrew scriptures in general or an individual biblical book, even though the original legends about the seventy translators describe only the translation into Greek of the Pentateuch. Sometimes an alternative like ‘the Greek bible’ is preferred, because it highlights the fact that the scriptures as transmitted in Greek do not look 4 See e.g. Menken, Maarten J.J., Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. 5 Steyn has been engaged for some years in the task of investigating the Vorlage of the Old Testament citations in Hebrews. See e.g. Steyn, Gert J., “A Quest for the Vorlage of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut 32) Quotations in Hebrews.” Neotestamentica 34 (2000): 263–272; “Psalm 2 in Hebrews.” Neotestamentica 37 (2003): 262–282; “The Vorlage of Psalm 45:6–7 (44:7–8) in Hebrews 1:8–9.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 60 (2004): 1085–1103; and “The Occurrence of Ps 118(117): 6 in Heb 13:6: Possible Liturgical Origins.” Neotestamentica 40 (2006): 119–134. 6 Steyn, “The Vorlage of Psalm 45:6–7”, 1085–1086.

4.2 Current Issues and Trends in Septuagintal Studies

123

exactly like the Hebrew bible, incorporating as they do more books in a different order. However, the key point at issue is whether the term ‘Septuagint’ can be used of both the original Greek translation of the scriptures and its later revisions. In certain cases, for example the Book of Daniel, the Septuagint version has to be distinguished from other translations like that of Theodotion which virtually displaced it.7 An increasing number of commentators are therefore following Greenspoon8 in drawing a distinction between ‘Old Greek’, meaning the earliest stage of Greek translation that can be reconstructed for any biblical book, and ‘Septuagint’ as descriptive of the whole transmitted tradition of Greek versions,9 the sense in which the term is used in this study. Some New Testament commentators like Timothy McLay are beginning to pick up on this need for clearer definitions.10 Closely linked to this issue of terminology is the long-running debate about whether there was only one original translation into Greek of the Hebrew scriptures or several competing versions, and how far the ‘Old Greek’ translation (if it existed) can be reconstructed. This question has its origins in the opposing theories of Paul de Lagarde, who argued for the existence of an Urtext, a single individual translation of each biblical book, and Paul Kahle, who proposed multiple translations from which the Septuagint tradition as it is now generally known emerged and in time brought about an end to the circulation of alternative translations.11 Lagarde’s position has over time come to win the day, and seems to have been confirmed by the Qumran discoveries: The current consensus among Septuagint scholars, with few exceptions, is that only one ‘original’ Greek translation was made of each book prior to the Christian era, and that whatever differences are found between surviving texts of the same book reflect a revision of the Greek.12

This view underlies the editions of the Göttingen Septuagint Series, which aim to reconstruct the best available text of each book from various sources, rather than take one particular manuscript tradition as a base text and present a diplomatic edition. It has also clearly influenced the work of 7

Dines, The Septuagint, 2. Greenspoon, Leonard J., “The Use and Abuse of the Term ‘LXX’ and Related Terminology in Recent Scholarship.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 20 (1987): 21–29. 9 See e.g. Dines, The Septuagint, 3; Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 32. 10 McLay, The Use of the Septuagint, 5–8. 11 These positions are set out and discussed in all the available introductions to the Septuagint; see e.g. Dines, The Septuagint, 58–59 and Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 274–276. 12 Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 45–46. 8

124

Chapter 4. The Study of the Septuagint and its Implications for Hebrews

several leading Septuagint scholars such as Albert Pietersma, who strongly supports the endeavour to recover the original Greek text.13 However, there is also evidence of an increasing recognition of the highly complex nature of the textual history of the Septuagint, as, especially in the case of some books, it is not at all easy to distinguish between original translation and later development and revisions. So commentators such as Natalio Fernández Marcos14 and Emmanuel Tov,15 whilst basically accepting Lagarde’s theory, stress the need for a nuanced approach which takes account of the fact that revisions to the Greek translation of each biblical book began almost immediately. This has clear implications for an evaluation of the number and variety of Greek versions of the scriptures available to the New Testament authors, as recognised by McLay: “...an essential characteristic of the Scriptures of the early church was pluriformity.”16 4.2.2 Textual Plurality Much contemporary Septuagintal scholarship, then, emphasises the multiplicity of textual traditions which were in circulation very soon after the time of the first translation into Greek of the Pentateuch in the third century BCE. The discoveries made at Qumran and other sites in the Judaean desert are highly significant for an understanding of the Septuagint because they include copies of Greek biblical texts dating from the early second century BCE, older than all previously known textual witnesses to the Septuagint.17 These manuscripts provide evidence confirming that a variety of very early attempts were made at revising the Greek translations of the scriptures, either to improve the style or to bring them into closer conformity with the proto-Masoretic Text.18 This has led to widespread scholarly 13

Pietersma, Albert, “Septuagint Research: A Plea to Return to Basic Issues.” Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985): 296–311. See e.g.: “The primary focus in LXX text-criticism must always remain on the reconstruction of the original text.” (p. 297). 14 Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 43–66, 247. 15 Tov, Emmanuel, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 2nd edition. Jerusalem: Simor, 1997; see especially pp. 11–15, e.g.: “The textual history of the LXX must be reconstructed on the basis of elements from both theories (i.e. those of Lagarde and Kahle) as well as additional data which have been discovered in recent years.” (p. 11). Cf. Tov, Emmanuel, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Leiden: Brill, 1999. 16 McLay, R. Timothy, “Biblical Texts and the Scriptures for the New Testament Church.” Pages 37–58 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Edited by S.E. Porter. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 55. 17 See e.g. Tov, Emmanuel, “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the LXX.” Pages 11–46 in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings. Edited by G.J. Brooke and B. Lindars. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 18 See further Dines, The Septuagint, 4–5; Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 9.

4.2 Current Issues and Trends in Septuagintal Studies

125

recognition that later Jewish versions of the scriptures in Greek such as those attributed to Symmachus, Aquila and Theodotion were not new and independent translations as was once thought, but were building on previous revisions.19 The work of Dominique Barthélemy,20 for example, is particularly important in demonstrating that the fragmentary Minor Prophets Scroll discovered at Nahal Hever (8QHevXIIgr) represents an early attempt to render the Hebrew text more faithfully in Greek, so is a precursor of revisions like that of Aquila, and is in fact an example of the so-called kaige style of Septuagint translation.21 It is, therefore, probably no exaggeration to speak of a revolution in terms of the appreciation of the numerous revisions which the Greek text of the bible quickly underwent, and of the multiplicity of forms in which it could be read for several centuries. This means that the serious exegete can no longer be content with comparing the textual form of Old Testament citations in the New Testament with only the major Septuagint witnesses like Codices Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, a weakness of several studies surveyed in chapter two above. In fact, it can be argued that the New Testament itself serves “...as a witness to textual plurality in the first century CE”.22 This situation also suggests that there is a very strong case for a reappraisal of some of the earlier critical editions of individual books of the Septuagint published at a time when the editors either did not have access to all the manuscripts and other evidence now available, or were not sufficiently aware of the need to take seriously alternative readings. This is perhaps particularly true in the case of the Göttingen edition of the Psalms, a matter to which we will return below (see section 4.3). Finally, the Hebrew biblical manuscripts discovered at Qumran have also resulted in a new appreciation of the value of the biblical text as preserved in Greek translations. It is perhaps one of the most significant aspects of the Qumran discoveries that they demonstrate both the stability of the Masoretic Text, in that the form of many of the biblical texts corresponds closely to that preserved in the mediaeval codices which were previously the earliest witnesses to it, and also highlight that it was only one 19

See e.g. Dines, The Septuagint, 81–92; Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 109–187. 20 Barthélemy, Dominique, Les Devanciers d’Aquila. Leiden: Brill, 1963. 21 Barthélemy’s views are discussed and developed in Brock, Sebastian P., “Lucian redivivus. Some Reflections on Barthélemy’s Les Devanciers d’Aquila.” Studia Evangelica 5 (1968): 176–181. 22 Dines, The Septuagint, 142. See also McLay, “Biblical Texts”, 52: “The NT citations should be evaluated as witnesses to alternative biblical texts where their readings differ from the known witnesses. The evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms this methodological principle because of the instances where a citation in the NT can be shown to be based on a text like that preserved at Qumran.”

126

Chapter 4. The Study of the Septuagint and its Implications for Hebrews

amongst several competing forms, albeit perhaps a dominant one, and had not yet become fixed as the textus receptus. Ulrich describes how following the initial discoveries of the scrolls, scholars were inclined to ascribe those which differed from the Masoretic Text to the category of ‘vulgar’ or ‘sectarian’ versions, but there has been a gradual recognition that they are rather representative of the textual variety which characterised Judaism as a whole in that period.23 As Tov explains: The textual reality of the Qumran texts does not attest to three groups of textual witnesses, but rather to a textual multiplicity, relating to all of Palestine to such an extent that one can almost speak in terms of an unlimited number of texts.24

This realisation has encouraged a fuller appreciation of the claims of textual witnesses other than the Masoretic Text, such as the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the writings of Josephus and Philo, to be regarded as transmitters of an authentic or ‘original’ scriptural text. It can now be clearly seen, for example, that in some cases, particularly the Books of Jeremiah and Samuel, differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text are not due to carelessness, poor translation, or theological intent on the part of the Greek translators as some had previously supposed, but stem instead from the existence of alternative Hebrew versions, some of which are attested at Qumran. The plurality of forms in which the Hebrew scriptures circulated for several centuries must, therefore, now be taken seriously by New Testament exegetes. In view of the tendency for copies of texts regarded as sacred to converge over time, there may even be a case for establishing readings on the basis of an approach of ‘maximum textual dissimilarity’, accepting as the best readings those in the Hebrew tradition which differ most from the Septuagint, and in the Septuagint those which differ most from the Masoretic Text and the New Testament. The Qumran manuscripts are also interesting because they make clear that the ancient Jewish exegetes were aware of this textual variety. In the pesharim, for example, it is not uncommon for one form of the scriptural text to be quoted, and a different form to be reflected in the ensuing interpretation, a classic example being the interchange between ‘stagger’ (Hebrew hera’el) and ‘uncircumcised’ (he’arel) in 1QpHab 2:16 (col. 11, II.815).25 This fact is worthy of further consideration, as it may be a significant indicator of the attitude to scripture underlying the biblical exegesis at Qumran. It would seem to suggest that the authors of the pesharim, although reluctant to alter the scriptural text when citing it, actually felt free 23 Ulrich, Eugene, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans/Leiden: Brill, 1999, 8–9. 24 Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 161 25 These and other examples are discussed in Lim, Timothy H., Pesharim. London: Sheffield Academic Press (Continuum), 2002: 54–63.

4.2 Current Issues and Trends in Septuagintal Studies

127

to exploit textual variants in their interpretation of it and were not at all disturbed by their existence. This would fit well with the reverent attitude to the citing of scriptural texts evident in other forms of early post-biblical Jewish exegesis, and perhaps also in the Letter to the Hebrews (see further below, sections 4.4 and 4.5). Alexander, for instance, has given some attention to this question in relation to the rabbinic interpreters, who freely made use of techniques such as al-tiqrei or re-pointing a word, but did not engage in textual emendation to solve exegetical problems.26 This emerging consensus about the variety of text forms of the Greek bible circulating in the first century CE may serve as something of a counterbalance to the important study of the relationship between the text of Hebrews and the Septuagint by Alan Cadwallader.27 He examines in detail the extent of scribal corrections of the Old Testament citations and allusions in the letter towards the standard Septuagint form, concluding that these are numerous and widespread, and that no manuscripts are entirely free of the influence of the desire to harmonise readings.28 He also notes the parallel tendency of Christian scribes to alter the text of the Septuagint to conform to New Testament citations of it. The significance of this tendency to assimilate text forms should not be minimised, and will be borne in mind in the analysis of specific verses from Hebrews below (section 4.4). Nevertheless, Cadwallader himself recognises that not every Old Testament citation in Hebrews is conformed in this way, and he remains open to the possibility that the author may at least sometimes be bearing witness to a genuine Old Greek reading which differs from the standard Septuagint form.29 4.2.3 The Value of the Lucianic or Antiochian Recension One particular example of the new emphasis on the textual pluriformity of the Septuagint is the value being placed by some contemporary scholars, such as Natalio Fernández Marcos and Peter Flint, on the Lucianic or Antiochian recension. This is a fourth century Christian recension of the 26 See Alexander, Philip S., “Why No Textual Criticism in Rabbinic Midrash? Reflections on the Textual Culture of the Rabbis.” Pages 175–190 in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible. Edited by G.J. Brooke. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 27 Cadwallader, Alan H., “The Correction of the Text of Hebrews Towards the LXX.” Novum Testamentum 34 (1992): 257–292. 28 He counts 142 reasonably certain examples of such correction and 33 doubtful ones (Cadwallader, “The Correction of the Text”, 275); it should, however, be noted that many of these scribal corrections are found in the witnesses listed in the apparatus to the various critical editions of the New Testament, so do not form part of the main text on which my analysis below of the citations will be based. 29 Cadwallader, “The Correction of the Text”, 291.

128

Chapter 4. The Study of the Septuagint and its Implications for Hebrews

scriptures carried out in Antioch, attested in the biblical quotations in the patristic writings emanating from Antioch, such as those of John Chrysostom and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, as well as in some biblical manuscripts and in the Old Latin version. However, it has long been noted that similar readings are also evident in pre-Christian sources, such as Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities (especially the section dealing with the material covered in 1 and 2 Kings), and now at least one Qumran text, 4QSama, is also widely regarded as sharing some of its features. The question of the extent of any Lucianic recension (there is little textual evidence for its presence in the Pentateuch, for example) and its use of pre-existing revisions is, therefore, highly complex.30 It may be going too far to postulate the existence of a ‘proto-Lucianic’ recension of the entire Old Testament, and it should be noted that some readings characterised as Lucianic may simply be witnesses to the Old Greek.31 Nevertheless, several contemporary Septuagint scholars are persuaded of the antiquity and value of many readings regarded as Lucianic, and lament the fact that they have been undervalued in the editions of the Göttingen Septuagint Series. Pietersma, for example, argues that: “More so-called L (i.e. Lucianic) readings have ancient roots than is evident from Rahlfs’ edition.”32 Flint has likewise criticised Rahlfs for “...disregarding Lucianic manuscripts almost completely”.33 His interest in this subject stems from his extensive study of the Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa), in which, he argues, readings related to those associated with the Lucianic group of manuscripts are to be found. A consideration of whether any of the citations of the Old Testament in the New might also be related to Lucianic readings, therefore, could be valuable, not only in terms of our understanding of the use of scripture of the New Testament authors, 30

See e.g. the introductions to the Lucianic recension in Dines, The Septuagint, 103– 106; and Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 281–283. Fernández Marcos is particularly engaged in researching the Lucianic recension of the historical books and the Octateuch; see e.g. Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 228–229. 31 See e.g. the caution urged in Pietersma, Albert, “Proto-Lucian and the Greek Psalter.” Vetus Testamentum 28 (1978): 66–72. 32 Pietersma, Albert, “The Present State of the Critical Text of the Greek Psalter.” Pages 12–32 in Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Edited by A. Aejmelaeus and U. Quast. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21. See also Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 477–488, 535–548. 33 Flint, Peter, “Variant Readings of the Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls Against the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint Psalter.” Pages 337–365 in Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Edited by A. Aejmelaeus and U. Quast. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 338; cf. Flint, Peter, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. Leiden: Brill, 1997, 236. This view is reflected also in Metzger, Bruce M., “The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible.” Pages 270–291 in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions and Interpretations. Edited by S. Jellicoe. New York: KTAV, 1974.

4.2 Current Issues and Trends in Septuagintal Studies

129

but also in adding to the sum of knowledge about the history of this recension. 4.2.4 The Full Range of Textual Evidence The attention currently being paid to the multiplicity of forms in which the Septuagint circulated has resulted in a renewed interest in the wide range of sources other than biblical manuscripts which could be used to help reconstruct the Old Greek text. This includes biblical citations in Jewish authors writing in Greek, such as Philo and Josephus, and early Christian sources such as the versions of the bible based on the Septuagint like the Old Latin and the Coptic. These works are increasingly being regarded as a valuable and largely untapped body of evidence witnessing to ancient forms of the Septuagint and to its textual transmission. Dines, for example, notes that the use of the Septuagint in the works of Philo is “...a resource that awaits further study...”,34 and Fernández Marcos states that: “...the question of biblical quotations is the weakest point of the Cambridge and Göttingen editions.”35 There are certainly great difficulties in making use of the patristic writings for critical study of the Septuagint, since the citations of the Old Testament which they include may be conflated, given from memory, or have been influenced by parallel passages or by the form of a text in the New Testament. However, serious study of this material and the publication of good new critical editions of the patristic biblical commentaries could certainly add to our understanding of the history of the Septuagint. Even though considerable work remains to be done in this area, it is clear to Fernández Marcos and others that the Greek bible known to the early church fathers in the fourth and fifth centuries “...does not present a uniform text.”36 This has obvious implications for the state of the biblical text in the period of the composition of the New Testament. 4.2.5 The Septuagint as a Collection of Individual Books Finally, there is increasing recognition amongst Septuagint scholars of the need to approach the question of its textual history and original form on a book-by-book basis rather than drawing general conclusions. Dines sums 34

Dines, The Septuagint, 141. The pioneering work of Peter Katz (also known as Walters) should not, however, be overlooked as a demonstration of what could be achieved by further substantial studies in this area: see Katz, Peter, Philo’s Bible: The Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in Some Philonic Writings and its Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950; and Katz, Peter, The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and Their Emendation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. 35 Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 258; cf. Dines, The Septuagint, 149. 36 Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 198.

130

Chapter 4. The Study of the Septuagint and its Implications for Hebrews

up the situation thus: “Each of the translations and original compositions that eventually constituted the Greek Bibles has its own history and character.”37 So revisions to some books are earlier and more frequent, books like 1 Samuel and Esther clearly existed in more than one form in both Hebrew and Greek, and witnesses to every significant recension do not exist for all the books.38 This perspective is beginning to be felt in New Testament Studies, being evident, for example in the work of two of the commentators on Hebrews referred to in chapter two above, Guthrie and McCullough.39 It may, then, be helpful to consider as a separate case the Book of Psalms, from which so many citations in Hebrews are taken, given the unusually extensive body of textual witnesses to it.

4.3 Greek Versions of the Psalms The critical editions of the Septuagint most widely in use are those of the Göttingen Series. The Göttingen volume on the Psalms was published by Rahlfs in 1931,40 and it is the view of many contemporary scholars that it is in urgent need of re-editing and updating.41 It is no longer certain that this edition presents the best possible reconstruction of the Septuagint text of Psalms, for three main reasons: the evidence from witnesses not taken into account by Rahlfs; questions about his methods for determining correct readings; and new research into the Hebrew text of the Psalter from which the Old Greek translation was made. Even those like Pietersma who have voiced criticisms of the Göttingen Psalms volume42 do, however, rec37 Dines, The Septuagint, 13. Cf. Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 247: “The textual history of the LXX has become much more complex than was thought at the start of critical studies, and it also changes from book to book.” 38 See e.g. Dines, The Septuagint, 103–106; Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 54; and Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 228–230. 39 See e.g. Guthrie, George H., “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research.” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2003): 271–294, 275; and McCullough, J. Cecil, “Some Recent Developments in Research on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Part II.” Irish Biblical Studies 3 (1981): 28–45, 30. See also Moyise’s insistence with reference to the Book of Revelation that: “...there is no reason to assume that John used the same texttype for all his allusions...” (Moyise, Steve, “The Language of the Psalms in the Book of Revelation.” Neotestamentica 37 (2003): 246–261, 249). 40 Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Psalmi cum Odis, Septuaginta X. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931. 41 Apart from Flint and Pietersma, discussed above, see e.g. Moyise, “The Language of the Psalms”, 249, who speaks of “...the general recognition that the Göttingen edition of the Psalms has significant flaws...”; cf. Hengel, Martin, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002, xii. 42 See e.g. Pietersma, “The Present State”, 22.

4.3 Greek Versions of the Psalms

131

ognise Rahlfs’ achievement in dealing with the vast amount of textual evidence for this book, so widely used in liturgy: A central problem facing Rahlfs, as it had faced others before him, was the plethora of textual evidence. That is to say, for the Greek Psalter there are extant roughly ten times as many manuscripts as for the next most-attested book of the Old Testament in Greek (Genesis).43

However, Rahlfs collated less than one hundred manuscripts for his edition,44 and although he had access to many more he did not choose to use them. This was partly because he took the view that fully collating all the available material would have delayed the publication of the Psalms volume for several years, to the detriment of the work of scholarship.45 Other witnesses, such as some of the Bodmer manuscripts, have since become available.46 Rahlfs also made the decision not to collate the evidence from the Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic and Syro-Palestinian versions, regarding them as of secondary importance,47 or hampered by his lack of knowledge of all the ancient languages,48 and he made only limited use of patristic sources. Flint has therefore called for a thorough re-evaluation of all the evidence not employed by Rahlfs, estimated to be over a thousand manuscripts, as the first desideratum for a much-needed new critical edition of the Psalms.49 Rahlfs’ method of determining relationships between manuscripts has been subject to detailed critique by Pietersma, who suggests that his model associates all textual witnesses too simplistically with ‘two poles’, either Codex Vaticanus or a Byzantine or ‘Vulgar’ text.50 As noted above (sec43

Pietersma, “The Present State”, 13. Flint, “Variant Readings”, 338. A more detailed description of the manuscripts and other evidence employed by Rahlfs is given in Pietersma, “The Present State”, 13–14. 45 As he explains in Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis, 5. 46 Pietersma (“The Present State”, 28) claims that more than one hundred Psalms manuscripts have been discovered since 1931. He has himself published a study of Papyrus Bodmer XXIV: Pietersma, Albert, “The Edited Text of P. Bodmer XXIV.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 17 (1980): 67–79. 47 Pietersma, “The Present State”, 14. 48 E.g. Armenian: see Rahlfs, Alfred, Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters. Septuaginta Studien Heft 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965, 34. 49 Flint, “Variant Readings”, 338; cf. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 230. 50 Pietersma, “The Present State”, 14–21. A preliminary attempt to use statistics to evaluate the relative weight of textual witnesses in preparation for a new critical edition of the Psalms has been published by Boyd-Taylor, Cameron, Peter C. Austin and Andrey Feuerverger, “The Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation Within a Probabilistic Framework: A Study of Alfred Rahlfs’s Core Manuscript Groupings for the Greek Psalter.” Pages 98–124 in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma. Edited by R.J.V. Hiebert, C.E. Cox and P.J. Gentry. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 332. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. 44

132

Chapter 4. The Study of the Septuagint and its Implications for Hebrews

tion 4.2.3), both Pietersma and Flint have also argued that Lucianic readings in particular have been undervalued by Rahlfs as witnesses to the Old Greek, and continuing research (see section 4.2.2) into the text forms of the Hebrew bible since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has caused many commentators to revise their thinking about the variety of Hebrew traditions underlying the Greek translation of the Psalms. Flint’s detailed analysis of the Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa), for example, leads him to accept to a certain extent the proposal of James Sanders that there may not have been only one finally accepted version of the Book of Psalms in circulation during the first half of the first century CE.51 He points to several specific instances where the Qumran texts support some Greek readings differing from the Masoretic Text which were relegated by Rahlfs to his apparatus.52 This evidence was obviously not available to Rahlfs, but Flint argues that some of these readings may better reflect the Old Greek than those present in the Göttingen text. Mention might also be made at this point of the work of Robert Hiebert, who has produced a study of the Syrian texts of the Psalter commonly attributed to Paul of Tella,53 thus also adding to the sum of knowledge about other ancient textual witnesses to the Psalms.

4.4 The Sources of Specific Old Testament Citations in Hebrews This section consists of an investigation into the textual basis of nine Old Testament citations in Hebrews, taking for granted the almost universally accepted premise that the author was using a Greek and not a Hebrew text of the scriptures.54 The focus here will be on those chapters of the letter (namely chapter 1 and chapters 3–4) which will form the basis of the de51

See e.g. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 7–8. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 235–236. Ulrich largely agrees; see Ulrich, Eugene, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Their Implications for an Edition of the Septuagint Psalter.” Pages 323–336 in Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Edited by A. Aejmelaeus and U. Quast. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. 53 Hiebert, Robert J.V., The ‘Syro-Hexaplaric’ Psalter, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. 54 This view is so widespread that it hardly needs defending. It can be supported by numerous references, including Schröger, Friedrich, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger, Biblische Untersuchungen 4. Regensburg: Pustet, 1968, 262ff.; Attridge, Harold W., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989, 23; Ellingworth, Paul, The Epistle to the Hebrews. A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans/Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1993, 37. This assumption also underlies all previous detailed studies of the form of the Old Testament citations in Hebrews, including those by Thomas and McCullough discussed at length in chapter 2 above. 52

4.4 The Sources of Specific Old Testament Citations

133

tailed analysis of the interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews in chapter five below, and only definite citations and not allusions will be considered. The precise scriptural source of the citation is disputed in two of the verses examined here (Heb 1:5b and 1:6), but full discussion of the alternatives and their wider textual contexts will be left to the following chapter. Likewise, comment about matters such as the author’s decision to cite only part of a verse, or to divide a text into two distinct citations, will be addressed in depth below in chapter five. The numbering of the Psalms follows that of the Septuagint where this differs from the Hebrew bible. 4.4.1 Ps 2:7 in Heb 1:5a The second half of this Psalm verse is cited, in a form identical to that found in all the major witnesses to the Septuagint. No variations are listed in the textual apparatus to the Göttingen edition. 4.4.2 2 Sam 7:14 (or 1 Chron 17:13) in Heb 1:5b The form of this citation is also identical to that of the Septuagint, and the text is the same at both 2 Sam 7:14 and 1 Chron 17:13. Determining the source is important particularly for assessing the influence on the author’s argument of the wider context of the scriptural texts which he used, but as the form of the text is not affected in this case, further discussion of this point will be held over for the next chapter (see further below, section 5.2.3.3). 4.4.3 Deut 32:43 in Heb 1:6 This is another example of a citation for which the identification of the scriptural source is not entirely straightforward. One possibility is that it comes from Ps 96:7, which reads   %'  * +""

%< (worship him, all his angels). However, most commentators believe it is taken from Deut 32:43,55  ì    %'  *= < (and let all sons of God worship him). This conclusion presents some difficulties, because the verse differs from the equivalent passage in the Masoretic Text. However, the Qumran discoveries have yielded a Hebrew text (4QDeutq) which does contain the clauses found in the Septuagint but 55 See e.g. Thomas, Kenneth J., “The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews.” New Testament Studies 11 (1964–65): 303–325, 304; Braun, Herbert, An die Hebräer, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984, 37; Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 119; Koester, Craig R., Hebrews, Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2001, 193. Two detailed studies of this citation have also reached this conclusion; see Cockerill, Gareth L., “Hebrews 1:6: Source and Significance.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 9 (1999): 51–64; and McLay, “Biblical Texts”.

134

Chapter 4. The Study of the Septuagint and its Implications for Hebrews

absent from the Masoretic Text, thus making it more probable that the Greek form is based on a genuine Hebrew tradition.56 This verse includes the third person plural aorist imperative form of the verb ‘to worship’, as in Heb 1:6 but not Ps 96:7, which has the second person plural, but there is a difference between Hebrews and the Septuagint at the end of the line, where Hebrews reads  +"" < (all God’s angels) and the Septuagint  *= < (all God’s sons). Some commentators think it likely that the author of Hebrews made this change to his source himself, as the reading of the majority of Septuagint manuscripts would not suit his whole argument in chapter 1 about the uniqueness of Christ’s sonship. However, the apparatus in the Göttingen edition reveals considerable textual uncertainty throughout this verse,57 some of which was perhaps occasioned by the potentially theologically difficult phrase ‘God’s sons’, which may have been changed in some textual traditions to ‘angels’, as is the case in some other verses in the Septuagint where ‘sons of God’ or ‘gods’ occurs in the Masoretic Text (for example: Ps 8:5(6); 97(96):7; 138 (137):1; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). The difference may also have arisen from simple transposition, either by the author of Hebrews or already present in his source, of the parallel clause in the fourth line of the verse. A version of this text almost exactly the same as that given in Heb 1:6, including the phrase  ì    %'  * +"" < (note the additional *, not present in Heb 1:6), is attested in the Ethiopic versions, and also the Odes (2:43), a group of hymns attached to the Psalter of Codex Alexandrinus and other major Septuagint manuscripts from about the fifth century. Ellingworth therefore considers this evidence irrelevant, as it is of a relatively late date and may have been influenced by the text in Hebrews.58 McLay, on the other hand, concludes that Odes 2:43 and Heb 1:6 are related to a longer reading of this text which was preserved in the Old Greek but not the Masoretic Text,59 and this view is shared by Steyn.60 I agree that it would be difficult to rule out completely the possibility that the Odes was drawing on earlier textual traditions. 4.4.4 Ps 103:4 in Heb 1:7 There is one difference to be noted between the citation as given here in Hebrews and almost all witnesses to the text of the Septuagint. At the end 56

See e.g. Attridge, A Commentary, 57. Wevers, John W., ed. Deuteronomium, Septuaginta III.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977, 350. 58 Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 119. There is also some discussion of these alternative readings in Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations”, 304. 59 McLay, “Biblical Texts”, 55. 60 Steyn, “A Quest for the Vorlage of the ‘Song of Moses’ Quotations”, 266–268. 57

4.4 The Sources of Specific Old Testament Citations

135

of the second line, Hebrews has the form ò >" (flame of fire/fiery flame) rather than the standard Septuagint reading ". The text as given in Hebrews is attested in one correction to LXXA, some manuscripts assigned to the Lucianic group, and in the Bohairic and Sahidic versions, as noted in the apparatus in the Göttingen edition.61 However, these witnesses are few and not particularly valuable, and were judged by Rahlfs to be secondary and influenced by the reading in Hebrews. Most other commentators (for example Attridge62 and Katz63) agree. This view is now open to question, however, in the light of changing scholarly perceptions of the value of Lucianic readings (discussed above, section 4.2.3), and the discovery of support for the form in Hebrews in Papyrus Bodmer XXIV, a Christian but possibly pre-Hexaplaric manuscript. Even Cadwallader accepts this as a possible genuine variant,64 despite the general thrust of his study of the correction of the text of the citations in Hebrews towards the Septuagint. Since alternative readings for this phrase are found also in Symmachus (  >" ) and Aquila (# ` *  (covered with light as with a garment) which is particularly reminiscent of the rolling up of the garment of Ps 101:27 (Heb 1:11).45 The theme of God’s power in creation is present in both of these psalms, and reflected also in Heb 1:2 and in the citation from Gen 2:2 in Heb 4:4. There are references in Ps 103:15 to oil and gladness, which may establish a connection with the citation which immediately follows this one, in which the addressee is anointed “with the oil of gladness beyond your comrades” (Ps 44:8 at Heb 1:9). This psalm begins with praise of God who is clothed in honour and majesty, a picture of God similar to that drawn throughout Hebrews, with its emphasis on the place of God and Jesus as seated on the heavenly throne (see, for example, Heb 1:3, 13; 2:16; 10:12–13). Finally, the possible allusion in the description of God as one “who looks on the earth and it trembles, who touches the mountains and they smoke…” (Ps 103:32) to the Sinai theophany (Ex 20) is echoed in the reference to that narrative in Heb 12:18–29. 5.2.6 Ps 44:7–8 in Heb 1:8–9 5.2.6.1 Source of the Citation This citation is taken from Ps 44:7–8, with the minor differences from the standard Septuagint form discussed above (section 4.4.5). 5.2.6.2 Exegetical Techniques This text is another example of the author’s choice of citations which contain, or can be read as containing, first person direct speech. Its original context is usually taken to be a song of praise for a royal wedding,46 so that these words were directed to the Israelite king. In Hebrews, however, they are interpreted as being the words of God to47 or about48 the son. The opening phrase is somewhat ambiguous in the Septuagint, as it can be read as a predicate nominative, the probable meaning of the form in the Masoretic 45 The possibility of this connection is noted by Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 121. 46 See e.g. Attridge, A Commentary, 58; Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 125; and Koester, Hebrews, 194. 47 So Attridge, A Commentary, 58; and Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 122. 48 See e.g. Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: 21; and Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 25. This view is reflected also in some English translations of Heb 1:8 such as the Revised Standard Version.

164

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

Text, or as a nominative being used as a vocative. In line with the majority of modern commentators, I take  here as meaning ‘to’, and   as a

vocative,49 so that the words of the psalm have become a direct address to Jesus. Thus the author of Hebrews is applying to Jesus the title of God by means of the exegetical techniques seen in evidence throughout this chapter, namely the specifying of an unnamed speaker, the provision of an addressee for the repeated pronoun 

” Š "• ^  (Let this be written for another generation, Ps 101:19),62 a hint of the need for future fulfilment of this text which could well have been a factor in the author’s selection of it. 5.2.8 Ps 109:1 in Heb 1:13 5.2.8.1 Source of the Citation In this citation there are no differences between the form of the text in Hebrews and the Septuagint, although (see further below, section 5.2.8.2) the allusions to this verse elsewhere in the letter indicate that the author was familiar with a variant reading of this verse. 5.2.8.2 Exegetical Techniques Although the first part of the opening line of the psalm, |    ' @–  (the lord said to my lord) is omitted in the citation in Hebrews, we have here yet another example of first person direct speech being cited and interpreted as the words of God to Jesus. David or another Israelite king is the addressee in the psalm’s original context, but the author’s interpretation of the citation is made clear in the new co-text which he provides: his rhetorical question, “To what angel has he ever said..?” (Heb 1:13), and the claims made about the son in the rest of chapter 1, leave the audience with no room to doubt that this speech is addressed to Jesus. As is the case with the other texts in the catena, the introduction to the letter (Heb 1:1–4) is also a significant part of the new co-text into which this citation is placed. Heb 1:3b in particular sets the scene for the author’s interpretation of Ps 109:1, as this text is alluded to, or used expressively, there in connection with the exaltation of the son. New Testament passages such as Mk 12:35–37 (cf. the parallel accounts in Mt 22:41–46; Lk 20:41–44) and Acts 2:34–36 indicate that the identity of the two ‘lords’ in this text was an exegetical issue in the first century CE, and that the psalm was open to a messianic interpretation.63 The author of Hebrews presumably felt able to refer these words to Jesus as he believed him to be the Lord and the one who fulfilled all the promises made to David. The importance of the royal psalms and other passages focusing on David (such as 2 Sam 7) in this catena should again be noted, as a counterbalance to the tendency of 62

Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 125–126. Several examples of early Christian and rabbinic messianic interpretation of the psalm are noted in Hay, David M., Glory at the Right Hand: Ps 110 in Early Christianity, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 18. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973, 27–33. However, Attridge (see A Commentary, 61) thinks that the evidence for messianic readings of Ps 109 in Judaism is weak. 63

5.2 Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews 1

169

some commentators to downplay the connections between Hebrews and Davidic messianic expectation. The similarities between Ps 109 and Ps 2 are particularly significant, as these are the first and last citations in the catena, so there is a certain symmetry in the arrangement of texts, as well as a building up of the argument from a demonstration of Jesus’ sonship to an explicit claim about his exaltation to God’s right hand. The presence of the similar rhetorical questions at Heb 1:5 and 1:13 also shows the careful arrangement of the citations.64 Ps 109:1 is clearly linked also to the next Old Testament text used in Hebrews, Ps 8:5–7 at Heb 2:6–8, by the shared theme of things being placed in subjection under the feet of Jesus.65 A citation from verse 4 of this psalm about the ‘priest after the order of Melchizedek’ will be exegeted later in Hebrews (chapters 5–7). The connection in the author’s mind between Ps 109:1 and Ps 109:4 is already hinted at in Heb 1:3, where Jesus’ purification of sins, a priestly task, is said to precede his exaltation to God’s right hand. The author’s habit of citing two verses from the same psalm or chapter of a biblical book in two different places in the letter has been noted above, in connection with Deut 32 (cf. Isa 8 in Heb 2:13, although in that case verses which are adjacent in scripture are placed next to each other in Hebrews as well). This technique is noted by several commentators, but as yet no convincing explanation has been put forward for it. It has been linked to the suggestion that the author may have been using a pre-existing testimonia collection,66 a view which will be examined in more detail below (see section 5.2.9). Certainly the apparent preponderance of citations from some sections of the Old Testament was an important factor in Dodd’s theory that the early Christians regarded some scriptural passages in particular as quarries from which suitable proof-texts or testimonia to their beliefs about Jesus could be drawn out.67 However, Samely’s work may once again offer some useful new insights into this feature of the exegesis of Hebrews. Firstly, his analysis of the use of scripture in both the Pentateuchal targumim and the Mishnah suggests that the interpreters sometimes drew on neighbouring biblical text for their explanation of a scriptural ‘segment’. It was as 64

DeSilva (Perseverance in Gratitude, 95) comments on this inclusio, as part of the emphasis he places throughout his study on the author’s carefully crafted rhetorical skills; cf. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 108, 129; and Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: 31–32. 65 Many of these connections have been noted by Gheorgita, The Role of the Septuagint, 66–70. 66 See e.g. Synge, Hebrews and the Scriptures. 67 Dodd, Charles H., According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952. E.g. “There were some parts of scripture which were easily recognised as appropriate sources from which testimonia might be drawn...” (p. 60; cf. the similar statement on p. 92).

170

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

though they viewed proximate pieces of text as related, even if the scriptural context does not indicate that they are, simply because they stood next to one another on the page. In describing this hermeneutical technique, Samely again employs the discipline of linguistics, drawing in particular on the work of H.P. Grice, who studied the assumptions which govern normal conversation. One of these is relevance, the presupposition that the response of a conversation partner relates to the speaker’s comment, even if it does not appear to do so. Samely suggests that the ancient Jewish exegetes took this assumption even more literally than is usual in everyday conversation, probably because of their convictions about the truth and importance of scripture, so they could find significance in the placing of sentences next to one another.68 This may well offer a useful way of looking at the citation in Hebrews of neighbouring scriptural texts, such as Ps 109:1 and Ps 109:4, and also Deut 32:35, 36 at Heb 10:30 and Deut 32:43 at Heb 1:6, and Isa 8:17, 18 at Heb 2:13. This technique may also be related to the practice of stressing individual segments of a text described by Samely which we have suggested is present also in Hebrews. So here in Heb 1:13 it is the scriptural phrase ‘sit at my right hand’ which is the focus of interpretation. Where this citation is picked up again in Heb 2:5ff., the focus moves to the words ‘under his feet’, and it is exegeted in the light of Ps 8:5–7, where a similar phrase occurs. Later in the letter the author’s attention turns to verse 4 of the psalm (Hebrews 5–7). Again we see evidence of the interesting paradox, noted also by Samely, between exegetical techniques which are atomistic, isolating and separating verses or phrases from their scriptural context, and others which pay the closest possible attention to the context and increase the coherence of scripture by making links between apparently unrelated passages. This is one of the clearest examples in Hebrews of the author formally citing a scriptural text in one place and then alluding to it elsewhere in the letter. This technique has been discussed above in connection with Heb 1:7 and linked there with the exegetical resource termed by Samely ‘expressive use’ of scripture (see section 5.2.5.2), and it is true also of the treatment of Ps 109:4 (cited in Heb 5:6; 7:17, 21 and alluded to or used expres68 See e.g. his comments about ‘adjacency pairs’ and the ‘elimination of episode borderlines’ in the Pentateuchal targumim (Samely, The Interpretation of Speech, 39–42, 124) and the hermeneutical resources he names Cotext6 and Cotext7 in his study of the Mishnah: “Cotext6: Explication of the meaning of a biblical expression in the light of a contiguous co-text not connected by grammatical links, lexical iteration, or other cohesive signals...Cotext7: Explication of the meaning of an expression in the light of the extension of the grammatical period to co-text beyond the Masoretic verse boundary.” (Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture, 407, cf. pp. 55–56). Samely, “Scripture’s Implicature”, passim, is also important for an understanding of his views about the underlying assumptions of midrashic exegesis and their relationship to normal conversation.

5.2 Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews 1

171

sively at Heb 5:10; 6:20; 7:3, 11, 15, 28; 8:1; 9:11; 10:21). In particular the phrase    _ €, ‘he sat at the right hand’ of the majesty or of God (Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2) recurs throughout the letter. In such expressive use of biblical phrases, the author’s interpretation of the text, namely that Jesus is to be identified as the one seated on the throne, is assumed: it does not have to be proved, but is reinforced through repetition and receives scriptural authority. Interestingly, the form of Ps 109:1 in allusions differs slightly from the formal citation, in that  _ € replaces the  _ # of the Septuagint and the citation. This fact is well recognised by commentators, especially as there is a difference in wording between the Septuagint and citations from this verse elsewhere in the New Testament (Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; 1 Pet 3:22 all have the form 

_ €, demonstrating its widespread use in the tradition of the early Jesusmovement). Attempts have been made to find an explanation for this phenomenon. Hay, for example, suggests: These divergences might have arisen because (1) the authors of the allusions utilized Greek versions which differed at this point, (2) they used the MT and translated en dexia, (3) they depended not directly on the psalm but on early Christian liturgical materials which expressed the session with dexia. The three explanations are not mutually exclusive.69

The idea that the early Christians used different versions of the scriptures in their worship is popular in some quarters (see, for example, the work of Kistemaker),70 but there is really too little evidence of the form of these early liturgies to draw any definite conclusions about this, and, in any case, such liturgical readings must have arisen from somewhere, presumably from alternative Greek versions already in circulation. I think, however, that it might be more fruitful to turn the usual question around, and ask why we see the wording  _ # in the citation even though  _ € is used in the allusions and is the more common form throughout the New Testament. This is surely yet more evidence of how faithful the author of Hebrews felt compelled to be when formally citing a scriptural text. 5.2.8.3 Wider Context of the Citation The whole of Ps 109 clearly exercised an important influence on Hebrews, and it is considered by many commentators to be one of the key texts structuring the epistle.71 Apart from the numerous citations of and allu69

Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, 35 Kistemaker, Simon, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Amsterdam: Van Soest, 1961. 71 E.g. Caird, “The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews”, 47. He has been followed in this analysis by several others, e.g. Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations. See the 70

172

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

sions to verse 1 of the psalm, verse 4 with its introduction of ‘a priest like Melchizedek’ is also cited (Heb 5:6; 7:17) and alluded to throughout chapters 4–8, as noted above in the discussion of the author’s exegetical techniques. He therefore appears to have interpreted all the words of the psalm as being spoken to or about Jesus. The use of Ps 109:4 in Hebrews is often explained as a result of the widespread acceptance in early Christianity of Ps 109:1 as a description of Jesus’ exaltation, so that by extension the entire psalm could be interpreted as referring to Jesus.72 As noted above, this psalm has much in common with the source of the first citation in the catena, Ps 2, long interpreted messianically in Judaism. Both envisage God speaking to another heavenly lord and promising that he will rule over Israel and exercise judgement over the nations. This psalm includes the word  (sceptre), (v. 2) present also in the citation from Ps 44:7 at Heb 1:8, and the idea of God’s swearing, which I have discussed previously in connection with my suggestion that the author of Hebrews made particular use of texts involving God’s solemn or formal speech (as in Pss 2:7; 94:7– 11, see above section 5.2.2.2). 5.2.9 Excursus: Testimonia Collections Since the possibility that the author of Hebrews was making use of a preexisting collection of scriptural texts has been referred to several times throughout this study, it seems necessary to examine it in more detail at this point. This will require further comment on the claim put forward above that that the Old Testament citations in Hebrews chapter 1 are structured to build up a carefully crafted argument, and will also involve a comparison of this catena with possible parallels in ancient Jewish literature, particularly some of the Qumran texts. The theory that the first Christians collected useful Old Testament citations to form ‘testimony books’ is associated above all with the name of James Rendel Harris. In his work Testimonies,73 he argues that the earliest written document of Christianity, predating any of the New Testament writings, was a testimony book, a collection of excerpts from the Old Testament arranged under different headings, primarily created for use in debating with Jewish opponents and for demonstrating the truth of Christian claims about Jesus. Following up a suggestion first made by F.C. Burkitt,74 discussion of the views of various commentators, including France, Longenecker and Walters in Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament”, 279–283. 72 See e.g. Koester, Hebrews, 204, 298. 73 Harris, J. Rendel and Vacher Burch, Testimonies. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916 and 1920. 74 Burkitt, Francis C., The Gospel History and its Transmission. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906.

5.2 Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews 1

173

Rendel Harris even proposes the apostle Matthew as the probable author of this testimony book.75 The main evidence he puts forward in support of his theory is the existence of later Christian testimony books and the use by several early church fathers, such as Barnabas, Justin and Tertullian, of the same Old Testament passages and themes. He also points to the presence in the early Christian writings of citations which are wrongly attributed (such as the ascription of the text about the potter’s field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah in Mt 27:9–10), cited in an unusual form, or given as composite citations (for example, Isa 35:5, 6; 26:19; 53:4 appears as a single citation in Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses 55.2).76 As in his view general access to complete copies of the Old Testament would have been very unlikely in the early church period, he suggests that it would have been more practical for Christian teachers to carry round with them collections of important extracts rather than an entire set of biblical scrolls.77 Rendel Harris’ hypothesis did not gain widespread acceptance, and it was the conclusion of many scholars that “...the theory outruns the evidence.”78 It is difficult to conceive of a large literary enterprise like the proposed testimony book being produced at such an early stage of the early Jesus movement, even before the writing of Paul’s letters, and it is also hard to understand why there should be no unambiguous reference to its existence in early Christian literature. The widespread use in the works of the early church fathers of the same scriptural texts could be explained by their dependence on one another, or common dependence on the New Testament, as easily as on a testimony book, and Rendel Harris failed to take sufficient account of the fact that even where different New Testament authors cite the same Old Testament passage, they do not always have the same form of the text.79 There is also scholarly doubt about the extent to which the early Christians engaged in the kind of controversial, scripturally-based debate with Jewish opponents which he assumed provided the setting for the production and use of the testimony book.80 In view of these significant criticisms of Rendel Harris’ theory, it virtually disappeared from scholarly purview for several decades. A resurgence of interest in it arose, however, when the discoveries at Qumran revealed that collections of scriptural extracts or proof-texts definitely did exist in 75

Rendel Harris thought that the ‘sayings of the Lord’ collected by Matthew as reported by Papias in Eusebius are probably to be identified as the testimonies, which had their ultimate origin in the preaching of Jesus himself. 76 For further detail, see Rendel Harris, Testimonies, Vol. 1: 8–19. 77 Rendel Harris, Testimonies, Vol. 1: 1. 78 Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 25–26. 79 This criticism is made by e.g. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 26. 80 See e.g. the discussion of this point in Albl, “And Scripture Cannot be Broken”, 56–59.

174

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

Judaism at the turn of the era, such as 4QFlorilegium (4Q174), 4QTestimonia (4Q175), 4QTanhumim (4Q176), 4QCatenaa (4Q177) and 11QMelchizedek (11Q13). Of all the studies of testimonia collections made in the light of this new evidence, that by Martin Albl is the most extensive. He investigates both Jewish and Graeco-Roman literature, and demonstrates that the practice of making ‘extract collections’ of various kinds was very widespread, and that these served several functions, being used, for example, for teaching and in liturgy as well as for proving a case. This led Albl to call for a more precise definition of terms, making a valuable distinction on the basis of function between ‘testimonia collections’ which were intended to prove a certain point, and ‘extract collections’, or collections of scriptural texts and passages excerpted for more general purposes. His conclusions are that the early church fathers made use of testimonia collections,81 that the bringing together of such useful scriptural testimonies began in New Testament times,82 and that the author of Hebrews was drawing on such a collection in chapters 1–2.83 It is true that the idea of the scriptures ‘testifying’ to a belief is found in Hebrews (see, for example, Heb 2:6). The point made by both Albl and Rendel Harris before him about the practical usefulness of extract collections is also a fair one, and the question of how much access the New Testament authors would have had to the Old Testament scrolls remains unresolved. However, I think that Albl, like Rendel Harris, places too much reliance on the evidence of later Christian testimony books, and does not recognise sufficiently that any common scriptural texts and themes found in these are as likely to stem from the influence of the New Testament as from dependence on a testimony book. It is probably safer to think in terms of the possible existence of traditional collections of biblical texts on which New Testament and later patristic authors drew, rather than one or more foundational testimony books. Francis Synge applied the testimony book hypothesis to Hebrews in the most far-reaching way, putting forward a proposal that the author did not have access to the bible as a whole, but based his letter on a pre-existing testimony book, interweaving it with hortatory sections.84 This view has 81

See e.g. Albl, “And Scripture Cannot be Broken”, 97–158. See e.g. Albl, “And Scripture Cannot be Broken”, 171–288. 83 Albl, “And Scripture Cannot be Broken”, 201–207. 84 Synge, Hebrews and the Scriptures. Montefiore also accepts that the author of Hebrews was making use of a pre-existing testimonia collection in chapter 1; see Monefiore, Hugh W., A. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1964, 43–44; cf. Sowers, Sidney G., The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews: A Comparison of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Philo Judaeus and the Epistle to the Hebrews, Basel Studies of Theology 1. Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1965: 83–86. 82

5.2 Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews 1

175

received little support, and it is the contention of this study that the influence on the letter’s theology of the wider contexts of the texts cited indicates that the author was familiar with the whole of the Old Testament, not just extracts from it, and that it is also the case that he reproduces faithfully the form of the texts present in his Septuagintal source. I have also tried to point to the quite unusual way in which the citations are used in Hebrews chapter 1 to build up an argument, which suggests that if the author was indeed drawing on a traditional collection of texts, he still exerted a considerable degree of control over their selection and arrangement. Comparisons between Hebrews and the Qumran texts are very relevant to this issue. There are some clear similarities between Hebrews 1 and the Qumran florilegia and catenae, and sometimes the very same texts occur in them, as has already been noted in the case of the citation from 2 Sam 7:10–14 in 4QFlor 1, 21, 2 (see above section 5.2.3.2). That the texts in the Qumran collections are not simply strung together but are in some sense organised and assembled with definite theological intention, usually with a messianic or eschatological focus, is the position of important commentators, such as Brooke85 and Fitzmyer.86 Albl takes this view further, and tries to argue that several of these texts actually use the Old Testament citations to form a new narrative. I remain, however, unpersuaded by his thesis, and do not find that the texts in these collections function in a way which can be compared to Hebrews 1. Firstly, the Qumran examples tend to have a base-text and operate almost as a midrash on it; 2 Sam 7:10–14 functions in this way in 4QFlorilegium, for example; three of the five citations in 4QTestimonia are from Deuteronomy; 4QTanhumim as it stands contains definite citations only from Isaiah, and 11QMelchizedek returns again and again to Leviticus chapter 25. The scriptural texts included in the Qumran collections are more obviously linked by catchwords (as in 4QFlorilegium) or a common theme (words of comfort in 4QTanhumim, for example) than is the case in Hebrews. Individual citations may be the subject of more extended exegesis, but this interpretation never links them all together in the way seen in Hebrews. There is, it seems to me, nothing in any of the parallel Qumran texts, at least in their extant form, to com-

85 Brooke, George J., Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. See also, Brooke, George J., “Testimonia”. Pages 391–392 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. 6. Edited by D.N. Freedman et. al. New York: Doubleday, 1992. 86 Fitzmyer, Joseph A., “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament.” New Testament Studies 7 (1960–61): 305–329; see also, Fitzmyer, Joseph A., “Further Light on Melchizedek From Qumran Cave 11.” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967): 25–41.

176

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

pare with the introduction in Heb 1:1–4 setting out the ‘thesis’ which the subsequent citations prove.87 The current consensus of opinion on this topic can, then, be summed up as follows: Rendel Harris’ testimony book hypothesis is not accepted in its entirety, but the evidence from Qumran that collections of often messianic proof-texts were produced in ancient Judaism makes it credible to imagine that the early followers of Jesus also made such collections. The author of Hebrews may therefore have drawn on a traditional collection of this kind for some of his Old Testament citations, but the careful arrangement of the scriptural texts in Hebrews 1 and the attention paid to their wider context persuades many leading commentators that such a testimonia collection is not the primary source for this chapter.88

5.3 Hermeneutical Methods and Axioms in Hebrews Chapter 1 5.3.1 Summary of Exegetical Methods in Hebrews Chapter 1 This investigation of the interpretation of the scriptural citations in the first chapter of Hebrews has demonstrated that a close descriptive-analysis of the kind practised by Samely and other scholars of the Goldbergian School can add considerably to our understanding of the author’s use of the Old Testament. In particular, this approach results in: a new vocabulary; better explanations for features of the author’s exegetical method which have long been noted but never satisfactorily explained; a fuller appreciation of some of his hermeneutical techniques which have not previously been identified; a greater precision of analysis, as the individual operations at work in the interpretation of scripture can be brought to the surface and explained; and useful ideas for further research in this area. We have seen that some of the exegetical resources catalogued by Samely in his study of the Pentateuchal targumim and the Mishnah seem to be in evidence in Hebrews too, although there are also interesting differences from the scriptural interpretation in these texts. This would seem to confirm the validity of my starting point, that the Old Testament exegesis of Hebrews is best understood as an example of early post-biblical Jewish scriptural interpretation. The most significant conclusions to be drawn from this analysis of Hebrews chapter 1 are therefore as follows: 87

The question of whether the later Christian testimony books used scriptural citations to build up an argument or simply grouped texts together under headings is discussed in Skarsaune, Oskar, The Proof From Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile. Leiden: Brill, 1987. 88 Commentators who take this view include: Braun, An die Hebräer, 20, 61; Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 109–110; and Steyn, “Psalm 2 in Hebrews”, 270–272.

5.3 Hermeneutical Methods and Axioms in Hebrews 1

177

(i) The author of Hebrews reproduced his scriptural sources accurately. This is particularly clear when the form of a citation is compared with its form when used expressively or alluded to (see especially the case of Ps 109:1, section 5.2.8.2 above). Altering the original text does not therefore appear to have been a major hermeneutical technique for him. (ii) The primary exegetical move at work in Hebrews chapter 1 seems to be the removal of a scriptural text from its context in order to surround it with new co-text which narrows down its meaning in a particular direction determined by the interpreter. This is a very subtle way of shifting or focusing the meaning of a term like ‘son’. Through employment of this technique, biblical words or phrases can become almost a standard or technical term, as in the Mishnah; ‘sit at my right hand’ is always in Hebrews a reference to Christ’s exaltation, which carries with it a great deal of theological meaning, for example, and similarly, in later chapters of the letter, ‘priest’ is shorthand for ‘eternal high priest like Melchizedek’. (iii) The author has to begin his interpretation of the Old Testament by selecting a segment of text for citation. It is noteworthy that several of his citations are longer than the usual midrashic unit of sentence-length, but further ‘segmenting’ takes place in his exegesis as he focuses on words or phrases of the text in turn. (iv) Such placing of what Samely has termed ‘heavy stress’ on one word or phrase at a time is a hermeneutical resource which appears frequently in Hebrews, as in the interpretation of Ps 109:1, where the emphasis is first directed to the phrase ‘sit at my right hand’ (Heb 1:13), then to ‘under his feet’ (Heb 2:8), and is finally turned (Heb 5:6) to Ps 109:4 and its introduction of a ‘priest after the order of Melchizedek’. This exegetical technique may explain the author’s tendency to divide a text into two separate citations, or to cite neighbouring verses of scripture. (v) The importance of the introduction to the catena (Heb 1:1–4) for specifying the new meaning which the author gives to his citations and to key terms within them (such as ‘son’) cannot be overstated. (vi) All the citations in Hebrews chapter 1 are examples of first person direct speech, or can be read as such. This is a feature of the letter’s use of the Old Testament which has often been noted, but Samely’s work offers a new possible explanation for it, in that such texts are more easily removed than others from their original contexts and placed in new settings. This may also be part of the reason for the author’s frequent choice of citations from the Psalms. (vii) The author clearly regards Jesus as the recipient of direct speech passages in scripture, particularly in those texts which lend themselves to being read as a conversation between two heavenly beings.

178

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

(viii) One of the exegetical techniques employed most frequently in Hebrews chapter 1 is the precise specification of a speaker and/or addressee who is left ambiguous in the scriptural source. (ix) Many of the direct speech passages cited are of a formal kind (Ps 2 is ‘the decree of the Lord’, for example). It seems that the author had a particular interest in solemn speech, and this may be linked with his discussion later in the letter of God’s oaths (Heb 6:13–18), and his use of the verb ‘to testify’ in introducing citations (as in Heb 2:6). The development of this verb in early Christian use of scripture (in both Luke-Acts and the Fourth Gospel, as well as in the writings of the early church fathers) is an issue which deserves further consideration. (x) Old Testament citations are used in Hebrews chapter 1 to build up an argument of themselves, without much overt exegesis from the author, in a way which is unparalleled in extant ancient Jewish literature. The placing of these texts is not random, nor done simply on the basis of shared catchwords, but actually moves the argument forward. (xi) The wider context of the biblical texts appears to have been a factor in their selection, and serves to link several citations to each other and to other sections of Hebrews. I am aware that some of the contextual themes I have identified are found so widely throughout the scriptures (praise of God for creation, for instance) that they might not be thought significant, but I would maintain that the number and extent of such connections are striking. (xii) The wider context of the scriptural texts cited appears to offer clues to the author’s theology, in particular highlighting that creation and Davidic messianism were more important themes for him than some commentators recognise. (xiii) His tendency to cite more than one verse from the same psalm or chapter may be related to the importance for his interpretation of the wider context of a scriptural citation. Part of the explanation for this may also lie in the assumptions about the coherence and relevance of scripture which Samely has identified as underlying midrashic and targumic exegesis, meaning that textual proximity can become significant for interpretation. (xiv) Many of the author’s citations contain potential exegetical difficulties which would have provoked the efforts of interpreters before him. (xv) The search for an explanation within the cited texts for the interpretation given, following the example of Samely, has proved fruitful, so we can definitely conclude that it is not sufficient to explain the biblical interpretation in Hebrews simply in terms of the author reading his scriptures ‘christologically’. (xvi) There are possible examples in Hebrews 1 of the use of the exegetical techniques termed by Samely ‘Opposition resources’, for example

5.3 Hermeneutical Methods and Axioms in Hebrews 1

179

the author’s stress that ‘son’ excludes ‘angel’; cf. his exegesis of Jer 38:31–34 in Hebrews chapter 8, which depends on his interpreting the word ‘new’ as a signal that the ‘old’ covenant must be obsolete. (xvii) Phrases which stand in poetic parallelism in the original (•"" (angels) and  " (servants) in Ps 103:4, for example) are not always interpreted in Hebrews as if they must have different referents (contrast Samely’s ‘Redundancy resources’). (xviii) The way in which the author of Hebrew alludes to scriptural texts as well as formally citing them is a feature of his use of the Old Testament which has received insufficient attention from commentators to date. Parallels with the use of scripture in Acts can also be drawn. Samely’s term ‘expressive use’ may help us to understand this technique more fully, as it explains how an interpreter is able to establish or reinforce the meaning he wishes to give to a particular citation. (xix) The frequent employment of scriptural allusions in the introductions and closing summaries in Hebrews 1 and throughout the letter is particularly noteworthy, and is an important part of the author’s provision of new co-text to constrain the meaning of a citation. This is not a feature of the biblical exegesis present in the Jewish texts studied by Samely, probably at least in part because of the difference in genre between Hebrews and targum and midrash. (xx) The author’s exegetical method results in examples of both the atomistic treatment of scriptural texts and an increase in the connections between them, for example, linking citations on the basis of shared catchwords, and interpreting one passage in the light of another. (xxi) It is possible that the author was drawing on a pre-existing collection for at least some of the citations used in this chapter, but, in view of the way the citations build up his argument, and the connections between their wider contexts which have been highlighted in this investigation, it is extremely unlikely that he took over such a collection wholesale without some element of selection or the addition of new texts. 5.3.2 Summary of Underlying Scriptural Axioms in Hebrews Chapter 1 It is a major contention of this study that one of the aspects of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews most neglected by commentators is an attempt to seriously analyse the axioms underlying it. I suggested in chapter three above that the work on rabbinic literature and targum of Goldberg and Samely, who pay a great deal of attention to this important question, could offer an example for New Testament scholars to follow. I turn now, then, to a consideration of what can be revealed about the view of scripture of the author of Hebrews from this investigation of his interpretation of the

180

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

Old Testament citations in chapter 1 and from the conclusions reached here about his exegetical techniques. Firstly, the simple fact that there is so much citation and expressive use of scripture points to the fundamental importance of the bible for the author of Hebrews. It is to it that he turns for his theology and for the very words with which to speak about Jesus. In this sense, then, he parallels the rabbinic interpreters who viewed scripture as the source of all knowledge. Secondly, his general faithfulness to his scriptural source in citation of it has been demonstrated. There is a clear difference between the freedom he apparently felt to alter the biblical wording when using a phrase expressively, as his own words, compared to his attitude when formally citing scripture. Again, it is hardly surprising that an ancient Jewish interpreter should have regarded scripture as the unchanging and unalterable word of God. Samely argues, for instance, that the targumists remained similarly faithful to the sequence and wording of the original Hebrew text, even if they wove into it new words of their own. Thirdly, not just scripture as a whole, but its every word is regarded as important and relevant by the author of Hebrews, so that words which appear to be entirely insignificant can become the subject of heavy stress. The close attention he paid to every detail of the text seems to have led him to search for answers to questions such as, ‘Who could have spoken these words and on what occasion?’ or, ‘Why was an unusual verb such as the qal stem of yalad used here?’ His hermeneutical techniques suggest that, like the rabbinic interpreters, he understood scripture first and foremost as a written artefact, so that its every letter and the arrangement of the words on the page, their written sequence, could become a focus for exegesis. This insight is an important counterbalance to what I consider is the undue emphasis placed by many commentators on the predominance of verbs of saying in the introductions to Old Testament citations in Hebrews. It also fits in well with current studies of other New Testament books. A recent article on Matthew’s Gospel by Michael Knowles, for example, argues that the debate between Jesus or the early Christians and Jewish opponents about the correct meaning of scripture turned on their close reading of it, as evidenced by the frequent use in these dispute passages of the question ‘Have you not read...?’ (as at Mt 1:3; 12:5; 19:4; 21:42; 22:31).89 The importance of God’s speech certainly is a prominent theme in Hebrews, evident from very first verse of the letter, but highlighting as this study has done the number of first person direct speech texts cited, and the 89

Knowles, Michael P., “Scripture, History, Messiah: Scriptural Fulfilment and the Fullness of Time in Matthew’s Gospel.” Pages 59–82 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Edited by S.E. Porter (ed.), Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006; see especially pp. 60–65.

5.4 Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews 3–4

181

way in which their speakers and addressees are specified, makes clearer the author’s view that all scripture is to be read as the speech of God. He appears also to have been working with both a view that scriptural texts can stand alone, excerpted from their context, and a belief in the interconnectedness of the whole bible, so that his placement of citations creates links between originally separate and independent passages of scripture, thereby increasing its coherence. His exegesis implies that the words of scripture are to be assumed to be literally true – there really is conversation in heaven between the exalted Jesus and God, for example. This, too, is a common feature of many forms of early Jewish biblical interpretation, but may reflect a different attitude from that found in the Qumran texts, which focus primarily on the applicability of scriptural passages to the community history and present rather than on the historical events underlying them. The author of Hebrews as much as any ancient Jewish exegete, however, regarded it as legitimate interpretation to seek out what scriptural texts imply as much as what they actually say, presumably believing that the new meaning he gave them was inherent in the original revelation, which he regarded as having endless depths of meaning and real contemporary relevance.

5.4 Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews Chapters 3–4 5.4.1 Introduction: A Comparative Text The precise descriptive-analytical approach which I have already sought to apply to Hebrews chapter 1 will now be brought to bear on an investigation of the interpretation of the Old Testament in chapters 3–4. Detailed reference to the work of Samely will again be made where this may inform our understanding of the biblical exegesis of Hebrews. This analysis of a second section of the letter should allow a fuller picture to emerge of the author’s scriptural interpretation, so that it becomes possible to draw out at the end of this study some overall conclusions about the exegetical techniques and axioms in operation throughout Hebrews. Chapters 3–4 have been selected as the focus for this part of my study because they offer an example of the sustained exegesis of one long Old Testament citation which characterises the letter (see also the use of Jer 38:31–34 in Heb 8 and 10; cf. Ps 39:7–9 in Heb 10:1–10), and because they provide a contrast in outward form to the catena of citations in chapter 1, so a close examination of these chapters should offer useful points of comparison with the results of the analysis of the interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews 1.

182

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

5.4.2 Source of the Citations 5.4.2.1 Ps 94:7–11 As discussed above (section 4.4.8), this citation differs from the Septuagint version in several respects, and is rather more divergent from the Septuagint than any of the citations in Hebrews chapter 1. Some of the variations do not affect the text’s meaning and may have been genuine alternative readings (   { instead of the Septuagint form ^  , for example, or | for the Septuagint } , both in verse 9). I take the view that the most noticeable difference between Hebrews and the Septuagint, the placing of the phrase ‘forty years’, may stem from the author’s use of an exegetical technique of dividing a citation into two so that he can focus on sections of it in turn, so this will be considered below (section 5.4.4.1) in the analysis of the author’s hermeneutical methods. It is clearly important to consider the possible reasons for the number of divergences between the form of this citation in Hebrews and in the Septuagint, in the light of the general faithfulness with which I have suggested the author reproduces his scriptural texts in the first chapter of the letter. This may be related to the length of the passage cited, as even in chapter 1 there are on average more differences from the standard Septuagint form in the longer citations than in the shorter. If the author was citing his texts from memory, a matter about which it is impossible to be certain, it is conceivable that it would have been more difficult to remember a longer text exactly. The way in which the text is used may be more significant than its length, however, as Ps 94:7–11 is subjected in Hebrews chapter 3 to sustained exegetical comment, not interpreted primarily by means of its placement in a catena as was the case in chapter 1. It will, therefore, be necessary to return to this point once the analysis of the author’s exegetical techniques has been undertaken. 5.4.2.2 Gen 2:2 The form of this citation is very close to the standard Septuagint text. The minor differences are almost certainly due to the author’s decision to cite only part of the verse, as he omits the last phrase and introduces  

into the citation as the subject of the verb    (he rested), which is

entirely in keeping with the original context (see also section 4.4.9 above). 5.4.3 Framing the Scriptural Texts: Heb 3:1–6 and 4:11–13 The author’s interpretation of Ps 94:7–11 in Hebrews 3–4 begins in Heb 3:1–6, which is clearly linked to the citation by the particle   (therefore) (Heb 3:7). These verses introduce the idea of faithfulness (Heb 3:2, 5, 6)

5.4 Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews 3–4

183

and the person of Moses, who, although not explicitly mentioned in Ps 94, was the leading figure of the wilderness period on which it reflects. Since I have argued throughout the analysis of Hebrews chapter 1 (see section 5.2 above) for the importance of the introduction in Heb 1:1–4 in providing new co-text to constrain the meaning of the citations in the catena which follow, it is important to explore whether Heb 3:1–6 serves a similar function in respect of the longer scriptural citation in chapter 3. Just as the author attempts to prove Jesus’ superiority to the angels (chapter 1) and to the former priests (chapters 5 and 7) in other parts of the letter, here in Heb 3:1–6 the author draws a favourable comparison between Jesus and Moses. This use of the rhetorical devices of synkrisis (comparison) and auxesis (amplification) is discussed by several modern commentators.90 It is striking that the expressive use of scripture which so strongly characterised the introduction in Heb 1:1–4 is equally in evidence here, where the main underlying text to which the author alludes is Num 12:6–8.91 In the narrative in the Book of Numbers, Moses has been subject to criticism from Miriam and Aaron because of his choice of a foreign wife, and they claim to be spokespersons of God in the same way that he is. God is said to have been angered by this, and tells them that Moses is greater than any of the other prophets, who receive divine revelation only through dreams and visions, because he has direct communication with God (“mouth to mouth”, Num 12:8), is even able to see God, and “is faithful in all my (i.e. God’s) house” ( —– ' }–     , Num 12:7, LXX). This latter phrase is reproduced in Heb 3:2, 5, and is key to the author’s presentation of both Moses and Jesus. Like so many of the scriptural texts he employs, it too is an example of first person direct speech. The Numbers passage probably also explains the reference to Jesus’ ‘glory’ (_ ) (Heb 3:3), as the Septuagint version reads that Moses “saw the glory of the Lord” (Num 12:8). Numbers chapter 14, a passage clearly alluded to in the interpretation of Ps 94 in Heb 3:12–19, also speaks of ‘the glory of the Lord’ appearing (Num 14:10b). Most commentators explain that Moses is presented in Heb 3:1–6 as faithful, so that Jesus can be demonstrated to be even more faithful than this great figure of Jewish history and religion.92 It is certainly the case 90

See e.g. Attridge, A Commentary, 104; DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 134; Koester, Hebrews, 248. 91 Several commentators also point to the echoes of 1 Chron 17:14 underlying this section, see e.g. D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, 69. 92 See e.g. Koester, Hebrews, 248: “Hebrews does not denigrate Moses by recalling his unfaithfulness (Num 20:12) or by contrasting Moses’ fading splendor with Christ’s abiding glory (cf. 2 Cor 3:7–11).” Cf. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 135; Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 203; Isaacs, Sacred Space, 135; Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: cxxviii.

184

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

that there is no criticism of Moses here, and indeed his great faithfulness to God is emphasised, nevertheless the author of Hebrews subtly manages to downgrade him and his relationship with God. The underlying scriptural passage from Num 12 really exalts the status of Moses: there is no other spokesperson like him, no one else has such access to God’s revelation, and those who challenge his authority are punished (Num 12:9–15). The term ‘servant’ ( ) is used of Moses in that text, as elsewhere in the

Old Testament, in an entirely positive sense. However, it takes on a rather more negative connotation in Hebrews simply because the author places it in opposition to the term ‘son’, so prominent in chapter 1. To be a faithful ‘servant’ in God’s house is not to be the faithful ‘son’ placed over the house as Jesus is, but to have a similar status to the angels, who are, according to Hebrews, transitory and changeable creatures (see especially Heb 1:7–12). This description of Jesus as ‘son over God’s house’ also echoes the promise made to David about his future dynasty in 2 Sam 7:13–14/ 1 Chron 17:13–14, cited in Heb 1:5b.93 Again we see the author’s technique of remaining very faithful to the wording of scripture, but subtly changing the meaning of key terms by the addition of new co-text. The ensuing citation from Ps 94:7–11 may provide further new co-text hinting at some weakness in Moses. Even though he is not mentioned by name in the psalm, the text and its interpretation emphasise the lack of faith of the people whom he led, for which perhaps he takes some responsibility, as the scriptural narrative itself confirms that Moses was not judged worthy to actually enter the promised land. This subtle re-evaluation of the position of Moses is noted by commentators, but none draw out the actual techniques employed to achieve it.94 Similarly, Moses could “...testify to the things that were to be spoken later…” (Heb 3:5), but he could not experience these things in the way now made possible for the author and his audience. Perhaps the author of Hebrews assumed that one of the things God revealed to Moses ‘mouth to mouth’ was that David would later utter this psalm promising a future rest, and even that it would be fulfilled in Christ. The scene is then set for the application of this text to ‘today’. The author’s closing summary (Heb 4:11: “Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience…”) is linked to the preceding interpretation by ‘therefore’ (˜), just as a similar particle ( ) was used in Heb 3:7 to connect the author’s introduction to the citation of Ps 94:7–11. It consists of the expressive use of part the scriptural text which has been interpreted, in exactly the same way as Heb 1:14 concluded the catena with an allusion to Ps 103:4, cited in Heb 1:7. This 93

This is recognised by several commentators, e.g. Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: 76. See e.g. Attridge, A Commentary, 112; DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 131; Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: 78. 94

5.4 Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews 3–4

185

enables the author to reinforce in authoritative scriptural language his main point that the prospect of entering God’s rest is a real and present possibility for his audience, but only if they remain obedient. Two further verses follow, and, in the opinion of most commentators, serve to close this section.95 They also are replete with scriptural allusions. Ellingworth, for example, comments: “The language of these verses is not closely bound to specific OT texts, yet it recalls that of the LXX at several points.”96 He notes in particular echoes of the Book of Wisdom, particularly Wis 7:22– 8:1, a passage reflected also in Heb 1:1.97 God’s word is also personified in various Old Testament passages (see, for instance, Isa 40:8–10; 55:11), and his judgement compared to a sword (for example, Isa 49:2; 66:16; Wis 18:14–16). Finally, these verses clearly relate back to the exegesis of Ps 94:7–11, picking up in particular on the idea of ‘heart’, hinting that God will surely know if any of the community have the kind of ‘evil, unbelieving heart’ the author has been warning against. 5.4.4 Exegetical Techniques in Hebrews Chapters 3–4 5.4.4.1 Techniques Used to Exegete Ps 94:7–11 The citation of Ps 94:7–11 is introduced as the words of the Holy Spirit (Heb 3:7; cf. 9:8; 10:15). This emphasises its divine authority, but is not an unusual concept in Judaism. It is clear from Heb 4:7 that the author sees no contradiction between regarding the text as the utterance of the Holy Spirit and acknowledging its human speaker, whom he assumes to be David. The words cited are the first person direct speech of God, and the last sentence is a solemn divine oath (` ™   " , “As I swore in my wrath”, Ps 94:11). The frequent selection of citations involving first person direct speech and solemn swearing is a feature of the letter’s Old Testament exegesis already noted above in the analysis of Hebrews chapter 1. The second person plural verbs and pronouns which occur in the opening lines of the citation ( , , ’#) make it possible for the author of Hebrews to apply it directly to his audience in the present. The new co-text provided for the scripture passage in the introduction to this section (Heb 3:1–6) has already established a connection between it and Jesus, and prepared the way for an interpretation which will focus on faith95 See e.g. the discussion of the structure of Heb 4:12–13 in Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 259–260; he confirms that: “Most editors, translators and commentators make v. 13 the end of a section.” Cf. Koester, Hebrews, 280. Vanhoye, however, argues that v. 14 should also be included within this section (Vanhoye, Albert, La Structure Littéraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963, 103), and he is followed by Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: 96–97. 96 Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 260. 97 Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 261.

186

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

fulness (see, for instance, Heb 3:2, 5, 6) and holding firm to the end (Heb 3:6; the phrase is specifically picked up in the exegesis of the psalm in Heb 3:14). The citation is a relatively long one, but the author treats it in sections or segments, focusing first on the opening lines, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion” (repeated in Heb 3:15, and again, partially, in 4:7), and then turning to the last verse, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’” (This verse is repeated in Heb 4:3, and the final line only is cited again also in Heb 4:5.) I suggest that the exegesis of this text in two sections may indicate that the author was treating it almost as two distinct citations, reproducing first Ps 94:7–9 and then introducing another citation from Ps 94:10–11, separated from the previous citation only by the brief introduction   (therefore).

This could explain the frequently noted difficulty with the awkward placing of the phrase ‘forty years’ at the junction of Heb 3:9–10, and the inclusion of the word   which is not present in the standard Septuagint text. A

similar technique is certainly in evidence in Heb 2:13, where Isa 8:17 and 8:18 are cited, separated only by the word ‘again’. In this case, neighbouring biblical sentences are being interpreted as related to the same theme, but in discussing the ability of rabbinic interpreters to isolate texts from their co-text and assign them to different topics, Samely has noted that they could even at times “... identify radically divergent themes for neighbouring biblical sentences.”98 Different explanations have been put forward by previous commentators for the unusual linking of the ‘forty years’ with the time of the Israelites’ testing of God rather than with God’s anger. Isaacs, for example, sees it as a deliberate strategy on the author’s part to exaggerate the disobedience of the wilderness generation in order to set up an even stronger contrast between this and the faithfulness he hopes to encourage in his audience.99 Both Attridge and Lane suggest that he may have been drawing on an exegetical tradition which supposed that there were two periods of forty years, one of disobedient response to God’s miracles (as suggested by texts such as Ex 16:35; Deut 2:7; Neh 9:21) and one of punishment (as in Num 14:33–34; 32:13; Josh 5:6).100 It is certainly conceivable that paying close attention to the scriptural narrative may have led some interpreters to conclude that the forty years of punishment in the wilderness could not include the time of blessings like the giving of the

98 Samely, Alexander, Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, 64. 99 Isaacs, Sacred Space, 79–80. 100 Attridge, A Commentary, 115, 120; Lane, Hebrews, 88–89. See also the discussion of this point above, section 4.4.8.

5.4 Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews 3–4

187

manna, but the evidence for the presence of such a tradition of Jewish exegesis is not conclusive. The interpretation of Ps 94:7–11 in Hebrews chapter 3 has often been likened to the Qumran pesharim,101 running commentaries on certain biblical books in which verses or phrases are cited and exegeted as referring to the community. Whilst there are some similarities in form, I do not agree that it is correct to classify this chapter as an example of pesher-exegesis. There is no formula in Hebrews comparable with the phrase, ‘the interpretation is’, or ‘this concerns’, so characteristic of the Qumran texts, and the author is very selective in interpreting only some words of his text. I suggest rather that the main exegetical operation in use here is the same as that described by Samely in his studies of the targumim and the Mishnah and found to be present also in Hebrews chapter 1, whereby certain scriptural words or phrases are isolated from their original co-text, subject to heavy stress, and surrounded with new co-text which specifies their meaning and constrains it in a certain direction. This new co-text serves to interpret the biblical phrase in the way the author intends, so that his exegetical comments are kept to a minimum. The term ‘today’ which opens the citation therefore takes on in Hebrews the meaning ‘every day’ (Heb 3:13), heightening the ongoing relevance of the text. Likewise the ‘heart’ of the citation becomes specifically an ‘unbelieving’ heart (Heb 3:12), and the phrase ‘the deceitfulness of sin’ is introduced into the explanation as the cause of the ‘hardening’ of the hearts referred to in the text (Heb 3:13). This enables the author to conclude (Heb 3:19) that the wilderness generation was not able to enter God’s rest because of their   (unbelief, faithlessness), a term which does not occur in Ps 94, but the opposite of which,  

(faithful), is emphasised throughout the introduction to the citation in Heb 3:1–6. The author’s interpretation of Ps 94 in Heb 3:12–19 thus involves him in restating key words and phrases of the text and interweaving them with his own words in a mixture of formal citation (for example, Heb 3:15, 16a, 17a, 18a) and allusion or expressive use of scripture. A very similar process can be seen at work in his exegesis of Ps 8:5–7 in Heb 2:8–9. However, the new words with which the author surrounds his text have not, on the whole, appeared out of nowhere. He is clearly interpreting the psalm in the light of the Pentateuchal text to which it relates, Numbers 14, which does 101

See e.g. Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations, 86. He claims, in fact, that: “Nearly every chapter of Hebrews reveals the peculiar features of the Midrash pesher.” (Kistemaker, The Psalms Citations, 75). Cf. Lane, Hebrews, Vol. 1: 86; Schröger, Friedrich, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger, Biblische Untersuchungen 4. Regensburg: Pustet, 1968, 35–197; Windisch, Hans, Der Hebräerbrief, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 14. 2 nd edition. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1931, 28.

188

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

emphasise the lack of belief of the people of Israel (see, for example, Num 14:11: “How long will they not believe in me?”; cf. Num 14:33: “...your children...shall suffer for your faithlessness...”). They are portrayed in this passage also as disobedient (Num 14:40–45) and evil (Num 14:27, 35). In this sense, then, he is interpreting the psalm with the grain of the biblical reading of the wilderness period, and taking account of its reference to a particular event in the history of Israel (see especially Heb 3:16–18). The fate of the unbelieving wilderness generation is, of course, used by the author as an example for his community, but he took for granted that the scriptural narrative is recording something which really happened in the past. This is another difference from the approach to the biblical texts common in the pesharim. As commentators frequently point out, the Qumran community interpreted the scriptures primarily as referring to them and their situation, and usually ignored their historical sense.102 Some of the questions which the author of Hebrews put to the psalm text are spelled out in Heb 3:16–18: who heard God’s word yet remained rebellious? With whom was God angry? To whom did God swear the oath? These verses demonstrate in a striking way how concerned he was to specify precisely the object of God’s words and actions as recorded in scripture, exactly as Samely discovered was true of the targumists. I have discussed above in relation to Hebrews chapter 1 how often the Old Testament passages cited may have been subject to previous exegetical speculation because of some perceived difficulty in them, and the consequent importance of looking for a reason within the text for the interpretation given. There is one such potential problem for interpreters of Ps 94 which may be relevant to the meaning it receives in Hebrews. The last verse implies that none of the wilderness generation would enter God’s rest, but the Numbers narrative indicates that in fact God did promise some of them entry into Canaan: variously Caleb (Num 14:24), Caleb and Joshua (Num 14:30) and the children of the people of Israel (Num 14:31). This may have been considered a contradiction within scripture which needed to be addressed, and could be partly responsible for the author’s particular concern to specify precisely the meaning of the term ‘rest’. This word can be seen as ambiguous and open to several possible interpretations, such as ceasing from work, the promised land (as often in the Pentateuch), or life in heaven. It is the introduction of the second citation in this section of Hebrews, that from Gen 2:2, which will enable the author to focus the interpretation of the 102 This difference is acknowledged by Kistemaker (The Psalm Citations, 136), despite his general advocacy of strong parallels between Hebrews and the pesharim. See also Leschert, Dale F., Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some Core Citations From the Psalms. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994, 189, 193.

5.4 Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews 3–4

189

term in the way he wants, as something other than entry into the land of Israel. By citing the Genesis text, and also by placing heavy stress on the opening word of the psalm, ‘today’, the author is able to read Ps 94 as both a word of warning, because his community could pass up the chance of entering into God’s rest just as the wilderness generation did, and at the same time a word of promise, because that rest is open to his audience in the present in a way it was not to the original recipients of the message of the psalm.103 It is to the use of this linked citation that we must now, therefore, turn. 5.4.4.2 Techniques Used to Exegete Gen 2:2 This citation is introduced rather vaguely: “For he has spoken somewhere of the seventh day in this way...”, Heb 4:4. A similar introductory formula is used in Heb 2:6, and there is in fact a general lack of precise reference to the source of scriptural citations throughout Hebrews. Synge took this as evidence that the author did not know whereabouts in the bible his texts were taken from, and that he had access only to a testimony book.104 There is, in my view, absolutely no basis for such a hypothesis. Quite apart from the detailed and sustained use of scripture in the letter and the contextual connections between so many of the citations to which I have drawn attention in this study, surely even someone who was not familiar with the entire scriptures would have known that this text is taken from the creation narrative, and, for that matter, that the text introduced in Heb 2:6 was a psalm. The author did apparently know that Ps 94:7–11 was from the Book of Psalms, even though he did not initially reference it as such, as is evident from his attribution of it to David (Heb 4:7). This way of introducing citations is, then, simply his preferred form of words, perhaps chosen because it directs attention to God who spoke all the words of scripture rather than to the human authors. Gen 2:2 can be connected with Ps 94:11 because in the Greek translation (but not the Hebrew original) both texts contain the same word for ‘rest’, the verb    in Genesis, and the related noun     in

the psalm. Originally separate scriptural passages are therefore being linked on the basis of a shared catchword, as we saw happening in Hebrews chapter 1. The references to God as creator in Ps 94:5, just before the section actually cited in Hebrews, may also have contributed to the author’s establishment of a connection between these two texts. It is very 103 Koester (Hebrews, 262–263, 275) makes a similar point about the interpretation of this psalm in Hebrews as both a warning and a promise, but without the discussion of the author’s exegetical techniques on which I have tried to focus; cf. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 215, 219, 234. 104 Synge, Hebrews and the Scriptures, 53–54.

190

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

probable that the extremely close attention he paid to every word of scripture contributed to his linking of these two passages. The fact that Ps 94:11 speaks of ‘my rest’ meant he had to search for another biblical text about God resting. It is perhaps also significant that God’s rest on the sabbath day came about after he had completed the works of creation (Heb 4:3). The psalm likewise speaks of God’s rest as something which occurs ‘after his works’ (Ps 94:9), thus forming another catchword link between the two scriptural passages, a connection which seems to be picked up in the author’s comment that “whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his works just as God rested from his.” (Heb. 4:10).105 This method presupposes a belief on the part of the interpreter in the overall coherence of scripture, so that in this instance texts from the Books of Genesis, Numbers and Psalms can be used to interpret one another. The frequency with which rabbinic interpreters made connections between apparently unrelated scriptural passages and the widespread employment in ancient Jewish exegesis of the technique of catchword-linking or gezera shawa is well known.106 Samely has even termed the forging of connections across the whole bible one of the basic forms of the midrashic unit, describing it as follows: “The biblical segment ‘X’ means ‘Y’ (= rabbinic statement) if seen in light of the biblical segment ‘W’.”107 This definition serves as a good explanation of the exegetical move being employed in Heb 3–4, where Ps 94:7–11 (first biblical segment) is shown to mean that the wilderness generation did not enter God’s rest, but that the letter’s audience will enter it provided they remain faithful (authorial statement), when read in the light of Gen 2:2 (second biblical segment), which can be interpreted to specify ‘rest’ as something other than possession of the land of Canaan. The truth of one scriptural passage is thus confirmed by its connection with a second, and the meaning of each text is coloured by its relationship with the other. It is assumed that scripture gives an accurate account of God’s emotions and behaviour, and that these are consistent, so that if faithlessness and disobedience angered God in the wilderness period and led him to enact punishment, they will do so again in the present (see Heb 4:1–2, 6). It is important to try to explain precisely how the author’s interpretation of these scriptural texts leads him to conclude that “…there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God.” (Heb 4:9). It seems to me that the first step in his hermeneutical operation may have been missed by many commentators, and I suggest that he begins by applying to Ps 94:11 a technique 105

For a similar understanding of these verses, see Attridge, A Commentary, 129. See in particular Samely, The Interpretation of Speech, 66, for a discussion of the “...increase in textual links between various parts of the MT ...” which is brought about in the targumim. 107 Samely, Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought, 67. 106

5.4 Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews 3–4

191

similar to the ‘Opposition resources’ defined by Samely, in which a biblical word is heavily stressed and taken to exclude its opposite.108 So the author reads the phrase: “They shall never enter my rest” as meaning that they will not enter it, but some other people will enter (see Heb 4:6). Those who did not enter God’s rest have already been specified as the disobedient Israelites of the wilderness generation – it is to them, and only to them, that God swore this oath (Heb 3:18). It is this exegetical move which turns the psalm text into a promise for the author’s community as well as a warning, as mentioned above (section 5.4.4.1), because it is read as implying that the chance for some to enter God’s rest remains (Heb 4:6), and this hope must be realised because scripture is completely true. Also significant in this interpretation is the author’s heavy stress on the word ‘today’ (Ps 94:7): he assumes that this implies that the text must be relevant not only in the past but to those who hear it today. The meaning of the term ‘rest’ has to be narrowed down in this interpretation, however; it cannot be understood to refer to the occupation of the land of Canaan, because that had already been achieved by the time the psalm was written, and its words are regarded by the author as still holding out the promise of rest to some. The ‘rest’ mentioned in Ps 94:11 is then linked by analogy to God’s ‘rest’ on the sabbath day. Analogy is an exegetical technique in widespread use in the midrashim and the Mishnah, and of the series of ‘Analogical resources’ defined by Samely, one seems particularly appropriate to describe the operation in use here: “Keying2: transfer of a feature linked to the co-text of a lexeme at one Scriptural location (location B) to the same lexeme’s occurrence in a different co-text at another Scriptural location (location A).”109 So the fact that the ‘sabbath’ is associated with the word ‘rest’ at Gen 2:2 enables the author to associate ‘sabbath’ likewise with the term ‘rest’ at Ps 94:11. ‘Rest’ is then explicitly called ‘sabbath rest’ (Heb 4:9) so that its new and more precise meaning as “...a heavenly reality, which God entered upon the completion of creation...”110 is made absolutely clear.

108

Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture, 278–302, 403–4. See also Samely, Alexander, “Stressing Scripture’s Words: Semantic Contrast as a Midrashic Technique in the Mishnah.” Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995): 196–229. 109 Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture, 414; cf. pp. 214–219. See also his claim that: “The use of a word or a phrase in a certain co-text is taken by the rabbinic exegete as authoritative evidence concerning the meaning of that expression.” (Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture, 66). 110 Attridge, A Commentary, 123. Attridge’s commentary includes an excursus on “The Image of Entry Into Rest” (pp. 126–128), which explores the development of ideas about a future heavenly rest in apocalyptic and other Jewish texts; cf. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 153–169; Isaacs, Sacred Space, 81–88; and Koester, Hebrews, 268.

192

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

The author’s exegesis depends also on his employment of an argument from chronology in Heb 4:8–9, where he explains his view that ‘rest’ must mean ‘sabbath rest’, not ‘entry into the land of Canaan’, on the basis that the psalm promising rest as something in the future was spoken long after the wilderness period, when the Israelites were settled in the land (Heb 4:8). This interpretative technique has received attention from commentators, as something similar occurs in Rom 4:10–11 (where Paul argues that Abraham was reckoned as righteous before he was circumcised; cf. Gal 3:17 on the law coming after the covenant), and it points to a difference between the New Testament and several other examples of early Jewish biblical exegesis, which on the whole display little interest in the historical background of scriptural passages.111 The rabbinic maxim: ‘There is no before or after in scripture’ is well known, and Goldberg has written of the rabbinic view of scripture that it: “..loses its context...The events are historical, not the writing; despite being produced in time, it is independent of any particular time...”.112 In general, early post-biblical Jewish exegesis does not make use of the same kind of temporal argument in interpreting scripture as occurs here, perhaps because the eschatological outlook of the New Testament writers encouraged them to see God’s revelation in a more linear way than other contemporary Jewish exegetes, as leading to its present fulfilment in Christ. However, it should also be noted that the sequence of events or phrases in scripture could be considered significant for their interpretation in Judaism. Samely gives the example of rabbinic interpreters asking whether the placing of the name of Moses first in the phrase ‘Moses and Aaron’ implies the superiority of Moses, for example, and why the decalogue was given after the wandering in the wilderness.113 This attention to biblical sequence appears to be at work also at times in Hebrews, for example in the exegesis of Ps 39:7–9, it is important for the author’s interpretation that Christ announces his coming to do God’s will only after the former sacrifices have been abolished (Heb 10:5–10; see also the use of Jer 38:31–34 in Hebrews chapters 8 and 10, where the old covenant is declared obsolete and forgiveness of sins comes about after God has given the new one).

111 This is the view expressed in, for example, Combrink, H.J. Bernard, “Some Thoughts on the Old Testament Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Neotestamentica 5 (1971): 22–36, 32. 112 Goldberg, Arnold, “The Rabbinic View of Scripture.” Pages 153–166 in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History. Edited by P.R. Davies and R.T. White. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990, 155. 113 Samely, Alexander, “Between Scripture and its Rewording”, 46–49.

5.4 Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews 3–4

193

5.4.5 Wider Context of the Citations The most significant aspect of the influence on Hebrews of the wider context of these Old Testament texts appears to be the further evidence they provide of the importance of the theme of creation in the letter. This emerged in the analysis of Hebrews chapter 1, where references to creation were found to be present in the background of several of the texts cited there. This theme recurs in chapter 2, where another psalm with links to the creation narrative is cited (Ps 8:5–7 at Heb 2:6–8), and creation also features as the first exemplar of faith in the catalogue in Hebrews chapter 11. It is, therefore, no surprise to find in chapter 4 a citation from the creation account in Genesis. A number of interesting points emerge from a close consideration of the wider context of Gen 2:2. This whole narrative emphasises the power of God’s formal speech, for example, as does Hebrews, and the plural pronouns used of God in Genesis (“Let us make man in our image…”, Gen 1:26) may well have been a factor in the claim of the author of the letter that Christ was involved in creation (Heb 1:2), as they could have facilitated a reading of the text as an account of a heavenly conversation between two divine persons. The citation in Hebrews chapter 1 in which angels are termed God’s ‘winds’ or ‘spirits’ (Ps 103:4 at Heb 1:7) may echo the mention of the presence of the spirit or wind of God in creation (Gen 1:2). Significantly, as noted above (section 5.4.4.1) there are also references to creation at the beginning of Ps 94 (see especially Ps 94:5), which would suggest that the author was able to interpret these two texts as being linked with one another contextually, as well as by the shared term ‘rest’. A number of other themes of the citation are reflected elsewhere in Hebrews. ‘Hearing God’s voice’ (Ps 94:7) and warning of the consequences of disobedience and lack of faith are important motifs throughout the letter as well as the psalm. The author’s interest in God’s swearing (Ps 94:11) has already been highlighted in the discussion of Hebrews chapter 1, and is particularly clear in Hebrews chapters 6–7. Elsewhere in Ps 94, verse 2 is a call to ‘come into God’s presence’, which links with the importance in Hebrews of the theme of how to gain access to God’s presence. The phrase “O come let us worship and bow down.” (Ps 94:6) echoes the citation from Deut 32:43 in Heb 1:6 (“Let all God’s angels worship him.”). An Old Testament passage containing the same phrase ‘my rest’ as Ps 94:11, Isa 66:1, also has similarities to Ps 109:1, a text so significant in Hebrews, with its reference to ‘heaven as the Lord’s throne and the earth as his footstool’, so

194

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

it may have been in the author’s mind.114 Mention should also be made of a possible connection between Ps 94, Hebrews chapters 3–4 and the Jeremiah text cited in Hebrews chapters 8 and 10. In the Masoretic Text, but not the Septuagint, this chapter of Jeremiah begins: “The people who survived the sword found grace in the wilderness; when Israel sought for rest, the Lord appeared to him from afar…” (Jer 31:2–3). Not only does this verse connect the wilderness period with the search for rest as in Ps 94, thereby forging another contextual link between the major Old Testament citations in Hebrews, but it also makes reference to a ‘sword’, a term which is picked up in the author’s conclusion to his exegesis of Ps 94 (Heb 4:12). That he saw a relationship between these texts is, of course, not certain; the connections may be considered too far-fetched, especially as there is also reference to the people falling ‘by the sword’ in the passage from Numbers underlying the psalm narrative (Num 14:4, 43), and there is no clear evidence of his knowledge of the scriptures in Hebrew, but the possibility seems interesting enough to note.

5.5 Hermeneutical Methods and Axioms in Hebrews Chapters 3–4 5.5.1 Summary of Exegetical Methods in Hebrews Chapters 3–4 The main exegetical techniques which have been revealed by this analysis of Hebrews chapters 3–4 will now be summarised. These can then be compared to the hermeneutical methods found to be present in chapter 1 so that some conclusions may be drawn about the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews more generally. (i) The author’s citations of scriptural texts are generally faithful to his source. There are more variations between the form in Hebrews and the standard Septuagint text in the case of the longer citation from Ps 94:7–11 than Gen 2:2, but most of these differences can be explained as genuine variant readings. (ii) The author appears to have been aware of the wider context of his scriptural citations. Often context links citations with one another, or is reflected in the letter’s overall argument. This can be seen in general terms, for example in the number of citations in Hebrews taken from Old Testament passages containing creation imagery and language, but also in 114 Ellingworth draws attention to this text and its connections with the interpretation of Ps 94 in Heb 3, through the common occurrence of the word ‘house’ as well as ‘rest’, but not to the contact with Ps 109; see Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 220.

5.5 Hermeneutical Methods and Axioms in Hebrews 3–4

195

terms of specific detail: Ps 94:7–11 is linked with Gen 2:2 here not just on the basis of a single shared catchword ‘rest’, but because both texts speak of God’s rest after his works. (iii) The wider context of a term in one scriptural passage can be carried over when that term is associated with the same word occurring in a different text, so the ‘rest’ of Ps 94:11 becomes ‘sabbath rest’ in Heb 4:9 because of the link with Gen 2:2, for example. This hermeneutical operation has been defined by Samely as present in the Mishnah and is called by him Keying2. (iv) Connections are made in Hebrews chapters 3–4 between texts from different parts of the bible. Scripture is, therefore, as in Hebrews chapter 1, interpreted both atomistically, with a stress on isolated citations or certain terms within them, but also as a connected whole. (v) Heb 3:7–11 may provide a further example (cf. Heb 2:13; 10:30–31; cf. also the possible addition by the author of   in the middle of his citation from Ps 117:6 at Heb 13:6) of neighbouring biblical verses being cited and briefly connected by a word like ‘again’ or ‘therefore’. Even if my explanation for the unusual placing of ‘forty years’ at Heb 3:9–10 is not accepted, these chapters certainly demonstrate clearly the way in which the author exegetes his scriptural citations in segments, focusing first on Ps 94:7–9 and then Ps 94:10–11. I suggest that this method of approaching scripture as if it consisted of numerous excerptable segments may explain the feature of dividing a text into two separate citations where it definitely does occur in Hebrews. (vi) The author has a preference for citations containing first person direct speech, probably because these can be removed from their original linguistic co-text and applied in a new setting with particular ease. (vii) He also frequently chooses examples of God’s swearing or solemn speech. (viii) The isolating of short sections of scripture from their original cotext, the heavy stressing of certain words or phrases within them, and the provision of new surrounding text are very important steps in the author’s exegetical method. Thus in Hebrews chapters 3–4, for example, the idea of ‘faithlessness’ can be emphasised in his interpretation of Ps 94:7–11, the term ‘servant’ can receive a new connotation, and a more precise meaning can be given to the word ‘rest’. (ix) This reinterpretation of scriptural passages can take place with very little additional interpretative comment from the author because he includes so much expressive use of scripture, restating scriptural words as if they were his own, but subtly constraining their meaning (see especially Heb 3:12–13).

196

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

(x) The author’s introductions and conclusions to sections of the letter containing extensive citation of the Old Testament are an important part of this provision of new co-text, and they feature expressive use of scripture particularly extensively. Thus, for instance, Heb 3:1–6 helps prepare for a reading of Ps 94:7–11 as a warning against ‘faithlessness’ by allusion to Num 12:7. (xi) Some of the exegetical questions with which the author approaches his Old Testament texts are spelled out in Heb 3:16–18. These include the precise specification of the addressees and subjects of scriptural words and actions. It is important to recognise that these are genuine questions which a biblical text might raise for an interpreter, so that it is not sufficient to picture the author of Hebrews coming to the scriptures only in order to read christological ideas into it, as some commentators seem to imply. (xii) The author of Hebrews has used a technique similar to the ‘Opposition resources’ defined by Samely; ‘servant’ is taken to mean ‘not a son’, for example, and ‘they will not enter’ as specifically implying that someone else will enter. (xiii) The author’s scriptural citations are used to argue a point and move forward his theological discussion. They are not simply juxtaposed on the basis of common words. (xiv) Some important differences from the kind of interpretation characteristic of the Qumran pesharim have been noted, despite the claims of several commentators that Hebrews 3 is an example of pesher-exegesis. The most striking difference is the significance attached in Hebrews to the historical sequence and events of scripture, as well as its contemporary relevance. (xv) The author employs a chronological argument in Hebrews (Heb 3:8), an exegetical technique which is found on occasion also in Paul’s letters, but which is not common in other forms of early post-biblical Jewish exegesis such as midrash or pesher. 5.5.2 Summary of Underlying Scriptural Axioms in Hebrews Chapters 3–4 As with the analysis of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews chapter 1, it is extremely important to try to uncover what the hermeneutical techniques employed in chapters 3–4 reveal about the author’s underlying exegetical axioms and understanding of scripture. These chapters, then, demonstrate first of all that he regarded scripture as absolutely true. There must, for instance, “remain a sabbath rest for the people of God” (Heb 4:9), because scripture has promised this, according to his interpretation of Ps 94:7–11. Scripture is true, moreover, in its individual words, as well as as a whole, so, for example, the term ‘servant’ is read as a true and significant designation of Moses, and a small segment of scripture at a time can

5.5 Hermeneutical Methods and Axioms in Hebrews 3–4

197

be probed to draw out its precise meaning. Every word is regarded as important, because it is a word revealed by God, and so every detail of the scriptural text, such as who spoke a particular sentence and who heard it, assumes great significance. As we have seen, Samely argues that this approach underpins rabbinic biblical exegesis also, and sums it up as a belief that scripture’s wording is “…emphatically relevant”.115 For the author of Hebrews, the truth of scripture is guaranteed by the fact that it is God’s speech. This is demonstrated not just by his attribution of the words of scripture to the Holy Spirit even when he knows the supposed human author of a passage, but is evident also in the frequent choice of citations containing first person direct speech, which puts God’s words very immediately before his audience. Since the author assumes that this divine speech is addressed directly to his community today, it takes on serious contemporary relevance. It is because of the absolute truth and divine authority of scripture that its words cannot be changed. This principle seems to me to be evident not only in the faithfulness with which the author reproduces his citations, but also in the fact that he remains so close to the exact wording of scripture even where he uses it expressively and weaves in his own interpretative comments. The term ‘today’ from the opening of the citation of Ps 94:7–11 is retained in the author’s interpretation, for example, even though it is exegeted to mean ‘every day’ (Heb 3:13), and the word ‘heart’ from the psalm is likewise repeated, but prefaced by the adjectives ‘unbelieving’ and ‘evil’ (Heb 3:12). As has already been noted, Samely has demonstrated how the targumists similarly remained very faithful to the wording of scripture even when offering a new interpretation of it. Scripture is accepted as totally coherent by the author of Hebrews, as well as completely true. Thus there is in the letter an emphasis on the connectedness of the bible, with many links of vocabulary and theme being identified across its various parts. The vague referencing of citations characteristic of Hebrews is probably a consequence of this axiom, because the precise location from which a text is taken is unimportant, it is the fact that it is written in scripture which matters. As there is assumed to be no possibility of contradiction in the bible, whatever is said about anything in one place can apply when that thing is mentioned anywhere else, so God’s rest is ‘sabbath rest’ in Ps 94:11 as well as Gen 2:2, for instance. All this implies a focus on scripture as a written text, on its actual words and letters and their placing, as was the case in Hebrews chapter 1, and as Goldberg concluded was the core of the rabbinic view of scripture. These axioms all have much in common with those which underlie other forms of early postbiblical Jewish exegesis. There may, however, be a difference in the 115

Samely, The Interpretation of Speech, 170.

198

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

greater account taken by this author of the chronology and historical application of the scriptures. It is possible that this development resulted from the heightened eschatological sense of the first followers of Jesus, and their belief that the scriptural narrative was moving in a somewhat linear fashion towards the new and final revelation in Christ.

5.6 Conclusions: The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews In drawing this section of the study to a close, I shall reflect briefly on some of the most important findings of this analysis of the exegetical techniques and scriptural axioms of the author of Hebrews, review the question of the extent to which his interpretation of the Old Testament in chapters 3–4 parallels that in chapter 1, and finally consider how far the results of this investigation might be applicable to the use of the bible within the letter as a whole. I suggest, firstly, that this investigation has demonstrated the potential benefits of applying to a New Testament text rich in Old Testament citations such as Hebrews the kind of precise descriptive-analysis pioneered by the Goldbergian School in their work on midrash. This method produces a much fuller understanding than other approaches of the individual exegetical operations underlying the author’s interpretation of his citations, such as the excerpting of a segment of scripture, the assigning of that segment to a particular topic or theme, and the selection of words or phrases from within it for heavy stress. Some of the exegetical techniques employed in Hebrews have been explained here with a precision lacking in previous studies, such as the author’s concern to identify the speaker and addressees of biblical texts, and the subtle surrounding of a scriptural phrase with new co-text to constrain its meaning in a certain direction. One of the most important advantages of this approach is that it can offer to scholars a new vocabulary for accounting for what is present in the text. Commentators on Hebrews may, for example, have been aware of some of the author’s key exegetical moves, but found themselves unable to explain them precisely. So Attridge does speak of the author ‘recontextualising’ his citations or reducing the ambiguity of a pronoun like %' or of a term like ‘rest’ or ‘house’, but he is not able to draw on linguistics in the way Samely does to describe the hermeneutical operations employed in Hebrews with precise terms like ‘Opposition resources’ or ‘heavy stress’. This analysis has also highlighted that the approach taken to the Old Testament texts by the author of Hebrews is primarily exegetical; his interpretation of his citations is not motivated simply by his theological or christological presuppositions. I should not wish to press this distinction be-

5.6 5.6 Conclusions Conclusions

199

tween exegetical and theological readings of scripture too far, as the solutions offered by any interpreter to a particular exegetical question are likely to be influenced by his or her own theological perspective, but I do believe it is a valuable counterbalance to some readings of Hebrews to recognise that its scriptural interpretation arises from the author asking genuine exegetical questions of his texts. I have also sought to shed light on some of the long-standing debates in Hebrews scholarship, concluding, for instance, that the author was generally faithful to his scriptural source text, and that the wider context of the Old Testament citations is significant for their selection and use. The attempt to draw out the author’s underlying view of scripture and exegetical principles is a particularly important aspect of this study. Whilst there is obviously scope to extend and deepen these initial conclusions, and to compare them in greater detail with the scriptural axioms underpinning other examples of early Jewish exegesis, this part of my analysis is still more extensive than anything provided in existing treatments of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews. In particular, the author’s apparent belief in the truth and significance of every word in scripture, so that any term can receive heavy stress, and his ability to treat scripture both atomistically, or as a series of excerptable segments, and at the same time as a connected and coherent whole seem to me to be significant principles of his approach. My appreciation of the fact that the author approached the scriptures fundamentally as a written text, despite the frequency of verbs of saying in his introductory formulae, may prove to be another key insight into the biblical interpretation of the New Testament as a whole. Some differences have emerged through this investigation between the attitude to scripture evident in Hebrews and that found in other forms of early postbiblical Jewish exegesis which may also merit further exploration. The author’s use of a chronological argument has been discussed here, for example, and his careful arrangement of citations to build up an argument is also a potentially significant difference from other texts. The length of the Old Testament citations used in the letter perhaps also deserves further consideration in this regard. They are generally longer than in the midrashim, for instance, even though a similar process of dividing the texts into smaller segments for interpretative purposes is seen in Hebrews too. Finally, great similarities have emerged in terms of both exegetical techniques and underlying axioms between the catena of citations in Hebrews chapter 1 and the exposition of a long citation in the light of another scriptural text in chapters 3–4, despite the surface differences in form. A detailed examination of how far these similar interpretative techniques are present throughout the letter lies beyond the scope of this study, but my instinct is that the main findings would have been replicated whichever

200

Chapter 5. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews

sections of Hebrews had been chosen as the focus of this analysis. The surrounding of key biblical terms with new co-text is a feature of the exegesis throughout the letter, for example, as exemplified by the fact that the ‘priest’ of Ps 109:4 is consistently rendered ‘high priest’ when this text is alluded to in Hebrews. The number of citations involving first person direct speech is also noticeable throughout; the interest in God’s solemn speech is reflected in the wider context of the citations from Isa 8 in Heb 2:12–13, in which God’s word is attested by reliable witnesses; and introductions rich in scriptural allusions pave the way for central Old Testament citations in Heb 8:1–7 and in chapter 10, just as they do in Heb 1:1–4 and 3:1–6. The author seems to be freer throughout the letter with his allusions to scriptural texts than when formally citing them, although his faithfulness to his source would have to be tested in every case to firmly establish this point. The interesting technique of citing two adjacent scriptural verses separately occurs more than once (Isa 8:17, 18 in Heb 2:12, 13; and Deut 32:35, 36 in Heb 10:30, 31). This is an example of a hermeneutical resource not defined by Samely in his investigation of the Mishnah, which therefore points to the possibility that further detailed investigation of the use of the Old Testament might uncover more differences as well as similarities in exegetical methods and scriptural axioms between Hebrews and other forms of early post-biblical Jewish scriptural interpretation.

Chapter 6

Conclusions 6.1 Overview of the Study’s Conclusions This study began by claiming that the use of the Old Testament in the Letter to the Hebrews warranted further investigation, despite a great wealth of existing research into this subject. In this concluding chapter, then, it is time to reflect briefly on what has been achieved through the particular approach to the text taken here, and to ask whether it has indeed yielded useful results which can promote a deeper understanding of the scriptural exegesis employed in Hebrews, and perhaps also in other Jewish and Christian texts from the early post-biblical period. My first set of conclusions relates to the weaknesses uncovered by an evaluation of twenty seven major commentaries and substantial studies of Hebrews published in English, German and French over the past one hundred and fifty years of critical scholarship. This chronological survey (see above, chapter two) demonstrated the influence of the political and scholarly movements which were in the ascendancy in different periods of history, and identified three areas in particular where much of the existing literature would seem to be in need of further development: the lack of awareness of the most recent developments in the field of Septuagintal Studies, resulting in an often less than sophisticated account of the relationship of the author of Hebrews to his scriptural source; a surprising failure on the part of many commentators to provide detailed explication of the exegetical techniques at work in Hebrews; and a widespread absence of concern with the author’s underlying presuppositions about the nature of scripture and of the task of biblical exegesis. The second premise from which this investigation began was that a full understanding of the scriptural interpretation of the author of Hebrews was most likely to be reached by situating it against the wider background of Jewish bible exegesis in the late Second Temple period. There has been a growing recognition in New Testament study during the last half century of the importance of taking seriously the Jewish context of early Christianity, and both renewed impetus and a vast source of new information has been provided for this enterprise by the Qumran discoveries. Yet my close reading of current studies of the use of the Old Testament in the New has

202

Chapter 6. Conclusions

led me to concur with those working in the field of Jewish Studies, for example, Philip Alexander,1 who claim that the Jewish nature of early Christianity is often insufficiently acknowledged by New Testament commentators, who are all too often unaware of significant developments in Jewish Studies which could be relevant to their work. This has led, as demonstrated in chapter two, to the use of vague phrases such as ‘standard rabbinic techniques’ as descriptions of the exegetical methods of the author of Hebrews, or to the indiscriminate and inaccurate application of terms like ‘midrash’ or ‘pesher’ to sections of the letter. There is, then, clearly scope for research into the biblical exegesis of Hebrews and other New Testament writings which is more thoroughly informed by a knowledge of the primary sources of early and rabbinic Judaism, and which takes appropriate account of recent advances in Jewish Studies. The particular development in the field of Jewish Studies which is foregrounded here is the form-analytical approach of the Goldbergian School. Not one of the books and articles on Hebrews which I have encountered shows any knowledge at all of the work of Arnold Goldberg, but I have sought to demonstrate the real potential for the application to the New Testament of his methods of precise descriptive-analysis, especially as these have been developed by Alexander Samely. Chapter three of this study therefore outlines in some detail the research undertaken by Goldberg and Samely into the literary forms and hermeneutical operations present in the midrashim, targumim and other examples of rabbinic literature, highlighting their use of terminology drawn from linguistics,2 and their focus on the underlying scriptural axioms of the early Jewish interpreters. Several of the exegetical techniques identified by Samely in his analyses of the Pentateuchal targumim and the Mishnah were found to be particularly relevant to an explanation of the interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews, such as the way in which new meaning is provided for scriptural texts or phrases by surrounding them with new co-text, whilst still citing them faithfully. One of the most interesting conclusions reached by Goldberg is that the rabbis regarded scripture as a series of graphic signs,3 and further

1 See e.g. Alexander, Philip S., “Midrash and the Gospels.” Pages 1–50 in Synoptic Studies. Edited by C.M. Tuckett. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. 2 See especially Goldberg, Arnold, “Der verschriftete Sprechakt als rabbinische Literatur.” Pages 1–21 in Rabbinische Texte als Gegenstand der Auslegung. Gesammelte Schriften II. Edited by M. Schlüter and P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999; see also Samely, Alexander, “Scripture’s Implicature: The Midrashic Assumptions of Relevance and Consistency.” Journal of Semitic Studies 36 (1992): 167–205. 3 A view explained most fully in Goldberg, Arnold, “The Rabbinic View of Scripture.” Pages 153–166 in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Lit-

6.1 Overview of the Study’s Conclusions

203

exploration of the extent to which such a view is reflected also in the writings of the New Testament is surely long overdue. After demonstrating the potential benefits for an investigation into Hebrews of recent work in the field of Jewish Studies, chapter four likewise highlighted some of the important developments in Septuagintal Studies relevant for New Testament scholarship. This is another area in which significant advances have been made in recent years, perhaps the most important of which is the growing emphasis on the multiplicity of forms in which the bible circulated in both Hebrew and Greek for several centuries. Although some New Testament commentators do acknowledge the extent of textual variety in the first century CE, most, with a few notable exceptions like McCullough, McLay and Menken, do not take serious account of the significance of this fact. Other key current trends in Septuagintal research likely to impact on study of Hebrews were identified in this chapter, such as changing attitudes towards the value of the Lucianic recension and the growing doubts, expressed most clearly by Albert Pietersma, about the accuracy of the Göttingen edition of the Psalms as a reliable witness to the Old Greek. This new thinking was used to inform a detailed examination of the source of individual scriptural citations in Hebrews chapters 1 and 3–4. This yielded useful and precise information about the underlying text forms, and enabled conclusions to be drawn about the extent to which the author was making deliberate theologically motivated alterations to his biblical sources. So, for example, I concluded in the case of Heb 1:6 that the author was probably making use of an existing Greek version of Deut 32:43, but that the addition of the particle   at Heb 3:10 is probably due to his editorial hand. In other instances I was able to highlight the existence of manuscript evidence supporting a reading given in Hebrews against the major Septuagint codices which does not appear to have been noted by other commentators, for example the occurrence of    { for the more usual    in the Bodmer Papyrus text of Ps 94:9 at Heb 3:9.4 This analysis indicates that the author was generally very faithful to his Septuagintal source, a judgement which clearly has implications not only for an understanding of his attitude to scripture, but also for the way in which we approach differences between the form of an Old Testament citation in the New Testament and known versions of the biblical text. To paraphrase McLay, just because we do not now have available a manuscript attesting to the form of a scriptural text given by a New Testament erature and History. Edited by P.R. Davies and R.T. White. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. 4 Following Hiebert, Robert J.V., The ‘Syro-Hexaplaric’ Psalter. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

204

Chapter 6. Conclusions

author does not automatically mean that there was no such reading and that he must therefore have altered his source.5 The burden of proof should now, therefore, be placed on those who would argue for an intentional authorial change rather than the use of a variant reading. In chapter five of this study, a descriptive-analytical approach after the manner of the Goldbergian School was applied to each of the nine Old Testament citations in the same three chapters of Hebrews. The conclusions reached about the author’s exegetical techniques and underlying scriptural axioms are set out in full there, so just a few of those which I consider to be potentially the most significant will be highlighted here. Firstly, the analysis demonstrated how a particular word from an Old Testament text could be chosen by the author to receive heavy stress, and its meaning be subtly altered by the provision of new co-text, often by means of repeated allusions to the scriptural text as well as direct citation of it. Secondly, the importance to the author of solemn or formal speech within biblical texts emerged. Finally, the exegetical (as opposed to purely christological) motivation of the author’s scriptural interpretation became clear. This process of describing the author’s individual exegetical moves brought to the surface some of his hermeneutical methods which have not previously been identified, and reference to the work of Alexander Samely provided access to a new vocabulary for explaining more adequately other techniques which have been noted before but never fully explained, such as the author’s tendency to ‘segment’ or divide an Old Testament citation into two, and his frequent choice of texts containing first person direct speech. This investigation also sought consciously to uncover and comment on the scriptural axioms underlying the way in which the author of Hebrews deals with the citations. It was suggested, for example, that the exegetical technique of isolating a biblical term in order to subject it to heavy stress indicates that he regarded scripture as being true and significant not simply as a whole, but also in its individual words. His interpretation also tends to emphasise the coherence or inter-connectedness of scripture, and its ongoing relevance. The fact that an application to the letter of the approach of the Goldbergian School yielded such interesting results, together with the clear similarities identified between the hermeneutical techniques and axioms of Hebrews, targum and midrash, validate the starting point of this study that Hebrews should be taken seriously as an example of early post-biblical Jewish bible exegesis.

5 McLay, R. Timothy, “Biblical Texts and the Scriptures for the New Testament Church.” Pages 38–58 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Edited by S.E. Porter. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006, 52.

6.2 Suggestions for Developing These Findings

205

6.2 Suggestions for Further Developing These Findings If this study has been successful in arguing the case for seeing the Letter to the Hebrews as exemplifying early Jewish bible interpretation, this should have a real impact on both the field of Jewish Studies and the study of the New Testament and early Christianity. It can serve as yet one more piece of evidence to advance the cause of gaining recognition for the early Christian movement as something essentially Jewish, a position which demands a corresponding change in attitude to the diversity of theological belief and religious practice acceptable within Second Temple Judaism, and to the extent and lengthy duration of continued interaction between Jews who followed Jesus as messiah and those who did not. There is clearly potential to apply both the general argument of this study and the specific methods used here to analyse the text of Hebrews to other New Testament and early Christian writings. It would, for example, be interesting and potentially fruitful to use a descriptive-analytical approach and some of the insights of Samely to investigate the interpretation of Old Testament citations in other New Testament books, or in the writings of the early church fathers, a corpus of literature which stands greatly in need of a detailed analysis of the sources of the scriptural citations with which it abounds, and of the exegetical techniques and axioms employed to interpret them. Such studies would hopefully provide the data and the common vocabulary to facilitate a much deeper comparison of the exegesis of the Old Testament in the New Testament and early Christian sources with early Jewish biblical interpretation. A number of the specific interpretative techniques identified in this study could also usefully be the subject of further research, particularly the use of the verb ‘testify’ and the presentation of scripture as solemn witness to God’s actions in Hebrews and elsewhere in the New Testament and patristic sources. Other aspects of Samely’s work could be further developed in relation to the New Testament, particularly his explanation of Old Testament allusions as ‘expressive use of scripture’. Hebrews chapters 1 and 3–4 were selected for this analysis, as I explained in my introduction, because of the surface differences in approach to the Old Testament between the catena of scriptural citations and the sustained exegesis of one long passage. Several shared exegetical features and scriptural axioms emerged however, as well as differences, and this question of the relationship between genre and hermeneutical methods and axioms is a further aspect of this study which I suggest merits deeper exploration, and which would also sit well with the current interest in genre and literary features evident amongst scholars of both the New Testament and early Judaism. Above all, this study has sought to demonstrate the enormous benefits to be gained

206

Chapter 6. Conclusions

from treating ancient Jewish texts, and current scholarly research into them, as more than merely general background for commenting on the New Testament, so that future studies of biblical exegesis in Judaism might wish to include a section on the use of scripture in Hebrews, and future studies of Hebrews might follow the lead of this one and approach it as a case-study in early Jewish biblical interpretation.

Bibliography Aejmelaeus, Anneli, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993. Aejmelaeus, Anneli and Udo Quast, eds. Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland and Bruce M. Metzger et. al., eds. The Greek New Testament. 4th edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 1983. Albl, Martin C., “And Scripture Cannot be Broken”: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 96. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Alexander, Philip S., “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch.” Pages 223–325 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Vol. 1. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1983. –, “Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament.” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1983): 237–246. –, “The Rabbinic Hermeneutical Rules and the Problem of the Definition of Midrash.” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 8 (1984): 97–125. –, “Midrash and the Gospels.” Pages 1–50 in Synoptic Studies. Edited by C.M. Tuckett. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. –, “Retelling the Old Testament.” Pages 99–118 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. –, “Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Rabbinic Midrash and Hermeneutics in the GraecoRoman World.” Pages 101–124 in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History. Edited by P.R. Davies and R.T. White. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. –, “Midrash.” Pages 452–459 in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by R.J. Coggins and J.C. Houlden. London: SCM Press, 1990. –, “‘The Parting of the Ways’ From the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism.” Pages 1–25 in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135. Edited by J.D.G. Dunn. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. –, “Targum, Targumim.” Pages 320–321 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. 6. Edited by D.N. Freedman et. al. New York: Doubleday, 1992. –, “The Bible in Qumran and Early Judaism.” Pages 35–62 in Text in Context. Edited by A.D.H. Mayes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. –, “Why No Textual Criticism in Rabbinic Midrash? Reflections on the Textual Culture of the Rabbis.” Pages 175–190 in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible. Edited by G.J. Brooke. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

208

Bibliography

Archer, Gleason L. and Gregory C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983. Attridge, Harold W., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. Barrett, Charles K., “The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New.” Pages 377– 411 in The Cambridge History of the Bible Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Rome. Edited by P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Barth, Markus, “The Old Testament in Hebrews: An Essay in Biblical Hermeneutics.” Pages 53–78 in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Otto A. Piper. Edited by W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder. London: SCM Press, 1962. Barthélemy, Dominique, Les Devanciers d’Aquila. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Basser, Herbert W., “A Review Article on D. Boyarin’s Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990).” Jewish Quarterly Review 81 (1991): 427–433. Becker, Adam H. and Annette Y. Reed, eds. The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Behr, John, On The Apostolic Preaching: Translation and Introduction. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997. Black, Matthew, “The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” New Testament Studies 18 (1971): 1–14. –, “The Theological Appropriation of the Old Testament by the New Testament.” Scottish Journal of Theology 39 (1986): 1–17. Bloch, Renée, “Midrash.” Columns 1263–1281 in Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible Vol. 5. Edited by H. Cazelles and A. Feuillet. Paris: Le Touzey, 1950. –, “A Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 51–75 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice. Edited by W.S. Green. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1978. Bowker, John, The Targumim and Rabbinic Literature. An Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Boyarin, Daniel, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990. –, Dying for God. Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1999. –, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Boyd-Taylor, Cameron, Peter C. Austin and Andrey Feuerverger, “The Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation Within a Probabilistic Framework: A Study of Alfred Rahlfs’s Core Manuscript Groupings for the Greek Psalter.” Pages 98–124 in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma. Edited by R.J.V. Hiebert, C.E. Cox and P.J. Gentry. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 332. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Braun, Herbert, An die Hebräer, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. Brewer, David I., Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70CE. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Brock, Sebastian P., Charles T. Fritsch and Sidney Jellicoe, eds. A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint. Leiden: Brill, 1973. –, “Lucian redivivus: Some Reflections on Barthélemy’s Les Devanciers d’Aquila.” Studia Evangelica 5 (1968): 176–181.

Bibliography

209

–, The Recensions of the Septuagint Version of 1 Samuel. Turin: Zamorani, 1966. Brooke, George J., Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Brooke, George J. and Barnabas Lindars, Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. –, “Testimonia.” Pages 391–392 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. 6. Edited by D.N. Freedman et. al. New York: Doubleday, 1992. –, “Reading the Plain Meaning of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 67–90 in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible. Edited by G.J. Brooke. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Reprinted edition. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996. Brown, Gillian and George Yule, Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Bruce, Frederick F., Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1959. –, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, New London Commentary on the New Testament. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1964. Burkitt, Francis C., The Gospel History and Its Transmission. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906. Burns, Lanier, “Hermeneutical Issues and Principles in Hebrews as Exemplified in the Second Chapter.” Journal of the Evangelical Theology Society 39 (1996): 587–607. Cadwallader, Alan H., “The Correction of the Text of Hebrews Towards the LXX.” Novum Testamentum 34 (1992): 257–292. Caird, George B., “The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Canadian Journal of Theology 5 (1959): 44–51. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. Charlesworth, James H., Hermann Lichtenberger and Gerbern S. Oegema, eds. QumranMessianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Chester, Andrew, “Citing the Old Testament.” Pages 141–169 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Chilton, Bruce D., “Commenting on the Old Testament (with Particular Reference to the Pesharim, Philo, and the Mekilta).” Pages 122–140 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Clements, Ronald E., “The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 28 (1985): 36–45. Cockerill, Gareth L., “Hebrews 1:6: Source and Significance.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 9 (1999): 51–64. Cohn-Sherbok, Dan, “Paul and Rabbinic Exegesis.” Scottish Journal of Theology 35 (1982): 117–132. Collins, Nina L., “Who Wanted a Translation of the Pentateuch in Greek?” Pages 20–57 in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible. Edited by G.J. Brooke. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Combrink, H.J. Bernard, “Some Thoughts on the Old Testament Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Neotestamentica 5 (1971): 22–36.

210

Bibliography

Cross, Frank L. and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Cruse, Alan, Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. D’Angelo, Mary Rose, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 42. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979. Delitzsch, Franz, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868. DeSilva, David A., Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews”. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2000. Dines, Jennifer M., The Septuagint. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Docherty, Susan E., “The Text Form of the OT Citations in Hebrews Chapter 1 and the Implications for the Study of the Septuagint.” New Testament Studies, forthcoming, 2009. Dodd, Charles H., According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952. Doeve, Jan W., Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Assen: van Gorcum, 1954. Dunn, James D.G., The Partings of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM Press, 1991. Dunnill, John, Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Eisenbaum, Pamela M., The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 156. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Elliger, Karl and Wilhelm Rudolph, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 4th edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1977. Ellingworth, Paul, The Old Testament in Hebrews: Exegesis, Method and Hermeneutics. University of Aberdeen, unpublished PhD thesis, 1977. –, The Epistle to the Hebrews. A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans/Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1993. Ellis, E. Earle, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957. –, The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Fernández Marcos, Natalio, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Fishbane, Michael, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. –, The Garments of Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989. –, The Exegetical Imagination: On Jewish Thought and Theology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998. Fitzmyer, Joseph A., “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament.” New Testament Studies 7 (1960–61): 297–333. –, “Further Light on Melchizedek From Qumran Cave 11.” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967): 25–41. Flint, Peter W., The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Bibliography

211

–, “Variant Readings of the Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls Against the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint Psalter.” Pages 337–365 in Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Edited by A. Aejmelaeus and U. Quast. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Fraade, Steven D., “Interpreting Midrash I: Midrash and the History of Judaism. A Review Article on Jacob Neusner’s Judaism and Scripture: The Evidence of Leviticus Rabbah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986).” Prooftexts 7 (1987): 179– 194. France, Richard T., “The Writer of Hebrews as a Biblical Expositor.” Tyndale Bulletin 47 (1996): 245–276. Fränkel, Jonah, Darkhe ha-Aggadah veha-Midrash. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Yad le-Talmud Press, 1991. Frawley, William, Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992. Freedman, H. and Maurice Simon, eds. Midrash Genesis Rabbah. 2 vols. 3rd edition. London and New York: Soncino Press, 1983. García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill/Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997–1998. Gelardini, Gabriella, ed. Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Gerhardsson, Birger, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinical Judaism and Early Christianity, Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 22. Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1961. Gheorgita, Radu, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews: An Investigation of its Influence with Special Consideration to the Use of Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 160. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Glasson, Thomas F., “‘Plurality of Divine Persons’ and the Quotations in Heb 1:6ff.” New Testament Studies 12 (1966): 270–273. Goldberg, Arnold, “Form-Analysis of Midrashic Literature as a Method of Description.” Journal of Jewish Studies 36 (1986): 159–174. –, “The Rabbinic View of Scripture.” Pages 153–166 in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History. Edited by P.R. Davies and R.T. White. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. –, Rabbinische Texte als Gegenstand der Auslegung. Gesammelte Schriften II. Edited by M. Schlüter and P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Goppelt, Leonhard, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1982. Gordon, Robert P., Hebrews. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Grässer, Erich, An die Hebräer, Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 17. 3 vols. Zürich: Benzinger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990–1997. Grech, Prosper, “The ‘Testimonia’ and Modern Hermeneutics.” New Testament Studies 19 (1972–1973): 318–324. Greenspoon, Leonard J., “The Use and Abuse of the Term ‘LXX’ and Related Terminology in Recent Scholarship.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 20 (1987): 21–29. Grice, H. Paul, Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1989. Guthrie, George H., The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 73. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

212

Bibliography

–, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research.” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2003): 271–294. Hammer, Reuven, “A Review of J. Neusner’s Sifré to Deuteronomy (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987).” Jewish Quarterly Review 81 (1990): 170–174. Handelman, Susan A., The Slayers of Moses: The Emergence of Rabbinic Interpretation in Modern Literary Theory. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982. Hanson, Anthony T., “Christ in the Old Testament According to Hebrews.” Studia Evangelica 2 (1964): 393–407. –, “Hebrews.” Pages 292–302 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Harris, J. Rendel and Vacher Burch, Testimonies. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916 and 1920. Hatch, Edwin, Essays in Biblical Greek. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889. Hay, David M., Glory at the Right Hand: Ps 110 in Early Christianity, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 18. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973. Hays, Richard B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Hengel, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. London: SCM Press, 1974. Hengel, Martin, The ‘Hellenization’ of Judaism in the First Century After Christ. London: SCM Press, 1989. Hengel, Martin, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of its Canon. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002. Héring, Jean, The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Epworth Press, 1970. Heinemann, Isaac, Darkhe ha-Aggadah. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1949. Hiebert, Robert J.V., The ‘Syro-Hexaplaric’ Psalter. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Hofmann, Johann C.K. von, Der Schriftbeweis: Ein theologischer Versuch. Nördlingen: C.H. Beck, 1852–1855. Horbury, William, Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. –, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM Press, 1998. –, Messianism Among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies. London: Continuum, 2003. Horgan, Maura P., Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1979. Hotchkiss, Robert V., A Pseudo-Epiphanius Testimony Book. Missoula, Montana: Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars Press, 1974. Howard, George, “Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations.” Novum Testamentum 10 (1968): 208–216. Hughes, Graham, Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New Testament Example of Biblical Interpretation, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Hughes, Philip E., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1977. Hume, Charles R., Reading Through Hebrews. London: SCM Press, 1997. Isaacs, Marie E., Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 73. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Jellicoe, Sidney, The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.

Bibliography

213

–, ed. Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions and Interpretations. New York: KTAV, 1964. Jeremias, Joachim, “Paulus als Hillelit.” Pages 89–94 in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black. Edited by E.E. Ellis and M. Wilcox. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969. Jewett, Robert, Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1981. Jobes, Karen H. and Moises Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2000. Johnson, Luke T., Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2002. Katz (also known as Walters), Peter, Philo’s Bible: The Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in Some Philonic Writings and its Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950. –, The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and Their Emendation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Kern-Ulmer, Rivka, A Synoptic Edition of Pesiqta Rabbati Based Upon all Extant Manuscripts and the Editio Princeps. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Kistemaker, Simon, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Amsterdam: van Soest, 1961. Knowles, Michael P., “Scripture, History, Messiah: Scriptural Fulfilment and the Fullness of Time in Matthew’s Gospel.” Pages 59–82 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Edited by S.E. Porter. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2006. Koester, Craig R., Hebrews, Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Kraft, Robert A., “Barnabas’ Isaiah Text and the ‘Testimony Book’ Hypothesis.” Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 336–350. Lane, William L., Hebrews, Word Biblical Commentary. 2 vols. Dallas: Word, 1991. Lehne, Susanne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 44. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Lenhard, Doris, “Document or Individual Homily? A Critical Evaluation of Neusner’s Methodology in the Light of the Results of Form Analysis.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 4 (1997): 339–356. –, Die Rabbinische Homilie. Ein formanalytischer Index, Frankfurter Judaistische Studien 10. Frankfurt: Gesellschaft zur Förderung Judaistischer Studien, 1998. Leschert, Dale F., Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some Core Citations From the Psalms. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994. Levinson, Stephen C., Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Lim, Timothy H., Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. –, Pesharim. London: Sheffield Academic Press (Continuum), 2002 Lindars, Barnabas, New Testament Apologetic. The Doctrinal Significance of Old Testament Quotations. London: SCM Press, 1961. –, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 382–406. –, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Longenecker, Richard N., Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1975.

214

Bibliography

Marshall, I. Howard, “An Assessment of Recent Developments.” Pages 1–21 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. McCullough, J. Cecil, “The Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews.” New Testament Studies 26 (1980): 363–379. –, “Some Recent Developments in Research on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Part I.” Irish Biblical Studies 2 (1980): 141–165. –, “Some Recent Developments in Research on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Part II.” Irish Biblical Studies 3 (1981): 28–45. –, “Hebrews in Recent Scholarship, Part I.” Irish Biblical Studies 16 (1994): 66–86. – “Hebrews in Recent Scholarship, Part II.” Irish Biblical Studies 16 (1994): 108–120. McDonald, Mary F., Lactantius’ Divine Institutes Translated. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1964. McLay, R. Timothy, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2003. –, “Biblical Texts and the Scriptures for the New Testament Church.” Pages 38–58 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Edited by S.E. Porter. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006. Menken, Maarten J.J., Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. Metzger, Bruce M., “The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible.” Pages 270–291 in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions and Interpretations. Edited by S. Jellicoe. New York: KTAV, 1974. Michel, Otto, Der Brief an die Hebräer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 13. 6th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Miller, Paul, “‘They Saw His Glory and Spoke of Him’: The Gospel of John and the Old Testament.” Pages 127–151 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Edited by S.E. Porter. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006. Moffatt, James, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924. Montefiore, Hugh W., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1964. Moody Smith, Dwight, “The Pauline Literature.” Pages 265–291 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Motyer, Stephen, “The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?” Tyndale Bulletin 50 (1999): 3–22. Moyise, Steve, The Old Testament in the New: An Introduction. London: Continuum, 2001. –, “The Language of the Psalms in the Book of Revelation.” Neotestamentica 37 (2003): 246–261. Moyise, Steve and Maarten J.J. Menken, eds. The Psalms in the New Testament. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Nairne, Alexander, The Epistle of Priesthood: Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913. Neill, Stephen and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Neusner, Jacob, Messiah in Context: Israel’s History and Destiny in Formative Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Bibliography

215

–, Midrash as Literature: The Primacy of Documentary Discourse. Lanham/New York: University Press of America, 1987. –, Sifré to Deuteronomy: An Analytical Translation, Brown Judaic Studies 98. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. –, Sifré to Deuteronomy: An Introduction to the Rhetorical, Logical, and Topical Program, Brown Judaic Studies 124. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. –, What is Midrash? Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Neusner, Jacob, William S. Green and Ernest S. Frerichs, eds. Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. –, Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael: An Analytical Translation, Brown Judaic Studies 148. 2 vols. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Patte, Daniel, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975. Peters, Melvin K.H., A Critical Edition of the Coptic (Bohairic) Pentateuch, Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 19. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1983. Pietersma, Albert, “Proto-Lucian and the Greek Psalter.” Vetus Testamentum 28 (1978): 66–72. –, “The Edited Text of P. Bodmer XXIV.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 17 (1980): 67–79. –, “Septuagint Research: A Plea to Return to Basic Issues.” Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985): 296–311. –, “The Present State of the Critical Text of the Greek Psalter.” Pages 12–32 in Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Edited by A. Aejmelaeus and U. Quast. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. –, A New English Translation of the Septuagint: The Psalms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Ploeg, John van der, “ L’Exégèse de l’Ancien Testament dans l’Épître aux Hébreux.” Revue Biblique 54 (1947): 187–228. Porter, Stanley E., “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology.” Pages 79–96 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Edited by C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Prigent, Pierre, “Quelques Testimonia Messianiques. Leur Histoire Littéraire de Qumran aux Pères de l’Église.” Theologische Zeitschrift 15 (1959): 419–430. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Psalmi cum Odis, Septuaginta X. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931. –, Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters, Septuaginta Studien Heft 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Rendall, R., “The Method of the Writer to the Hebrews in Using Old Testament Quotations.” Evangelical Quarterly 27 (1955): 214–220. Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, Justin Martyr. A Translation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1867. Samely, Alexander, “What Scripture Does Not Say: Interpretation Through Contrast in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.” Pages 253–283 in Die Alttestamentliche Botschaft als Wegweisung. Festschrift für Heinz Reinalt. Edited by J. Zmijewski. Stuttgart: Katholisches Biblelwerk, 1990. –, “Between Scripture and its Rewording: Towards a Classification of Rabbinic Exegesis.” Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991): 39–67. –, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992.

216

Bibliography

–, “Scripture’s Implicature: The Midrashic Assumptions of Relevance and Consistency.” Journal of Semitic Studies 36 (1992): 167–205. –, “Is Targumic Aramaic Rabbinic Hebrew? A Reflection on Midrashic and Targumic Rewording of Scripture.” Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1994): 92–100. –, “Justifying Midrash: On an ‘Intertextual’ Interpretation of Rabbinic Interpretation; A Review Article on D. Boyarin’s Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990).” Journal of Semitic Studies 39 (1994): 19–32. –, “Stressing Scripture’s Words: Semantic Contrast as a Midrashic Technique in the Mishnah.” Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995): 196–229. –, “Scripture’s Segments and Topicality in Rabbinic Discourse and the Pentateuch Targum.” Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999): 87–123. –, “Delaying the Progress From Case to Case: Redundancy in the Halakhic Discourse of the Mishnah.” Pages 99–132 in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible. Edited by G.J. Brooke. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. –, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. –, Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Schäfer, Peter, “Research Into Rabbinic Literature: An Attempt to Define the Status Quaestionis.” Journal of Jewish Studies 37 (1986): 139–152. Schröger, Friedrich, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger, Biblische Untersuchungen 4. Regensburg: Pustet, 1968. Silva, Moises, “The Greek Psalter in Paul’s Letters: A Textual Study.” Pages 277–288 in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma. Edited by R.J.V. Hiebert, C.E. Cox and P.J. Gentry. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 332. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Skarsaune, Oskar, The Proof From Prophecy. A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Sowers, Sidney G., The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews: A Comparison of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Philo Judaeus and the Epistle to the Hebrews, Basel Studies of Theology 1. Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1965. Spicq, Ceslas, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Études Bibliques. 2 vols. 3rd edition. Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, 1952–53. –, L’Épître aux Hébreux. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1966. Stamps, Dennis L., “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament as a Rhetorical Device: A Methodological Proposal.” Pages 9–37 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Edited by S.E. Porter. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006. Stedman, Ray C., Hebrews, InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary Series. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1992. Stemberger, Günter, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Stendahl, Krister, The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament, Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsalienis 20. Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1954. Steyn, Gert J., Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995. –, “A Quest for the Vorlage of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut 32) Quotations in Hebrews.” Neotestamentica 34 (2000): 263–272. –, “Psalm 2 in Hebrews.” Neotestamentica 37 (2003): 262–282.

Bibliography

217

–, “The Vorlage of Psalm 45:6–7 (44:7–8) in Hebrews 1:8–9.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 60 (2004): 1085–1103. –, “The Occurrence of Ps 118(117):6 in Heb 13:6: Possible Liturgical Origins.” Neotestamentica 40 (2006): 119–134. Sundberg, Albert C., “On Testimonies.” Novum Testamentum 3 (1959): 268–281. Swetnam, James, “A Review of F. Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger (Biblische Untersuchungen 4. Regensburg: Pustet, 1968).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (1969): 130–132. –, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah, Analecta Biblica 94. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. Synge, Francis C., Hebrews and the Scriptures. London: SPCK, 1959. Teugels, Lieve M., “Two Centuries of Midrash Study: A Survey of Some Standard Works on Rabbinic Midrash and its Methods.” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 54 (2000): 125–144. –, “A Review of D. Lenhard, Die Rabbinische Homilie. Ein formanalytischer Index (Frankfurter Judaistische Studien 10. Frankfurt: Gesellschaft zur Förderung Judaistischer Studien, 1998) and A. Goldberg, Rabbinische Texte als Gegenstand der Auslegung. Gesammelte Schriften II (Edited by M. Schlüter and P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999).” Journal for the Study of Judaism 31 (2000): 97–105. –, Bible and Midrash: The Story of ‘The Wooing of Rebekah’ (Gen 24). Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Thomas, Kenneth J., “The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews.” New Testament Studies 11 (1964–65): 303–325. Tonges, Elke, “The Epistle to the Hebrews as a ‘Jesus-Midrash’.” Pages 89–106 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by G. Gelardini. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Tov, Emmanuel, “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the LXX.” Pages 11–46 in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings. Edited by G.J. Brooke and B. Lindars. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. –, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 2nd edition. Jerusalem: Simor, 1997. –, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd edition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Turner, Nigel, A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol. 3: Syntax. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963. Ulrich, Eugene, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans/Leiden: Brill, 1999. –, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Their Implications for an Edition of the Septuagint Psalter.” Pages 322–336 in Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Edited by A. Aejmelaeus and U. Quast. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Vanhoye, Albert, La Structure Littéraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963. –, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Subsidia Biblica 12. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989. Vermes, Geza, “Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis.” Pages 199–231 in The Cambridge History of the Bible Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Rome. Edited by P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. –, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies, Studia Post-Biblica 4. 2nd edition. Leiden: Brill, 1983. –, An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls. London: SCM Press, 1999.

218

Bibliography

Wallis, Robert E., Cyprian of Carthage: A Translation and Introduction. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1869. Walters, J.R., “The Rhetorical Arrangement of Hebrews.” Asbury Theological Journal 51 (1996): 59–70. Weiss, Hans-Friedrich, Der Brief an die Hebräer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Westcott, Brooke F., The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays. London: MacMillan & Co., 1889. Wevers, John W., ed. Genesis, Septuaginta I. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. –, ed. Deuteronomium, Septuaginta III.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Wilcox, Max, “On Investigating the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” Pages 231–243 in Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black. Edited by E. Best and R. McL. Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Wilson, Robin McL., Hebrews, New Century Bible Commentary. Basingstoke: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1987. Windisch, Hans, Der Hebräerbrief, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 14. 2 nd edition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1931. Zunz, Leopold, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt. Ein Beitrag zur Altertumskunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte. 2nd edition. Frankfurt: J. Kauffmann, 1892.

Index of Ancient Sources 1. Old Testament Genesis 1:2 1:26 2:2 14:17–20 22

193 193 70, 139, 163, 182, 188, 189–193, 194–198 39n146 60–61

Exodus 3:8 16:35 19:12–13 20 24:8 33–34

159 186 71n286 163 70, 73 58

Leviticus 25

175

Numbers 12 12:6–8 12:7 12:8 12:9–15 14 14:4 14:10 14:11 14:24 14:27 14:30 14:31 14:33 14:33–34 14:35 14:40–45

184 183 59, 183, 196 183 184 38, 183, 187–188 194 183 188 188 188 188 188 188 186 188 188

14:43 20:12 32:13 Deuteronomy 2:7 6:10 9:19 11:29 21:18 29:18 32 32:4 32:6–9 32:10–18 32:35 32:35–36 32:36 32:37–42 32:43

194 183n92 186

186 39n143, 159 16n34 39n143, 159 109 47n190 122n5, 156, 159–160, 169 159 159 159 69, 70, 160, 170, 200 156, 165 170, 200 157 13, 14, 69, 133–134, 140, 156–160, 164, 166, 170, 193, 203

Joshua 5:6

186

Judges 8:25–27

60

2 Samuel 7 7:10 7:10–14 7:11 7:12–13

153, 154–156, 158, 166, 168 79, 153 175 153, 155 155

220 7:13 7:13–14 7:14

Index of Ancient Sources

7:16 7:19

79 153, 184 14n21, 19n48, 39n144, 79, 133, 152–156 155 153

1 Chronicles 17 17:11–12 17:13 17:13–14 17:14 17:17

153, 154–156 155 133, 152–156 184 59, 155, 183n91 153

Nehemiah 9:8 9:21

60 186

Job 1:6 2:1 38:7

134 134 134

Psalms (following LXX numbering) 2 14n21, 28, 41n165, 75n308, 122n5, 149n12, 150–152, 154, 155, 158, 159, 164, 166, 167, 169, 172, 176n88, 178 153 2:1–2 2:2 147, 150, 172 151 2:2–4 2:4 145 2:5 151 2:6 150, 151 2:7 25n72, 133, 144–152, 153, 155, 159, 161, 164n52, 166, 172 150 2:8–9 2:10 151 166 2:10–12 2:12 151 8 35, 66, 75n307, 75n308, 76 38n139, 75, 169, 170, 8:5–7 187, 193 8:6 134 8:7 150

21 21:23 39 39:7–9 44 44:4 44:7 44:7–8

44:8 44:9 44:12 44:13 68:8 88:21–38 88:27 88:28 88:51 94

94:2 94:5 94:6 94:7 94:7–9 94:7–11

94:8 94:9 94:10–11 94:11 96 96:1–2 96:7 101 101:13 101:14–18 101:19 101:26 101:26–28 101:27

27, 35, 167n60 74, 167n60 73 14, 38n139, 48n193, 165, 181, 192 75, 159, 166, 167n60 166 76n311, 167, 172 14n21, 75, 122n5, 122n6, 135–136, 138, 141, 155, 159, 160, 163–166, 167 41n163, 163, 164 166 164 166 59n238 158 158 158 59n238 22n57, 27n83, 65, 183, 187, 188, 189, 193– 194 193 189, 193 193 15, 191, 193 186, 195 73, 75, 137–139, 140, 144, 159, 161, 165, 172, 182, 184, 185– 189, 190, 194–198 36n122 140, 182, 190, 203 186, 195 185, 189, 190, 191, 193, 195, 197 156 160 133, 134, 156n29, 160 78n319, 163, 167n60 167 167 168 167 19n48, 70, 73, 136– 137, 166–168 140, 141, 163, 166, 167

221

Index of Ancient Sources 101:29 103 103:2 103:4

117:6 137:1

167 167 163 12n12, 134–135, 140, 141, 160–163, 179, 184, 193 163 163 35, 65, 75n308, 159, 167, 168n63, 169, 171–172, 194n114 46n183, 137, 150, 160, 161, 166, 168–172, 177, 193 39n146, 75, 161, 169, 170, 172, 177, 200 122n5, 195 134

Proverbs 3:11–12

56

103:15 103:32 109

109:1

109:4

Isaiah 8 8:17 8:17–18 8:18

27, 169, 200 151, 165, 170, 186, 200 19n47 36, 165, 170, 186, 200

26:19 35:3 35:5 35:6 40:8–10 49:2 52:13 53:4 55:11 61:3 66:1 66:16 Jeremiah 2:6 31:2–3 38:31 LXX 38:31–32 LXX 38:31–34 LXX

Habakkuk 2:3 2:3–4 2:4

173 58 173 173 185 185 12n13 173 185 76n311 193 185

93, 96 194 73 74 11, 14n21, 16, 46n179, 47n190, 53, 69, 70, 161, 179, 181, 192, 194

74 16n34, 28, 39, 150n16 15n30

2. Deutero-Canonical Books and Apocrypha Wisdom 7:22–8:1 18:14–16

185 185

1 Maccabees 2:52

60

Odes 2:43

134, 156

3. Dead Sea Scrolls 1QpHab 2:16

126

4Q174 (4QFlor) 1, 21, 2 153–154, 175

222

Index of Ancient Sources

4. New Testament Matthew 1:3 3:17 5–7 12:5 19:4 21:42 22:31 22:41–46 27:9–10

180 165 61 180 180 180 180 168 173

Mark 1:11 12:35–37

165 168

Hebrews 1

1–2 1:1 1:1–4

1:1–5 1:2

Luke 3:22 20:41–44

165 168

John 12:40–41

68

Acts 2:34–36 6:7

168 23n63

1:6

Romans 4:10–11 8:32 8:34

192 60 171

1:7

1 Corinthians 10:4

68

1:7–12 1:8

2 Corinthians 3:7–11 3:13–16

183n92 68

1:3 1:3–4 1:4 1:5

1:8–9

Galatians 3:17

192

Ephesians 1:20

171

Colossians 3:1

171

1:9 1:10 1:10–12

1:11 1:12 1:13

7, 25, 27n83, 45, 47, 49, 58, 59, 77, 117, 122, 132, 134, 141, 143, 144–181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 189, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198– 200, 203, 205 67, 174 35, 65, 154, 157, 185 13, 147, 154, 156, 162, 168, 176, 177, 183, 200 156 48, 148, 150, 151, 154, 163, 167, 193 160, 161, 163, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171 149 79,158 7, 16, 19n48, 79, 133, 144–156, 157, 158, 161, 166, 169, 184 7, 13, 14, 35n117, 39n143, 40n155, 69, 133–134, 148, 149, 153, 154, 156–160, 166, 170, 193, 203 134–135, 141, 160– 163, 170, 184, 193 184 35, 148, 163n48, 164, 165, 166, 172 75, 122n5, 135–136, 138, 141, 155, 158, 159, 163–166, 167 41n163, 48, 163, 164 167 19n48, 39n142, 40n157, 70, 73, 136– 137, 165, 166–168 163, 166 141, 166 16, 137, 149, 150, 154, 158, 161, 163, 166, 168–172, 177

Index of Ancient Sources 1:14 2 2:2 2:3 2:3–5 2:5 2:5–9 2:5–18 2:6 2:6–8 2:7 2:8 2:8–9 2:10–18 2:11–13 2:12 2:12–13 2:13

2:16 2:17–18 3

3–4

3:1–6

3:2 3:3 3:3–4 3:5 3:6 3:7 3:7–11 3:7–19 3:8 3:9 3:9–10 3:10

160, 161, 162, 184 66, 151, 159, 160, 162, 193 65 149 45 16, 170 75 60 39, 149, 174, 178, 189 169, 193 35 150, 177 187 151, 167 149n15 74, 167n60, 200 27, 200 13n17, 19n47, 36, 151, 165, 169, 170, 186, 195, 200 61, 163 59n237 27n83, 32, 59n237, 70n283, 159, 182, 183, 187, 194n114, 196 7, 13, 22n57, 65, 75, 122, 132, 141, 143, 144, 148, 149, 151, 154, 156, 159, 161, 165, 181–200, 203, 205 12n13, 38, 48, 58, 68, 69, 151, 155, 162, 182–185, 187, 196, 200 48, 59, 182, 183, 186 183 79 45, 48, 182, 183, 184, 186 182, 186 61, 182, 184, 185 15, 40n157, 73, 137– 139, 195 39 196 203 138, 186, 195 140, 203

3:11 3:12 3:12–13 3:12–19 3:13 3:14 3:15 3:16 3:16–18 3:17 3:18 3:19 4 4:1–2 4:3 4:4 4:4–5 4:5 4:6 4:7 4:7–8 4:8 4:8–9 4:9 4:10 4:11 4:11–13 4:12 4:12–13 4:15 4:16 5 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:7 5:7–10 5:8 5:10 5:11 5:11–6:12 6 6–7 6:13–15 6:13–18 6:20 7

7–8

223 149 36n122, 187, 197 195 183, 187 187, 197 186 186, 187 187 188, 196 138, 187 149, 187, 191 187 152, 193 190 149, 186, 190 70, 139, 163, 189 35 186 190, 191 61, 185, 186, 189 80 192 192 190, 191, 195, 196 190 184 182–185 194 185n95 155 155 59n237, 183 65 16, 149, 151, 161 167, 170, 172, 177 60–61 60 149n15 171 68 57 149 193 60 178 167, 171 20, 28, 32, 45, 46n182, 65, 69, 75, 161, 183 37

224 7:1–10 7:1–25 7:2 7:3 7:8 7:11 7:15 7:17 7:18–19 7:20–21 7:21 7:28 8 8–10 8:1 8:1–6 8:1–7 8:2 8:6–13 8:7 8:8 8:8–9 8:8–12 8:13 9 9:2 9:8 9:8–10 9:9 9:11 9:16–17 9:20 9:22 9:22–23 10 10:1–10 10:1–4 10:5–7 10:5–10 10:8–9 10:9 10:12

Index of Ancient Sources 39n146 68 167 171 149 171 171 39n145, 149, 170, 172 38 149 170 151, 167, 171 16, 53, 65, 179, 181, 192, 194 52, 58, 151, 161 162, 171 151 200 161 13 38 13, 73 74 11, 46n179, 47n190, 69 38, 55 12n11, 28, 32, 36, 57, 155 48 185 38 48 57, 171 35 70, 73 60 160 16, 53, 152, 165, 181, 192, 194, 200 181 38 13n17, 14, 48n193 38n139, 73, 192 35 38 171

10:30–31 10:31 10:32–34 10:37 10:37–38 10:38 11 11:4 11:5 11:7 11:8–16 11:11 11:17–22 11:18 11:23ff. 11:23–27 11:24 11:26 11:28 12 12–13 12:2 12:5–8 12:5–11 12:12 12:15 12:18–21 12:18–29 12:20 12:21 12:22 12:22–27 13:6

163 161 45, 185 11, 69 171 16, 40, 69, 70, 156, 160, 165, 170, 200 195 200 26n77 74 39, 150n16 15n30 13, 32, 193 149 149 46 45 61 60 61 48n193 58, 59n237 59 58, 59n238 59n237 28, 152, 155, 159 67, 68 161, 171 56 39n147, 151 58 47n190 149 163 71n286 16n34 151 68, 69 122n5, 195

James 2:21–23

60

1 Peter 3:22

171

10:12–13 10:13–14 10:15 10:16–17 10:21 10:30

Index of Ancient Sources

5. Patristic Sources Irenaeus Adversus Haereses 55:2 173

6. Rabbinic Sources Exodus Rabbah 19:7 158 Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael Ex 15:2 93

Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:1 109

225

Index of Modern Authors Albl, M.C. 159n39, 173n80, 174, 175 Alexander, P.S. 1n1, 3n3, 21n56, 35n116, 65, 86, 87n11, 89, 90, 95, 112–115, 116, 118, 127, 141n91, 202 Attridge, H.W. 34–36, 38n140, 43, 44, 46, 82, 132n54, 134n56, 135, 137, 138, 149, 152n20, 156, 157n30, 158, 163n46, 163n47, 164n49, 164n51, 164n52, 167, 168n63, 183n90, 184n94, 186, 190n105, 191n110, 198 Auld, G. 121n2 Austin, P.C. 131n50 Barth, M. 66–68, 80, 82 Barthélemy, D. 125 Basser, H.W. 95, 96 Becker, A.H. 1n1 Black, M. 64n253 Bloch, R. 84–85, 86–88, 90, 102, 115, 116, 118 Boyarin, D. 1n1, 41, 87, 88n17, 89, 90, 92–96, 99, 101, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 Boyd-Taylor, C. 131n50 Braun, H. 20, 21, 28n91, 34, 133n55, 149, 176n88 Briggs, C.A. 145n3, 167n59 Brock, S.P 125n21 Brooke, G.J. 142, 175 Brown, F. 145n3, 167n59 Brown, G. 146n5 Bruce, F.F. 23, 26–28, 31, 33 Bultmann, R. 77 Burch, V. 172n73 Burkitt, F.C. 172 Cadwallader, A.H. 127, 135, 139n88

Caird, G.B. 63, 65–66, 78, 79, 81, 154n25, 171n71 Charlesworth, J.H. 34n111 Clements, R.E. 66 Cockerill, G.L. 133n55, 160 Cohn-Sherbok, D. 38 Combrink, H.J.B. 192n111 D’Angelo, M.R. 53n204, 58–60, 62, 151n18, 183n91 Delitzsch, F. 4, 10, 11–14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 51, 165 Derrida, J. 92, 95 DeSilva, D.A. 5n7, 43–47, 49, 158n34, 169n64, 183n90, 183n92, 184n94, 191n110 Dines, J.M. 121, 123n7, 123n9, 123n11, 124n18, 125n19, 125n22, 128n30, 129, 130n37, 130n38 Dodd, C.H. 27, 33, 64, 150, 169, 173n78, 173n79 Doeve, J.W. 90n26 Driver, S.R. 145n3, 167n59 Dunn, J.D.G. 2 Dunnill, J. 52, 62n246 Ellingworth, P. 34, 40–42, 77, 80, 132n54, 133n55, 134, 136, 137, 139n86, 149n12, 151, 152, 153n23, 155, 156n28, 157n30, 158, 159n38, 163n45, 163n46, 163n47, 164n49, 164n50, 164n51, 164n52, 165, 167, 168n62, 169n64, 176n88, 183n92, 185, 189n103, 194n114 Ellis, E.E. 64, 146 Fernández Marcos, N. 121, 124, 125n19, 127, 128n30, 129, 130n37, 130n38

Index of Modern Authors Feuerverger, A. 131n50 Fishbane, M. 86, 90–92, 93, 95, 116, 118, 119 Fitzmyer, J.A. 5, 64n251, 175 Flint, P.W. 127, 128, 130n41, 131, 132, 137, 141 Fraade, S.D. 100n67, 101 France, R.T. 79, 172n71 Fränkel, J. 89 Frerichs, E.S. 33n111 García Martínez, F. 153n24 Gelardini, G. 68 Gheorgita, R. 150n16, 169n65 Glasson, T.F. 159 Goldberg, A. 5–6, 7, 25, 43, 50, 60, 83, 87, 95, 100, 102–106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 179, 192, 197, 202 Goppelt, L. 64n249, 82n330 Gordon, R.P. 158n33 Green, W.S. 33n111 Greenspoon, L.J. 123 Grice, H.P. 110, 170 Guthrie, G.H. 44, 51, 57n227, 58, 63, 78–81, 82, 130, 151n18, 162n44, 172n71 Hammer, R. 100 Handelman, S.A. 119n134 Hanson, A.T. 41n160, 68–69, 77, 78n321, 80, 82 Harris, J.R. 172–174, 176 Hay, D.M. 168n63, 171 Hengel, M. 30, 130n41 Heinemann, I. 88–90, 102, 111, 115, 118 Hiebert, R.J.V. 132, 137, 203n4 Hofmann, J.C.K. von 12n11 Horbury, W. 2n2, 34n111 Howard, G. 70 Hughes, G. 66 Hume, C.R. 156n29, 158n33 Isaacs, M.E. 10n2, 55–56, 62, 63, 150n17, 164n52, 183n92, 186, 191n110 Jeremias, J. 90n26

227

Jobes, K.H. 121, 123n9, 123n11, 123n12, 128n30, 130n38 Kahle, P. 123, 124n15 Käsemann, E. 10, 34n112 Katz, P. 129n34, 135 Kern-Ulmer, R. 107 Kingsbury, T.L. 11n6 Kistemaker, S. 75, 171, 187n101, 188n102 Knowles, M.P. 180 Koester, C.R. 43, 44, 47–48, 49, 133n55, 139, 149n12, 153n23, 156n29, 158n34, 163n46, 164n49, 172n72, 183n90, 183n92, 185n95, 189n103, 191n110 de Lagarde, P. 123, 124 Lane, W.L. 34, 36–40, 42, 90n27, 153n23, 156n29, 157n32, 158n34, 163n48, 166n57, 169n64, 183n92, 184n93, 184n94, 185n95, 186, 187n101 Lehne, S. 52–53, 62 Lenhard, D. 39n150, 106, 107 Leschert, D.F. 5n6, 75–77, 78, 188n102 Lichtenberger, H. 34n111 Lim, T.H. 5, 64, 126n25, 142, 148 Lindars, B. 64n247 Longenecker, R.N. 64n251, 66n264, 75, 79, 90n26, 172n71 McCullough, J.C. 47, 70, 71, 72–75, 78n322, 79, 81, 130, 132n54, 135n67, 136n68, 137, 138, 139, 141, 203 McLay, R.T. 17n38, 121, 123, 124, 125n22, 133n55, 134, 203, 204n5 Menken, M.J.J. 65, 81, 122, 203 Metzger, B.M. 128n33 Michel, O. 21, 22, 23, 28–32, 33, 37, 39n146, 42n167, 71, 158n35 Moffatt, J. 18–20, 22, 29, 153n23 Montefiore, H.W. 33n110, 174n84 Motyer, S. 66n262, 76, 77–78, 82 Moyise, S. 130n39, 130n41 Nairne, A. 52, 53–55, 63 Neill, S. 10n1, 16n37, 17n39, 42n167

228

Index of Modern Authors

Neusner, J. 33n111, 88n14, 95, 96–101, 102, 105, 106, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 Oegema, G.S. 34n111 Patte, D. 90n26 Pietersma, A. 124, 128, 130, 131, 132, 141, 203 Ploeg, J. van der 64n248 Porter, S.E. 79n323, 162n44 Rahlfs, A. 128, 130, 131, 132, 135, 136n71, 136n72, 138n80, 139n85 Reed, A.Y.1n1 Robbins, Vernon K. 44 Samely, A. 6, 7, 36, 38, 41, 42, 46, 50, 60, 61, 81, 87, 89, 94, 95, 96, 98n63, 101, 107–112, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 141n91, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 153, 157, 158, 159n40, 160, 161, 162, 169, 170, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 195, 196, 197, 198, 200, 202, 204, 205 Sanders, E.P. 98 Sanders, J. 132 Schäfer, P. 99, 106 Schröger, F. 47, 71–72, 132n54, 137, 187n101 Silva, M. 121, 1232n9, 123n11, 123n12, 128n30, 130n38 Skarsaune, O. 176n87 Sowers, S.G. 24n65, 174n84 Spicq, C. 5n5, 14, 19, 21, 23–26, 29, 32, 33, 64n248, 77, 80, 135n65, 153n23, 158n33 Stamps, D.L. 79n323

Stemberger, G. 88n16, 88n18 Stendahl, K. 64, 65n254 Steyn, G.J. 65n256, 122, 134, 135n67, 149n12, 165n53, 176n88 Swetnam, J. 60–61, 62, 71 Synge, F.C. 158n33, 159n39, 169n66, 174, 189 Teugels, L.M. 87n13, 106, 107, 114n131 Thomas, K.J. 69–71, 72, 74, 79, 132n54, 133n55, 134n58, 135n67, 136, 137n74 Tigchelaar, E.J.C. 153n24 Tonges, E. 146 Tov, E. 124, 126, 128n32 Turner, N. 17n39 Ulrich, E. 126, 132n52 Vanhoye, A. 34, 44, 52, 56–58, 62, 81, 185n95 Vermes, G. 84, 85–88, 90, 91, 98, 102, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 Walters, J.R. 79, 172n71 Weiss, H.-F. 32–33, 77 Westcott, B.F. 4, 10, 14–16, 17, 18, 24, 29, 37, 54,149n12, 156n29, 158n35, 163n48 Wevers, J.W. 134n57, 139n89, 139n90 Wilcox, M. 64n253 Windisch, H. 20–22, 30, 71, 187n101 Wright, T. 10n1, 16n37, 17n39, 42n167 Yule, G. 146n5 Zunz, L. 85

Subject Index Abraham 45, 68, 192 Allegory 15 – see also, exegesis, allegorical Allusions 15, 24, 32, 37, 38, 39n143, 45, 47, 51, 53, 59, 67, 71, 79, 82, 108, 109, 127, 130n39, 133, 155, 158, 161, 162, 163, 168, 170, 171, 172, 177, 179, 183, 184, 185, 187, 196, 200, 204, 205 Analogy 109, 191 Angels 58, 133, 134, 137, 147, 148, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 167, 179, 183, 184, 193 Antiochian recension 127–129 Anthology 113, 118 Apocalyptic 28, 30, 31, 32, 55, 71, 86, 115, 191n110 Aqedah 60–61 Aquila 125, 135 Atonement 12 – Day of 67 Barnabas 173 – Epistle of 2n2 Bodmer Papyri 131, 135, 137, 140, 141, 203 Canonical criticism 92 Catchwords 31, 148, 151, 153, 175, 178, 179, 189, 190, 195 Chester-Beatty papyrus 16 Christ, pre-existence of 41, 68–69, 77, 80 Christological reading of the Old Testament 4, 14, 25, 31, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 56, 62, 66, 67, 68–69, 76, 78n319, 82, 117, 118, 146, 164–165, 178, 196, 198, 204

Codex Alexandrinus (Codex A) 6, 20, 24, 27, 38, 69, 70, 72, 73, 125, 134, 135, 136, 138, 140 Codex Sinaiaticus 11, 16 Codex Vaticanus (Codex B) 6, 16, 27, 69, 70, 72, 73, 125, 131, 136, 140 Co-text 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 119, 146, 147, 148n9, 150, 153, 154, 156, 161, 162, 164, 168, 170n68, 177, 179, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 191, 195, 196, 198, 200, 202, 204 Covenant 38, 52–53, 55, 62n246, 65, 66, 74, 100, 149, 155, 179, 192 – new 38, 52, 53, 62, 65, 80, 179, 192 Creation 139, 161, 163, 167, 178, 189, 190, 193 David 11, 14, 59n238, 76, 153, 154, 155, 158, 168, 184, 185, 186, 189 – Davidic messianism 150, 155, 164, 169, 178 Dead Sea Scrolls 2, 5, 22, 33, 53, 83, 85, 125n22, 132, 141 Deuteronomy, Book of 100, 101, 156, 157, 175 Early church fathers 7, 16, 18, 52, 129, 173, 178, 205 Echoes, scriptural 39, 45, 79, 80, 91, 162, 185 Enochic literature 20 – 3 Enoch 21 Exaltation of Jesus 149, 158, 164n51, 168, 169, 172, 177 Exegesis – Alexandrian 19, 24n65 – ‘applied’ 86, 87 – allegorical 28, 65, 66 – early Christian 2, 94, 120, 146

230

Subject Index

– early post-biblical Jewish 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 14, 17, 24, 38, 42, 43, 45, 50, 60, 62, 64, 71, 77, 80, 81, 83, 85, 91, 111, 112, 113, 114, 120, 127, 140, 145, 148, 154, 159, 170, 176, 181, 190, 192, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 204, 205, 206 – Hellenistic Jewish 20, 21, 22, 31 – midrashic 5, 6, 12n13, 35, 76, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 95, 96, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 143, 170n68, 178 – patristic 1n1, 7, 95, 111 – ‘pure’ 86, 87 – Qumranic 5, 50, 53, 126–127 – rabbinic 1n1, 6, 26, 31, 35, 43, 77, 89, 91, 94, 96, 103, 104, 105, 110, 111, 112, 127, 197 – targumic 6, 108, 119, 143,145n1, 178 – typological 4, 28, 64, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82 Expressive use of scripture 109, 162, 168, 170, 171, 177, 179, 180, 184, 187, 195, 196, 197, 205 Festivals, Jewish 67, 68 A fortiori 26, 103, 109 Form-analysis 6, 100, 102–107, 202 Form criticism 4, 29, 32, 50, 102 Gematria 104, 110, 111 German New Testament commentators 4, 10, 18, 20, 22, 23, 31, 32, 34, 38, 49, 71 Gezera shawa 35, 46, 58n231, 103, 190 Gnosticism 20–21, 34 Goldbergian School 5–6, 39, 43, 61, 63, 82, 83, 102–112, 116, 143, 176, 198, 202, 204 Greek, koiné 9, 11, 17, 50, 54 Haggadah 84, 85, 86, 88, 89n20 Hebrews – christology of 21, 22, 25, 41, 45, 48, 53, 54, 68–69, 77, 147 – date of writing of 11, 14, 18, 20, 23, 26, 29, 34, 37, 40, 44, 56 – eschatology of 30–31, 37, 39n146, 40, 68, 151, 154

– exegetical axioms 2, 4, 6, 8, 14, 18, 21, 25, 28, 33, 36, 39, 41, 47, 48, 49, 50, 56, 62, 66, 67, 71, 73, 77, 80, 82, 83, 122, 141, 142, 143–200, 201, 204 – exegetical techniques 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 46, 47–48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63–82, 83, 122, 138, 142, 143–200, 201, 202, 204, 205 – Hellenistic Jewish background of 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37 – literary characteristics of 23, 29n96, 57 – rhetoric of 23, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 77, 169n64 – structure of 33, 34, 44, 47, 52, 55, 56– 58, 59, 63, 65, 66, 79, 80, 81, 150, 171, 172, 185n95 Hermeneutics – Graeco-Roman 1n1, 3 – Samely’s hermeneutical resources 81, 108–112, 114, 143, 146–148, 158, 160–162, 170n68, 176, 191, 195 Historical criticism 5, 11, 19, 84 History of Religions School 4, 9, 18, 20, 22, 23, 29, 32, 34, 50 Homily – rabbinic 39, 102, 103n84, 106, 107, 114n132 – synagogue 84, 88 Honour and shame, theme of 44–45, 47 Introducing citations 16, 41, 50, 61, 62, 67, 68, 79, 147, 149, 153, 154, 156, 158, 161, 162, 164, 167, 168, 177, 179, 180, 183, 185, 187, 189, 196, 200 – introductory formulae 25, 61, 189, 199 Intertextuality 90–96, 119 Isaac 60–61 Jewish Studies 2, 43, 51, 63, 84, 97, 105, 202, 203, 205 Josephus 26, 33, 59, 60, 126, 128, 129 Jubilees 59, 60, 87

Subject Index Judaism – Hellenistic Judaism 20, 21, 29, 30, 31, 32, 42, 50, 71 – Palestinian Judaism 21, 30, 31, 42, 50, 71 – rabbinic Judaism 31, 32, 71, 76, 97, 107, 109, 202 – Second Temple Judaism 2, 11, 17, 30, 42, 50, 52, 83, 114n127, 119, 205 Justin Martyr 2n2, 68, 173 Kaige recension 125 Levitical cult 28n85 Leviticus Rabbah 97, 100 Linguistics 16, 50, 83, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 119, 120, 146, 170, 198, 202 Literary criticism 4, 5, 43, 44, 62 Literary theory 83, 92, 93, 94, 95, 119 Liturgy 131 – Jewish 24, 68 – liturgical scriptural texts 69, 171 Lucianic recension 127–129, 141, 203 – Lucianic readings 128, 132, 135, 136, 138, 139, 141 Ma‘aseh 102, 104n85 Martyrdom 60 – martyr, Moses as 58 Mashal 95, 102 Masoretic Text 13, 46, 47, 124, 125, 126, 132, 133, 134, 136n69, 139, 163, 170n68, 190n106, 194 Mekhilta 93, 96, 97n55, 98, 99, 100 Melchizedek 19, 31n103, 54, 57, 68, 69 – see also priesthood, Melchizedekian Messiah 12n13, 20, 25n72, 36, 150, 151, 155, 159, 164, 205 – ‘messianic’ scriptural texts 14, 19, 25, 55, 73, 74, 75, 77, 153, 176 – messianic expectation 33, 55, 146, 150, 155, 164, 169, 175 – messianic interpretation of scripture 28, 33, 39, 50, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 144, 150, 153, 158, 159, 167, 168, 172 – see also, Davidic messianism Middoth 35, 38n140, 88–90, 114, 118

231

Midrash 3, 5, 18, 22, 28, 33, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 46, 50, 58, 59, 60, 76, 80, 82, 83–120, 143, 144, 146, 175, 179, 190, 196, 198, 202, 204 – midrashim 5, 6, 12, 55, 60, 72, 80, 83, 84, 89, 90, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 107, 113, 115, 117, 119, 146, 150, 191, 199, 202 – midrash pesher 39, 187n101 – midrashic sentence 102, 103, 177, 190 – see also, exegesis, midrashic Mishnah 50, 81, 96, 99, 102, 107, 108109, 110, 111, 112, 119, 143, 144, 147, 148, 158, 162, 169, 170n68, 176, 177, 187, 188, 191, 195, 200, 202 Moses 12n13, 16n34, 38n141, 48, 58– 60, 69, 155, 156, 157, 159, 183, 184, 192, 196 Mystery Religions 21, 29 Nahal Hever 121, 125 Noah 45–46 Oaths 149, 178, 185, 186, 188, 191 Odes 134, 156 Opposition resources 109, 148, 178, 191, 196, 198 Oxyrhynchus Papyri 9, 11, 17 ‘Parting of the ways’ 1–2, 29, 93 Passover 60 Patristic – commentators 14 – writings 128, 129, 131, 205 – see also, exegesis, patristic Paul 11, 31n107, 38n138, 64, 90n26, 192 – circle of 37 – letters of 52, 58, 64, 173, 196 Pentateuch 24, 28, 32, 37, 107, 122, 124, 128, 145, 187, 188 – Pentateuchal targumim 144, 145, 148, 157, 169, 170n68, 176, 202 – Samaritan Pentateuch 126 Pesher, pesharim 4, 28, 33, 39, 43, 64, 71, 72, 113, 118, 126, 141–142, 148, 187, 188, 196, 202

232

Subject Index

Philo 11, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 58, 59, 60, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 80, 126, 129 Philological criticism 5, 10, 16, 17, 18, 28 Priest(s) 183, 200 – high 54, 149, 151, 177, 200 – Jesus as 46n182, 57 Priesthood 65 – of Jesus 37, 52, 53–56, 57, 59n237 – Levitical 45, 46n183, 54 – Melchizedekian 54, 167, 169, 172, 177 Proof-texts 25, 77, 78, 169, 173, 176 Prophetic books 32, 35, 147 Psalms 15, 24, 32, 35, 37, 61, 77, 122, 132, 141, 147, 177, 189, 190, 203 – Greek versions of Book of 6, 122, 130–132 – Qumran Psalms Scroll 128, 132, 137, 140 – ‘Syro-Hexaplaric’ Psalter 132 Pseudo-Philo 59, 60, 84 Qal wahomer 46, 53 Qumran 23, 33, 50, 65, 71, 72, 125n22, 126, 148, 152, 156, 176, 187, 196 – biblical texts 3, 6, 125, 126, 128, 133, 156 – community 53, 73, 142, 187, 188 – discoveries 50, 64, 84, 121, 123, 124, 125, 133, 173, 201 – texts 5, 6, 11, 17, 19, 24, 26, 29, 32, 33, 34, 37, 42, 52, 55, 59, 61, 64, 66, 70, 83, 115, 124, 126, 132, 150, 152n22, 153, 172, 175, 176, 181, 187 – see also, Psalms, Qumran Psalms Scroll – see also, exegesis, Qumranic Rabbinic – exegetical techniques 26, 31, 38, 64, 111, 152, 202 – interpreters 6, 89, 93, 101, 104, 108, 112, 127, 146, 180, 186, 190, 191n109, 192 – literature 6, 19, 26, 35, 38, 50, 64, 66, 71, 85, 88, 90, 91, 94, 95, 98, 99,

101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 110, 111, 114n132, 115, 179, 202 – view of scripture 25, 91, 104–105, 107, 110, 111, 113, 118, 141, 180, 192, 197, 202 – see also, exegesis, rabbinic – see also, homily, rabbinic – see also Judaism, rabbinic Redundancy 104, 145 – Samely’s redundancy resources 161n42, 179 Rest 31, 66, 139, 153, 154, 155, 156, 184, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198 Rewritten Bible 59, 85, 87, 113, 115 Rhetoric, ancient 33, 44, 45, 47, 183 Rhetorical criticism 34, 43, 44 Romantic Movement 89, 118 Segment, scriptural 6, 102, 103, 109, 119, 144, 146, 147, 160, 169, 170, 177, 186, 190, 195, 196, 198, 199, 204 Semikha 102, 114n132 Sensus plenior approach 4, 25, 64, 77 Septuagint 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 56, 59, 60, 62, 63, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 79, 80, 81, 121–142, 144, 150n16, 152, 156, 159, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 171, 175, 182, 183, 184, 186, 194, 203 – Göttingen edition of 6, 123, 125, 128, 129, 130–132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 141, 144, 203 – Septuagint Studies 6, 17, 51, 73, 121, 140, 201, 203 Sifré to Deuteronomy 97, 98, 100, 101 Socio-rhetorical criticism 5, 43–44, 46, 47, 49 Son, 45, 58, 69, 79, 109, 136, 137, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150–151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157n30, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168, 177, 179, 184, 196 – sons of God 133, 134, 155, 156, 159, 160 Song of Moses 13, 159

Subject Index Speech – direct 28, 42, 50, 61, 107, 147, 157, 177 – first person direct 7, 16, 42, 50, 69, 119, 144, 146, 147, 149, 154, 157, 163, 166, 168, 177, 178, 180, 183, 185, 186, 195, 197, 200, 204 Spirit 67 – spirit of God 193 – spirit, holy 55, 67, 185, 186, 197 Stress, heavy 109, 144, 148, 152, 160, 165, 177, 180, 187, 189, 191, 195, 198, 199, 204 Structural analysis 44, 56–58 Symmachus 125, 135 Tabernacles, Festival of 67 Talmud 96, 99, 104n87 Targum, targumim 3, 12, 50, 59, 60, 80, 84, 85, 86, 87, 104, 107–108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 143, 144, 148, 179, 187, 190n106, 202, 204

233

– targumists 141, 180, 188, 197 – see also, exegesis, targumic – see also, targum, Pentateuchal Testimonia collections 40, 150, 152n22, 169, 172–176 – Testimony book 149, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 189 Testify 41, 45, 149, 174, 178, 184, 205 Theodotion 123, 125 Torah 31, 32, 86, 93, 100 Typology 15, 38, 46, 64n249, 69 – type 68, 75 – see also, exegesis, typological Versions 128, 129, 131, 135, 136, 138, 139 Wisdom, Book of 26, 185 – divine wisdom traditions 37 – wisdom motifs 56 Witness, scripture as 39, 45, 50, 56n222, 67n270, 149, 200, 205