Prolegomenon to the Study of Hebrews' Use of Scripture PROLEGOMENON TO THE STUDY OF HEBREWS' USE OF SCRIPTURE: A METHODOLOGICAL, TEXTUAL, AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INQUIRY by MICHEL ROBERT DESJARDINS B.A., University of Alberta at Le College Universitaire St. Jean, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of RELIGIOUS STUDIES We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1976 @ Michel Sobert Desjardins, 1976 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of R eiiQAO The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date Qt4/7£ ABSTRACT This thesis is principally an examination of modern research concerning the author of Hebrews' use of Scripture.lt focuses on how recent interpreters of this letter have supported their theories. The paper's intent is to show that modern research in a variety of fields is making it increasingly more difficult for the interprete to arrive at conclusions that can be confidently backed. This study covers the areas that are considered to be important for understanding Hebrews' use of Scripture. Chapter two examines the attempts made to determine the precise Biblical text(s) that the author of Hebrews used as a basis for his exegesis. The evidence indicates that it is becoming more and more difficult to determine what the original text(s) could have been. We do not even know whether the author of Hebrews had before him a version of the Bible- be it Greek or Hebrew--or a collection of pre-arranged Biblical texts be it a set of testimonia or a list of liturgical passages. Chapter three reviews the exegetical practices of Hebrews' contemporaries, insofar as they bear on Hebrews, as well as the terms now used to describe some of these practices. The conclusion is that Hebrews' contemporaries, represented in part by the rabbinic and targumic works, as well as by the Apocryphal literature and the writings of Phi 1o and the Qumran sectaries, appear to help us very little in better understanding his use of Scripture. Furthermore we see that under close scrutiny the seemingly simple terms "midrash, "allegory," and "typology" become difficult to accurately delimit. The interpreter of Hebrews who wishes to use these terms must then either define them precisely, or refrain from using them altogether. iii The lack of available data about Hebrews' exegetical method must force the interpreter of this letter to redirect his aims. The time for all- encompassing theories is past; scholars must now assess precisely how much we do not know. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION . . . • 1 IT. TEXTUAL PROBLEMS . 5 First Century Text ...... 6 Memory 12 Testimonia 13 Lectionaries ..... 21 Summary 25 III. FIRST CENTURY EXEGETICAL PRACTICES . . 27 Rabbinic Exegesis . 29 Targum Traditions 37 Allegory and Typology ...... 41 Philo, Qumrtn, and Hebrews 46 Apocryphal Literature 51 Summary . 53 IV. CONCLUSIONS . 55 BIBLIOGRAPHY 58 ABBREVIATIONS ...... St V ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to thank Prof. Charles P. Anderson for his many gentle and perceptive suggestions. I also received helpful criticisms in the early stages of my writing from Edmund Ballantyne and Prof. Paul Mosca. For that I am grateful. Most deeply and most directly I am indebted to David Griffiths for the example he sets in pursuing knowledge without arrogance or satiety. n^n* y^&w 11 'an a ' a n ~r >h^p ~T S a a > rv r T an )<~"nin} nan xn T - T T — T D'ftaJ ;o^a • r r r 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The New Testament writers used Biblical passages to support many of their views, and a great deal of scholarly ink has since flowed in an attempt to determine the hermeneutical principles involved in their use of ScriptureJ Almost every NT book has now been analyzed, and the wealth of material is fast becoming as 3 4 burdensome as it is helpful. - The letter to the Hebrews especially 5 is far from lacking detailed interpretations. This paper is concerned with sifting the ever-growing mass of scholarly data and isolating a sound starting point for critically examining the use of Scripture by the author of Hebrews. A careful definition of my purpose.will, I 'I use the term "Scripture" instead of the more common designation "OT" for two reasons. First, "OT" used of the mid-first century A.D. text is anachronistic: "OT" implies (1) a "NT" which was formed much later; and (2) a fixed Jewish canon which was not promulgated until a generation after the destruction of the Temple (although the canon was actually set by the mid-first century). More important, the author of Hebrews, though seeing Jesus as introducing a new covenant (9:15), has no desire to set up a new corpus of writings against the old. Rather, he believes that the traditional selection of writings accurately relates what Jesus said (cf. Rom. 15:4). 2 Important secondary literature includes: (A) A bibliographic overview: M. Miller, "Targum, Midrash, and the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament," JSJ 2(1971): 29-82. (B) Recent surveys: R.N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: W.M. Eerdmans, 1975); and H.M. Shi res, Fi ridj ng the 01 d Testament i n the New (Phil.: Westminster Press, 1974). (C) Theoretical overviews: B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic (Phil.: Westminster Press, 1961); and C.tt. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (London: Nisbet, 1952). CD) Particular treatments: E.D. Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (Leiden: E.J. Brill ,1965); K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the 01d Testament (Phil.: Fortress Press, 1968 CI954 orign3~l; R-H. Gundry, The Use, of the 01 d Testament tnS^. Matthew (Lei den: E.J. Brill, 1967); L. Crockett, The: Old Testament in Luke (Brown Univ. diss., 1966); E.E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the 01d Testament (Edinburgh: 01tyer and Boyd, 1957)1 2 hope, represent my inquiry as helpful to the community of scholars concerned with this issue. W. Leonard, Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Critical Problem and the Use of the Old Testament (London: Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, 193917" 3 Even extra-rcanonical literature is being examined. E.g., J.K. Zi nk, The Use of the Old Testament in the Apocrypha (Duke Univ. diss., 1963); L. Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted (Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells, 1966); WvA. Shotwell, The Biblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr (London: MacMillan, 1965); J.S. Sibinga, The 01d Testament Text of Justin Martyr (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1963); D.A. Hagner, The Use of the 01d and New Testaments iii Clement of Rome (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973); and K. Hruby, "Exeg¥se rabbinique et exegese patristique," ReyScR 47(1973): 341-72. 4 By "letter" I imply no hidden or suggestive meaning. For a discussion of the many nuances attached to this term, See' prof. CP. Anderson, The Setting of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Columbia Univ. diss., 1969)7 pp. 15f. 5 Important literature includes: (A) General comprehensive works: S. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations in Hebrews (Amsterdam: Wed. G. Van Soest, 1961); F. Schroger, Per Verfasser Hebraerbriefes als Schriftausleger (Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1968); A.B. Mickelsen, Methods of Interpretation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Chicago Div.. School diss., 1950); R. Reid, The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Union Theol. Sem. diss.,^1964); P.Pavda, Les Citations de 1'Ancien Testament dans 1'Epttre aux Hebreux (Paris: Presses Univ., 1904). (B) General surveys: C. Spicq, L'EpTtre aux Hebreux, vol. I (Paris: Librairie LeCoffre, 1950); B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews,• 3rd ed. (London: MacMillan and Co., 1914); C. Smits, Oud-Testamentische Citaten ;in het Nieuwe Testament, vol. IV (Malmberg: S-Hertogenbosch,l963); and J. vanr der Ploeg, "L'exe'gese de I'Ancieri Testament dans I'E'pttre aux Hebreux," RB 54(1947): 187-228. (C) Works Sealing with particular .areas: K.J. Thomas, The Use of the Septuagjnt in the Epistle to the Hebrews(Univ. of Manchester diss., 195917 M. Barth, "The Old Testament in Hebrews," in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, ed. by W. Klassen ancl G.F. Snyder (New York: Harper and Brothers,1962); F.C. Synge, Hebrews and the Scriptures (London: SPCK, 1959). c I shall deal with all of Hebrews. The integrity of some parts of th.e letter^'-especially in the last chapter—has been and is being questioned. See Anderson, pp. 15-35. These studies do not affect a study of ^ie6rew$;, use of Scripture. For example, there are only two clear instances of deliberate quotations in chapter 13 (i;n vv. 5&6) and both exhibit no marked difference from the preceding citations. 3 The aim of this paper is not to offer another, interpretation of Hebrews' use of Scripture, but rather to determine what evidence the modern interpreter of this letter is able to bring forth to substantiate his theories and presuppositions. How far is it possible for the NT scholar to present a verifiable historical aperc^u of Hebrews' particular exegetical method? In other words, the emphasis will lie less on questions asked within history than on questions asked about it. No study of Hebrews has systematically taken into account the implications of the rapidly evolving scholarly views of the past generation on the textual and exegetical areas important for an understanding of this letter's use of Scripture. This work does not profess to present a thorough examination of all the data, but is concerned with delimiting some issues of method and logic raised by modern research. The critical problems in SQripjturjal iiinteppretatronr.can'rbe'di vide'd into two parts, the first dealing with textual and the second with exegetical matters. That is, in order to understand how the author 7 8 9 of Hebrews uses Scripture it is necessary to try to determine what text(s) he had recourse to and whether the use of Scripture by his contemporaries can shed some light on his method. The importance of the first task should not be underestimated. To understand clearly how anyone worked with Scripture requires knowing the version of Scripture that he used. Rabbinic works have long shown us the importance of paying close attention to minute changes of words and even consonants in order to appreciate the text's exegetical intricacies. It is also Following the majority of NT scholars, I am assuming that the author was.not Paul. This view is not without weaknesses. See Leonard, Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. g In this paper, as in most studies, "use of Scripture" is narrowed down to places where there is a seemingly purposeful (usually formally introduced) use of a Biblical passage. To do a complete study it would, of course, be necessary to "conclude that the whole of Hebrews, not only the texts found in bold type in Nestle, offers material apposite to the present inquiry."--Barth, p. 54. It is very important to realize that allusive use of Scripture was often a conscious literary practice. Cf. Gundry, pp. xif. 9 "Necessary" only for those doing a traditio-critical study of the text.- But there are other ways of understanding the letter. 4 essential to examine closely, wherever possible, the milieu from which the author of Hebrews may have adopted and adapted his way of perceiving and analyzing Scripture. The critical task is to try to appreciate the use of Scripture in its first century A.D.^ Weltbjld and yet to avoid converting parallels tnto influences and influences into sources.11 Chapter two examines areas pertinent to a study of the textual background of the quotations in Hebrews. It includes a discussion of modern inquiries into the nature of the first century Greek and Hebrew Biblical texts and explores alternative sources for Hebrews' use of a particular passage, i.e. testimony books and liturgical collections. Chapter three examines (1) the nature of the terms allegory and typology, which are commonly used to describe first century exegetical practices, and (2) the first century practices' themselves, represented in part by the rabbinic works and the tar-gum traditions, as well as by the Apocryphal literature and the writings of Phi 1o and the QumrSn sectaries. For textual sources in this essay, I have used Kittel (14th ed.) for the Massoretic Text,12 Rahlfs (8th ed.) for the LXX,13 and Aland (2nd ed.) for the NT.^ When an English translation is used, I have followed the Revised Standard Version unless otherwise noted. I use the terms A.D. and B.C. instead of CE. and B.C.E. because this notation is probably more faithful to the author of Hebrews' strong conviction that the "old" had been swpersed&d! by the "new" with.the coming of Jesus Christ. 11 A common inclination intelligently discussed by S. Sandmel in "Parallelomania," JBL 81(1962): 1-13; Ellis, p. 82; and R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event (London: SCM Press, 1959). 12R. Kittel and P. Ka,hle, Biblia Hebraica, 14th ed. (SStu^fgaVt: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1966). 13 A. Rahlfs, Septuagiiita, 2 vol., 8th ed. (SStiu^tgaKt: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1965). 14 K. Aland, et. al., The Greek Mew Testament, 2nd ed. fct'utt'ga'r't: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1968). 5 CHAPTER II TEXTUAL PROBLEMS To understand how the author of Hebrews exegeted Scripture, it is necessary to establish, as far as possible, the particular text type(s) that he used for his quotations.1 This entails choosing the best reading for the first century Greek and Hebrew Biblical texts, as well 2 as the most likely reading for the quotations in Hebrews;itself, determining what alternative textual sources might have also been available, and suggesting what first century text(s) (Biblical or 3 otherwise) could have provided the author of Hebrews with his quotations. The textual critics have usually concluded that Hebrews shows no dependence on the Hebrew text, but relies instead on some form of the Greek Biblical text, one most similar to the extant codices Alexandrinus(A) and Vaticanus(B). Some minor variances from these codices are explained either by assuming the author's use of a slightly difference Greek source, or by supposing that he altered his available text intentionally (for theological reasons) or unintentionally (through slips of memory). I am assuming that the author of Hebrews is responsible for the extant form of the letter. The textual history of Hebrews is not well enough established to be sure that present peculiarities can be ascribed to the author and not to some later hand. Furthermore, Scriptural quotations would seem to be the least stable part of any NT textual tradition, as they are more apt to suffer scribal harmonistic corruption. See B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), pp. 197-98. 2 There are two important considerations to be kept in mind when choosing a reading for Hebrews. First, the distinct possibility of backreadings from a LXX manuscript on the quotations in Hebrews, See P. Katz, "oi AT A quasi-stability has been achieved by assuming uniform (for the Hebrew) and assessable (for the Greek) first century Biblical texts, and by minimizing the difficulties involved in discussing some non- Biblical sources which could have also provided the author of Hebrews with his citations. Textual discoveries at Qumran, recent transformations in the LXX field, and continuing research in such areas as liturgiology and testimonia have reminded us of how elusive the quest for Hebrews' Scriptural source must be. The purpose of this chapter is to point out the results of some recent developments in the textual area of Biblical interpretation and to suggest their implications for an analysis of Hebrews' use of Scripture. First Century Text The diversity of both the Hebrew and Greek first century A.D. Biblical texts is now solidly supported. The early Greek text has, for many years, been considered diverse and the main issue of discussion has revolved around the origin and evolution of the various Greek 4 traditions. In a different manner, the first century Hebrew text 5 has almost invariably been considered to be fixed. However, as more and more of the Dead Sea material is deciphered and published, it is becoming increasingly evident that, though the text of some of the Biblical sections found there is remarkably similar to the Massoretic Text (thereby lending support to the traditional claim of the MT's antiquity ), "the most striking feature of the biblical manuscripts ^Of the many theories, those put forth by P.A. de Lagarde and P. Kahle are pivotal. The first posits an archetypal LXX lying beneath the three recensions of Hesychius, Lucian, and Origen; the second considers an homogeneous LXX text to be the end result of a long process of Greek targums. Important books in this area include: S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (London: Oxford University Press, 1968); H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (N.Y.: KTAV, 1968); and S.P. Brock, C.T. Fritsch, and S. Jellicoe, A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 197377" 5 A noted exception is G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 192777 pp. lOOf. 7 found in the vicinity of Qumran is the diversity of their textual traditions...the plurality of the distinct text types preserved "7 There may now be differences of opinion concerning the number of Hebrew g recensions circulating in first century Palestine, but one thing is firmly established: the pre-A.D. 70 Hebrew text—like its Greek sister--was not uniform. In practice, how does this changed conception of the Hebrew text affect the textual critic? Certainly the practice of looking almost exclusively to the Greek texts for source material will not be altered, since the only extant Hebrew text available in substantial quantity is q the MT. However, what must change are the presuppositions held concerning the stability of the Hebrew text. For example, "MT" should be substituted for "Hebrew text" in statements such as, "II suit les LXX, et jamais l'hebreu 1,10 But a new conception of the Hebrew text can also lead to a more basic redirection of scholarship. This can be exemplified by analyzing S. Kistemaker's position. Prompting B.J. Roberts to exclaim, "the Biblical texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls do indicate the existence of a pre-Massoretic Hebrew text which, to all intents and purposes, agrees with the present MT " In "The Dead Sea Scrolls and OT Scriptures," BJRL 36(1953/54): 96.. Roberts based his conclusions on the limited data of those hectic years following the QumrSn finds. Subsequent expansion of evidence has led to a very different assessment. 7F.M. Cross, Jr., "The Contribution of the QumraVi Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text," IEJ_ 16(1966): 81. Cross (p. 94) posits two textual families. M. McNamara sees the DSS and Targums providing evidence for three traditions: Proto-Massoretic, Egyptian, and Proto-Samaritan. In Targum and Testament (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 23-25. 9 /\ Nevertheless, isolated instances of texts discovered at Qumran have proved illuminating. One example offers a possible source for Heb. 1:6: the Hebrew text of 4 Q Dt. 32: 43 which reproduces the same lines previously found only in the MT of Ps. 97:7. ^°Spicq, I, p. 335. Similarly, Westcott, pp. 478f.; Smits, vol. 4, p. 598; Pavda (throughout); Thomas, pp. 7-9; and Kistemaker, p. 88. Others are more cautious, indicating that though the author of Hebrews seems to have definitely used the LXX for direct quotations, allusions would seem to hint at a knowledge of the Hebrew text. E.g. Stendahl, p. 160; and Leonard, pp. 315-16. 8 Kisternaker, hinting throughout, statesoutrightly (p. 88) that the author of Hebrews knew no Hebrew, and that he only used a LXX version. His method of reasoning can be shown in his description of Ps. 102:25 in Heb. 1:10-12: "But if the author had the ability to employ the Hebrew, why did he not show it in this quotation? If he were acquainted with the Hebrew tongue he could have corrected the LXX at several places." This assumes two disputable presuppositions: (1) that the Hebrew version available to the author of Hebrews was identical to the one now found in the MI; and (2) that had the author known Hebrew, he would have automa• tically corrected the "inferior" LXX. The second lies more in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century need to determine how accurate 12 a translation the LXX is, than in the first century Hellenistic Jewish thought which saw the LXX as being as valid--and at times more so--as the Hebrew text. The first presupposition is simply untenable in light of the discoveries at Qumran. The author of Hebrews, more explicitly than any other NT author, 13 probably used a Greek source very similar to our LXX text. G. Howard is the only scholar to have pursuasively suggested a probable Hebrew MT source for Hebrews.14 Based on raw statistics—and very little textual exegesis-- Howard's argument, though important for showing the problems involved in trying to posit no other influence but the LXX, does not bring forth enough evidence to argue a case for probable Hebrew influence. His reasoning can also be misleading. For example, the statement (and it is not followed up) that 24 quotations are unlike either the Hebrew or the LXX, 8 are identical to both, and 6 are identical to the Hebrew against the LXX both misses the point and ''Kistemaker, p. 26. 12 F. Johnson is a good representative of this nineteenth century mode of reasoning. He tries to show (pp. 1-28) that the author of Hebrews, though using the LXX, "corrected it by the Hebrew original whenever necessary." In The Quotations of the New Testament from the Old (Phil.: American Baptist Publication Society, 1896). 13 See Spicq, I, pp. 334Ff- 14G. Howard, "Hebrews and Old Testament Quotations," NT 10(1968): 208-16. 9 is deceiving. The suggestive question is: of the 24 differing quotations, what degree of difference do we have? Besides, how can a quotation, in Greek, ever be considered identical to the Hebrew text? However, to say that the LXX represents the most likely Biblical source for the critic dealing with Hebrews is not to (simplify the matter by much. It is far from certain what first century Greek texts were available to the author of Hebrews. The LXX manuscripts which have come down to us are not the work of one man or group of men. Rather, they indicate layers of translation and editing which, like the Hebrew Bible, represent theoutcome of a long and diversified textual tradition. To distinguish between the various sources and to separate the "primitive" sections from the "edited" ones are the present concerns of the LXX critic. P. Katz, the man most responsible for initiating this perspective, states: In the LXX no imaiEU!Sicr(.ipttash(homo.g:e.ne0:us throughout...In fact, the question to be asked is: does the quotation follow the primitive text or an "edited" one? And that answer can only be given on the basis of an expert knowledge of the evidence of the several books of the LXX.15 The practice of comparing Hebrews' quotations with a few manuscripts loses purpose. What is gained by saying: "...les accords de Hebr. avec A contre B sont nombreux..;Mais, par ailleurs, Hebr. est plusieurs fois d1accord avec B contre A...?" K.J. Thomas is alone in applying Katz' theory to Hebrews.^7 He concludes that the author of Hebrews had before him a primitive LXX text underlying both A and B. The reasoning is as follows: it is highly likely that the author used an earlier version of the LXX (1) since most of Hebrews' variations from A/B are intentional (and proving this takes up much of his paper), (2) since in the 23 readings where A differed from B there could be found no interpretational reasons, and P. Katz, "The Quotations from Deuteronomy in Hebrews," ZFNW 49(1958): 221f. l6Spicq, I, p. 335. 17 The Use of the Septuagint in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Univ. of 10 (3) since textual analysis itself supports the author's use of a "primitive" rather than an "edited" text. Thomas' conclusions are debatable but his orientation is indicative of the direction that must be followed. Since A and B first became available in the nineteenth century as key witnesses to the LXX, it has often been noted tfeti the quotations in Hebrews, although remarkably similar to both manuscripts, correspond wholly to neither. In fact, over half of them are not exact replicas 1 g of our reconstructed LXX. The differences can be seen as stemming not from the text used but from the author's stylistic or exegetical concerns. For example, one might picture him altering a particular word or phrase 19 20 for stylistic reasons or to convey a desired theological perspective. These questions will be considered in the following chapter. What concerns the textual critic is the possibility that the author of Hebrews used a different source (Biblical or otherwise). A number of alternatives can be postulated to explain the 21 divergencies between A/B and the citations in Hebrews. They include Manchester diss., 1959). He has also published what is, in effect, a summary of his thesis in "The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews," NTS 11(1965): 303-25. , 18 For example, Westcott (pp. 478f.) sees 15 quotations out 29 differing from A/B. 19E.(g.. Kistemaker (p. 24) re: Heb. 1:7; and A.B. Mickelsen (p. 205) re: Heb. 12:5-6. 20 Stendahl points to a school of interpreters doing this for the Gospel of Matthew. Working with Hebrews, the two scholars most representative of this approach are Thomas and Kistemaker. The important texts are Heb. 1:8f., 10-12; 2:6f.; 9:20; 10:16f., 37'f.; and 12:5. The classic representative of the viewpoint that NT authors modified Scripture for apologetic reasons (i.e., the application of Scripture to the kerygma) is B. Lindars' New Testament Apologetic. Lindars examines the shift in application of texts from one key issue (of the early Church) to another, and studies the complexity which slowly develops in the interpretation of Scripture. He posits four basic events which dramatically altered the consciousness of the early Church and so forced it to adapt Scripture in a peculiar way: Jesus' resurrection, his suffering and shameful death, his messianic ministry, and his birth. 21 Moreover, it must be remembered that a supposed non-variation" may in fact have been a variation for the author of Hebrews. Aside from the hypothetical notion that a variation may have been accidentally paralleled then or later by some Greek or Hebrew text, there exists the 11 22 the following: tlie author of Hebrews mav have chosen a reading from 23 24 a now non-existent Greek or Hebrew text; he may haye translated 25 independently from the Hebrew; or (more probably) tried to.reconcile Of. the Greek to a Hebrew text which is no longer available. Nor can we ignore the following possibilities: that there could have been errors in the transmission of the text of Hebrews; that the author may 27 have been following a now-lost set of proof-texts, or making use of 28" a liturgical tradition. The last two alternatives can be profitably expanded, especially since they are mentioned time and again in every study dealing with. Hebrews' use of Scripture. But first a note on one of the most used and abused explanations of Hebrews' minor variations from the LXX: the author's fallible memory. I include this section now because one often meets this type of reasoning from those wishing to prove that it is not necessary to posit an extra-Biblical source for Hebrews. These scholars assume that the author's use of the LXX, with minor errors of memory that he is bound to make, adequately explains the situation. distinct possibility that a NT reading influenced the later LXX reading during the process of revision (de Lagarde) or standardization (Kahle), however one wishes to view the evolution of the LXX text. 22 Or a "school" responsible for Hebrews' particular method. This theory has not yet been tested for the letter, but it has been fruitfully applied to other NT books by Stendahl (Matthew) and E.D. Freed (John). 23 Pavda, p. 101. P.E. Kahle in The Cairo Geniza (Oxford: Blackwell, 1959) suggests that the author of Hebrews—and other NT writers—used various Greek texts exactly as they stood. 24 G. Howard, "Hebrews and Old Testament Quotations." 25 Starfelt suggests this in his (later published) thesis to explain the quotations in Acts: Studier i rabbinskoch nytestamehtlig skrifttolkning (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1959), pp. 281f. A short English summary is included on pp. 260-88.-^ 26 E.g. M- Barth who sees (p. 55) Heb. 12:5-6 and 13:6 more literally translating the Hebrew. 27Below, pp. 13if. 28 Below, pp. 21 .f• 12 Memory Often the NT critic, confronted with a Scripture-like citation that is not exactly represented in older extant literature, will appeal to the .formul'aV<'c^ problem. In other words, he will see the NT writer's faulty memory as being the cause of the inaccuracy. This notion is applied to Hebrews in a more potential than actual sense. That is, the author's quotations. are "believed, to be accurate because he depended on some written text, not on his memory: "It is clear that the author to the Hebrews does not rely on memory while citing the OT, for his quotations are too 29 much in harmony with the written text." Apart from the more basic problem co/f applying the cause and effect syndrome to historical narrative, there are many difficulties with such an appeal. For one thing, alternatives may better explain the situation, e.g. the author's use of testjmonia, midrashic rewriting of Scripture, or liturgical alterations. For another, the ancients' memory may not have been as faulty as we like to imagine. The first suggestion is an obvious note of caution; the second can be profitably expanded. Today it is not uncommon to meet people who can accurately recite long portions of the Bible, and this is done in a society that is much . less oriented towards learning through memory than was the early Jewish 30 one. B. Gerhardsson's fascinatingly detailed Memory and Manuscript clearly shows how memorizing the tradition formed the basis of education for the early Jews. Although it is evident that Gerhardsson's evidence, coming as it does from anywhere in the rabbinic corpus, cannot be 31 safely assumed for pre-70 Jewish practice, it is certain that the use of memory for the first century Jew—and for classical man in Kistemaker, p. 57. Concerning the long quotation from Jeremiah (Heb. 8:8-12) he adds: "Since jt is the longest quotation in the entire NT, it is a bit out of place to expect memory work at this point." (p. 42) Similarly, Spicq, I, p. 334; Mickelsen, p. 169; Swete, p. 402; Dodd,_p. 50; and Reid, pp. 55f; 30 Tr. E.J. Sharpe (Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1961). 31 Concerning this issue, the heated debate between B. Gerhardsson 13 32 general --was more integrally incorporated into the educational system than it is today. To deny any lapses of memory among the first century Jews would be foolish, but to assume that we can easily resolve or redirect textual problems in Hebrews by recourse to the author's memory can be even more tenuous. Testimonia We have no reason to believe that he [the author of Hebrews!! was acquainted with a sort of theological enchiridion in which texts were already gathered.33 Hebrews...pays no attention to contexts: he is not quoting the Bible; he is quoting from a Testimony Book.34 The Epistle to the Hebrews stands far removed from any dependence on a Testimonyy Book.35 II est vraisemblable que Hebr. utilize ici {J:5-13j un florilege scripturaire destine" a prouver 1 'excellence de Jesus.36 L'auteur a manifestement utilise" un recueil de Testimonia tel qu'il en existait a Qumran.37 38 Testimonia is a current name for systematic collections of Scriptural passages, usually of messianic import, which were used by and M. Smith (later followed up by J. Neusner) is instructive. The key issues are clearly exposed by Gerhardsson in his Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1964),_p. 12. They are XT) whether one can read into Pharisaic teachings Rabbinic principles of pedagogics, (2) to what extent one can regard Pharisaic teachers as representative of "normal" Judaism, and (3) whether the early Church followed "the principles of practical pedagogics which were common to their milieu." Important works (in order of publication) are Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript; Smith, "A Comparison of Early Christian and Early Rabbinic Tradition," JBL 82(1963): 169-76; Gerhardsson, Tradition and Transmission; and J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, vol. 3 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971), pp. 143-79. 32 Cf. J.I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, tr. G. Lamb, (N.Y.: Sheed and Ward, 1956). 33 Leonard, p. 352. 34 Synge, p. 17. Kisternaker, p. 92. 14 39 some Jews and Christians perhaps as far back as the first century. That such collections served the NT writers as sources for their quotations is the debated notion called the testimonia hypothesis. Sparked by E. Hatch (1889),^ expressed in its extreme form by R. Harris (1920-21),4^ and revised and modified extensively by CH. Dodd 42 (1952), the hypothesis--in any of its forms—has not gained general 43 scholarly acceptance. Since interpreters of Hebrews usually take an 44 45 extremely strong stand either for or against such a theory, and since their position can have important repercussions on their other 46 47 hypotheses, it is worthwhile to examine the problem in some detail. ^Spicq, II, p. 333. 37 ' <*. s Spicq, "L'Epitre aux Hebreux, Apolilios, Jean Baptiste, les Hellenistes, et Qumran," RO 1(1959): 384. 38 Probably first used in modern scholarship by F. Burkitt in The Gospel History and Its Transmission (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1907). It derives ultimately from a work by Cyprian, Ad Quirinium Testimoniorum Libri Tres (Migne, PL_, iv). 39 E.g., 4 Q Testimonia in the QumrSn community, Cyprian (see preceding note); and Papias1 attribution of the logia to Matthew in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., Ill, xxxix, 16(LXL, I, 296-97). 40E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford: Univ. Press, 1889). He believed that there may have existed Scriptural collections ("manuals of extracts from the Old Testament") put together by Greek-speaking Jews, and perhaps used by NT writers (e.g., Paul in Rom. 3:10-18). Following this suggestion, S.H. Vollmer in Die Alttestamentlichen Citate bei Paul us (Freiburg: Univ. Press, 1895) suggested that the compilations probably also existed in Hebrew and could be used fruitfully to explain some citations in Paul's letters. Burkitt expanded the theory with his study of Matthew and suggested that the logia of Papias should be under• stood as a collection of Scriptural proof=texts. 4^R. Harris (with the assistance of V. Burch), Testimonia, vol I-II (Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1916-20). The section concerning Hebrews is found in vol. II, pp. 43-50. 42 His theory is detailed in According to the Scriptures. 43 Opposed are: Stendahl, pp. 207-17 (and the preface to his second edition); Freed, p. xi; Lindars, pp. 23f.; Hagner, p. 95; and Gundry, pp. 163-66. 15 The testimom"a hypothesis in classic expression was put forth by Harris in order to explain certain peculiarities of NT usage. He Synge, pp. 2f.; Spicq, II, p. 333; F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1964T7 p. 274; S. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Phi lo and Hebrews (Zurich: E.VG-Verlag, 1965), pp. 84-88; and H. Montefiore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1964). 45 Kistemaker, pp. 91-92; Leonard, pp. 352f.; Reid, pp. 66-71; and V. Burch, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1936T7~p. 43. 46 This can be most clearly seen in the works of Sowers and Bruce. The first considers the discovery of 4 Q Testimonia to have wiped away all objections to the theory, and sees a "strong probability" that the author of Hebrews used isolated fragments of a book of testimonies. He then uses this "fact" to prove his main point: the author of Hebrews could be accused of allegorical interpretation (reading into a passage a meaning not intended by the original author) were it not for the fact that Hebrews does not use the original passages, but relies on testimonia. Thus, Hebrews' method of exegesis is ratified, and disturbing relations with Phi 1o are rendered even less likely. Bruce, while discussing the author of Hebrews' use of Hab. 2:4 (pp. 274-75), though pointing out that this text is twice quoted by Paul, that it "might well be regarded as the 'text' of the Epistle to the Romans," and that it is used by the two authors with "no fundamental difference," concludes (by placing undue weight on the testimonia hypothesis): "It is plain that our author does not take this quotation from Paul." 47 Especially helpful secondary literature includes: J.A. Fitzmyer, '"4 Q Testimonia' and the New Testament," ThSt 18(1957): 513-37; P. Pringent, Les testimonia dans le christianisme primitif (Paris: Librairie LeCoffre, 1961), pp. 16-28; and Ellis, pp. 102-12. Also Hagner, pp. 93f.; Gundry, pp. 163-66; Stendahl, pp. 207-13; A.C. Sundberg, "On Testimonies," NT 3( 1959)_: 268-81 ; and B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic and "Second Thoughts IV: Book of Testimonies," ExpT 75(1964): 173-75. 48 Six in particular: (1) composite citations (e.g., Heb. 1:5-13; 2:12-13; 5:5-6; Matt. 21:13; Rom. 15:9-12; 2 Cor 6:16-18); (2) attribution of citation to a wrong author (e.g., Mk. 1:2-3; Mt. 27:9-10)—this cannot be applied to the author of Hebrews since he is not concerned with naming the human source of the revelation; (3) peculiar formal quotations in Matthew (e.g. 1:22-23; 2:15-23; 4:15-16); (4) divergence of many NT citations from any known LXX text, sometimes agreeing with parallel NT and Patristic citations and other times with a Hebrew version (e.g., the "Atj/tc wp^S" citations: Heb. 8:8-12; 10:16f., 30 £See Ellis, pp. 102-123); (5) the preference for certain portions of Scripture among early Christians; and (6) "to this should be added that the testimonies...might fit well into the picture of early Christian preaching." (Stendahl, p. 208.) 16 believed the testimonia to be a single collection of Scriptural texts, predating the NT writings, and used in Christian polemic against the Jews. Furthermore, he thought that Matthew the Apostle put the collection 49 together, and considered a sixteenth century anti-Jewish document found on Mt. Athos to be a late edition of this work. Concerning Hebrews he clearly stated his position: "We can readily deduce that the Book of Testimonies is the book of Origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews."50 However intriguing Harris' theory was, no evidence could be found that such a testimony book, aimed at the Jews, preceded the NT, or 51 that it was a single book--nor, for that matter, a book at all. Also, there was no reason to suppose that this testimony book was polemical rather than liturgical or catechetical in purpose. And what grounds did Harris have for equating the logia with this collection? The theory remained the focus of attention for thirty years, Nevertheless, it suffered many transformations under the next generation of scholars who were fascinated by the theory's usefulness, but were intent on 52 staying clear of its methodological pitfalls. In the Stone Lectures given at Princeton in 1950, CH. Dodd put 53 forth an alternative theory. His motive was to underline the creativity and unity of the early Christians while still acknowledging their use of some form of testimonia. Dodd thought that the early.Church^used collections of Scriptural quotations, but in oral not written form. He also believed that they originated within the creative tradition of the Church searching Scripture for an understanding of Jesus, not with one or two people intent on writing a polemical work. "I am not thinking of a book at all, but rather something belonging to the body of 54 instruction49 s imparted orally in the main." "The impression-•-is that Based on Papias' statement. See Footnote 39. 50Harris, II, p. 44. 51 Cf. T.W. Manson's statement: "...the earliest form of the 'Testimony Book' was determined by the form of the primitive preaching and the book itself was written on the 'fleshy tablets' of the preacher's heart." "The Argument from Prophecy," JTS XLVI(1945): 132. 52 See Fitzmyer (pp. 522f.) and Pringent (pp. 20f.) for masterful discussions of the reactions to Harris1 theory. 17 they are working upon certain accepted assumptions, and that they haye behind th.em a good deal of fundamental work upon the subject which must 55 have.gone on in very early days.'' Dodd also did not suppose that the early Christians mechanically linked together selections available in an anthology, of single isolated proof texts. Rather, following Jesus' example they meditated on certain parts of-Scripture, acknowledged 556 by othersaasbbeiiingaufefQl- and considered each section in its proper Scriptural context. "These sections were understood as wholes, and particular verses or sentences were quoted from them rather as pointers to the whole context than as constituting testimonies in 57 and for themselves." Dodd's theory received an overwhelmingly favorable reception from the 58 scholarly world, no doubt due in part to his view of the early Christians. 53 These lectures were later collected and published under the title According to the Scriptures. A summary is available in The Old Testament in the New~TPhil.: Fortress Press, 1952). 54 Dodd, The Old Testament in the New, p. 12. In According to the Scriptures, p. 126 he adds: "The composition of 'testimony books'^was the result, not the presuppostion of the work of early Christian scholars." 55 According to the Scriptures, pp. 22-23. Among his examples, he notes Hebrews' use of Pss. 8 and 110, where the content is applied to Christ without argument, thereby suggesting previous work. 56 Dodd considers fifteen passages to represent the core, of the Scriptural tradition of the early Christians, their "Bible": Pss. 2:7; 8:4-6, 110:1, 118:22-23; Is. 6:9-10, 53:1, 40:3-5, 28:16, 61:1-2; Gen. 12:3; Jer. 31:31-34; Job 2:28-32; Za. 9:9; Hab. 2:3-4; and Dt. 18:15,19. 57 According to the Scriptures, p. 126. This practice of using brief phrases designed to bring to mind the longer passages from which they are taken was a common one in antiquity (cf. Johnson, pp. 67-73). We can apply it to the author of Hebrews' use of Is. 8:17-18 ( a rarely quoted text in the NT). If we assume that Is. 6:1-9:7 formed a single unit of prophecy, as Professor Dodd argues (Acc. to the Scrip., p. 81), then the quotation falls more readily into a common NT mold. 53 Cf. Lindars' (New Testament Apologetic, p. 14): "The importance of Professor Dodd's work can hardly be over-estimated,." On the other hand, Sundberg's critique has become the clarion call for those few feeling as uneasy about Dodd's proposals as they were with Harris1. Unfortunately, Sundberg's argument is not well defended. Three reasons can be given. First, using the list of quotations printed at the end 18 They became leaders critically and emotionally involved in following and understanding the tradition initiated by Jesus, rather than followers passively selecting isolated passages from a ready-made collection. 59 After Dodd's proposal three events occurred which left a significant impression upon the testimonia hypothesis: the finds at Qumran, the renewed interest in Jewish exegesis, and the mounting importance attributed to lectionaries for understanding first century thought. Most startling of all was the find of testimonia at Qumrfn. Before the mid-twentieth century one of the main stumbling blocks to the entire testimonia hypothesis had been the lack of evidence for the existence of such collections as early as the first century. This dearth had plagued Harris1 theory, and Dodd had concluded that such an absence must lead us to believe that testimonia must have been the result and not the presupposition of early Christian Biblical study. However, the publication of some Qumran Cave 4 fragments, entitled " 4 Q Testimonia" and "4 Q Elorilegium," has altered the picture. In R.A. Kraft's words: It is no longer possible to deny the early use of collected scriptural excerpts, nor is it easy to maintain the Christian origin of the testimony literature... there should be, therefore, no a priori objection to the suggestion that early Christian authors, perhaps even some N.T. authors themselves, may have used testimony 1iterature.61 of Nestle's NT text, Sundberg attempts to show that Dodd erred when calculating the concentration of Scriptural references. He forgets to state that Nestle's list lumps together direct and indirect quotations as well as allusions and reminiscences. Second, when Dodd says that some Scriptural passages were more basic to NT writers than others he implies both a qualitative and quantitative importance. Sundberg has tried to show, by quantitative analysis alone, that Dodd's chosen citations were not the most basic. And third, Dodd's mention that there seemed to be a traditional method of exegesis among early Christians brings on Sundberg's unfounded statement: "this can only mean that the same Scriptural passage received the same interpretation." 59 It is interesting to note that while Dodd was advancing his hypothesis, J.W. Doeve, working with Jewish sources, was independently suggesting that isolated testimonia, without reference to context, were of secondary importance to the early Jewish mind. See Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Leiden: Van Gorcum and Co., 1954), pp. 116f. 19 Mea.nwhile other feasible theories h^ye emerged whictL positiyely expla,tn textual divergencies without recourse to testimonia. K., Stendahl, working on Matthew1s citations, beljeyes the Jewish hermeneu- tfcal methods—properly assessed —to account more naturally for the 63 NT peculiarfties that Harris wanted to explain --even in the light cn of the Qumran finds of testimonia. In addition, one shoot from the growing interest in Jewish exegesis has been the fascination found in liturgy and the realization that perhaps lectionaries had a notable influence over the form of certain NT texts. The early stages of some relatively fixed sequence' of messianic texts...may not go back to a single written source nor be combined through exegetical reflexion, but may rather be compositions created by prophetic figures for use in liturgy."5 B.F. Westcott may have anticipated this point when he stated: The large proportion of passages taken verbally from the Greek Psalter points to the familiar use of the Book both by the writer and the readers. Under this aspect, the absence of verbal coincidence with the Psalms apart from the quotations from them is remarkable.66 Would it be so remarkable if the author had followed a non-Biblical (liturgical) source? The following section looks more closely at this point. fin The texts can be found in J.M. Allegro, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan. V: Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 53-60. They are discussed in Fitzmyer's article (pp. 532-37). 4^ Q Testimonia is a combination of Nb. 24:15-17; Dt. 5:28-29, 18:18-19, 33:8-11 (none found in Hebrews), strung together with no additional comments. fii R.A. Kraft, "Barnabas' Isaiah text and the 'Testimonia Book' Hypothesis," JBL 790960): 339. CO To be discussed in the following chapter. CO "The phenomenon of composite quotations may best be explained by Jewish homtletical and midrashtc techniques and may thus be unrelated, at least in the NT, to a testimonfa source*" M. Miller, "Targum, Midrash, and the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament," JSJ 2(1971): 55. 20 HQweyer, Qne la,s,t point needs., to be m,ade. The quotations vyhich opened this section disagreed forcefully concerning Hebrews' use of testimonia. They did so mainly for two reasons. First,as already mentioned, the available evidence is sufficiently sparse to warrant disharmony. Second, and more important, each critic hypothesizes a different kind of testimonia collection available to the author of Hebrews. The most frequent assumption is that Harris1 theory represents the only'testimonia hypothesis. S. Kistemaker is a good example^ of one who believes that once Harris1 position is refuted, the entire theory falls. According to him, the author of Hebrews cannot be said to follow testimonia for two reasons: one, he could not have used but a single collection due to the textual variations found in the letter's quotations; and two, the use of a testimonia collection necessarily implies an ignorance of the larger totality of Scripture, an ignorance which is not otherwise shown by the author of Hebrews. Kistemaker's position is not valid. Few scholars since Harris have believed in the existence of one testimonia collection. Further• more, why suppose either the author's total dependence on written testimoiria (as Dodd also does) or a resulting lack of appreciation for context? Surely one can imagine the opposite., The testimonia hypothesis should no longer be equated with Harris1 theory; rather, the last fifty years of research must be considered. First century Jews used written and (no doubt) oral testimonia and florilegia69 as apologetic, and study aids. It is quite possible (albeit still impossible to show) that the author of Hebrews had recourse to such aids. The Stendahl, pp. 216f. Concerning Matthew, he sees the quotations reflecting more the pesher type of exegesis found at Qumran than a dependence on testimonia. 65Miller, p. 55. 66Westcott, p. 475. ^7This lack of accepted definition and the assumption that the term is self-evident bring about a problem which we shall encounter again in dealing with midrash, typology; and allegory. 68 Reid (pp. 66f.) is another. 21 testtrnQnta hypoth.ests. has,. tQ he cQnsjdered a, y^l id option for the textual critic intent on determining Hebrews' Scriptural source. Lectionaries "for some time criticism has Been concerned to understand the documents of the New Testament not only in the light of their setting in life conceived in a broad sense, but also especially in the light 70 of the worship of the Church, from which they emerged." The study of early Jewish -lectionaftifes^, especially with a view to seeing what importance they may have on elucidating some NT passages, is now a blossoming field of research. Many scholars of the Bible71 and 72 related fields have tried to show how readings from the Synagogue services often provide the foundation for other writings. Concerning Hebrews, almost a century ago, Westcott prophetically inquired: "It would be of great interest to determine, if there were adequate evidence, how far the quotations are connected with 73 Lessons or Psalms of particular days*" The hint was picked up by V. Burch (1936) who was the first to suggest publicly that "our writer fundamentally goes to a non-biblical authority for his material. 74 The lectionary of the Synagogue is that authority." More recently, C. Spicq (1950) and M. Barth (1962) have elaborated various aspects of thi6s9 theory. S. Kistemaker(1964) has based his entire work on it. Testimonia and florilegia, though not normally differentiated, do have slightly different implications. The first suggests an ulterior (apologetic) reason for making a collection; the second is a more neutral term. 7%.D. Davijies-.j;- "Reflections on Archbishop Carrington's The Primitive Christian Calendar," in Christian Origins and Judaism (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1962), p. 67. 71Examples include: P. Carrjngton, The Primitive Christian Calendar (Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1952); A. Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford: Univ. Press, 1960); and C. Perrot, "Luc 4, 16-30 et la lecture biblique de 1'ancienne synagogue," RevScR 47(1973): 324-40. 79 E.g., R. Le Deaut, Introduction a la litterature targumigue (Rome: Institut Bfblique Pontifical, 1966). 73 Westcott, p. 474. The Psalms play a very important role in Hebrews. According to Bishop: Westcott's calculation, 11 o:uife* of 29 quotations in Hebrews are taken from this collection. 22 Believing that the Psalms dominate Hebrews, four of them in particular (Pss. 8,40,95,110) laying the structure and thought of the entire letter,7 Kistemaker postulates that the source of most of Hebrews' quotations was 78 the liturgy familiar to him and his readers. The purpose of this section is to determine how valid an option the lectionary theory is for a textual understanding of Hebrews. A representative example of how this theory can be applied to Hebrews 79 is A. Guilding's exegesis of Heb. 4:14-7:28. Assuming a triennial cycle in Palestine (i.e., the reading through of the Pentateuch on consecutive sabbaths over a period of three years) she determined that the passages read from the Pentateuch for the Pentecost each year would be Gen. 14 (year 1), Ex. 19 (year 2), and Nb. 17-18 (year 3)—with Psalm 110 being read yearly. Remarkably, all these passages can be tied 7-4 p . 58co . 75 Spicq (I, p. 336) sees the quotations from Deuteronomy originating in liturgy, but does not elaborate. 76 One of the main thrusts is: "The author is far from seeking for his Old Testament interpretation a climate devoted to abstract thought and detached from contact with what the people of God actually receive or fail to receive "(p. 75) To lend partial credence to this, he suggests that "in Hebrews the clusters of quotations and allusions appearing in chapters 1-2; 3-4; 5-10; 11; 12-13 may each have to do with a specific festival or feature of Israel's worship."(p. 71) As a suggestion, his theory is provocative; as a forceful proposition it lacks support and must even muster a hypothetical "King's festival" in order to explain the quotations in chapters 1-3. 77Reid narrows it down to one, attempting to prove that Ps. 8 "is really the key to the whole epistle." (p. 127) 78 He bases his theory on a detailed analysis of six quotations: 1:6,7; 3:7-11; 4:4; 8:8-12; and 13:5. I should add that the most comprehensive treatment of the use of liturgy in Hebrews would seem to lie in an unpublished M.A. thesis (Univ. of Nottingham, 1960) by CH. Cave: The Infl uence of the Lectionary of the Synagogue on the Formation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. I have not been able to obtain a copy of this work. Cave's more recent article takes for granted an early triennial cycle:"The Parables and the Scriptures," NTS 11(1965): 374-87. 79 "Some Obscured Rubrics and Lectionary Allusions in the Psalter," JTS 3(1952): 48-55. The purpose of this article is to show "that the arrangement of the Psalter was determined by the cyle of the ecclesiastical year and the needs of public worship "(p. 41) 23 in with a section of Hebrews, implying that the letter could have been grounded in liturgy and, more particularly, in the Pentecostal readings. The analysis goes as follows. After mentioning the ascension and high priesthood of Christ, the author of Hebrews dwells on the high priesthood of Aaron, especially the fact that Aaron was called by God and did not take the honour himself (Nb. 17). A quotation from Ps. 110 (which alludes to Gen. 14) then reveals that Jesus, likewise, was chosen by God for the high priesthood, but that his priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek. There is then a rebuke to his readers for their dullness, a reference to the gift of the Holy Spirit (the Pentecostal theme), and an indication of the oath made to Abraham which, like the Psalm, stresses the immutability of the Promise. Chapter seven then proves the superiority of Jesus' high priesthood by using terms drawn from the first and third years (the giving of tithes in Nb. 18:21 and Gen. 14), with a reference to the giving of the Laws mentioned in Ex. 19 (the reading from the second year). However appealing Guilding's theory may be, we have to ask what kind of backing it has. The crucial issue in the study of early Jewish liturgy revolves around whether there is any evidence to support the notion of a fixed lectionary at such an early date. A subsidiary point concerning Hebrews, which is a letter of unknown origin and destination, is whether any evidence also exists for the presence of early fixed lectionaries outside of Palestine. For example, much about the letter suggests an Alexandrian rather than a Palestinian provenance, but it is debatable what lectionary system--!'f any--was followed in that 80 major center+ . H. St. John Thackeray's Schweich Lectures of 1920 exemplify the 81 earlier view concerning Jewish liturgy: "The Pentateuch was divided oyR. Marcus (in his introduction to Phi 1o Supplement of the LCL pp. xii-xiv) finds much similarity between Philonic thought and the Babylonian annual lectionary system. However, he stresses the hypothetical nature of these thoughts. Ql mm These views are biased on the pioneering efforts of A. Buchler, "The Reading of the Law and Prophets in a Triennial Cycle," JOJR 5(1893): 420-68; 6(1894): 1-73. This work was carried further by his pupil J. Mann in The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, vols. I-II (N.Y.: KTAV, 1940-66T7 "Buxhler dramatically illustrated, 24 into.sojne 15Q; sections and w^s, read through-once in three years, Qn thi s system, which was in yogue \n Hevj; Testament times and was general ly 82 superseded By an annual cycle abqut f\.U, 2Q0, I; need not dwell." Actually, he could not dwell on this point because there is no support for it. Wjestcott's word of caution, "if there were adequate evidence," points to the Achilles heel of this and other lectionary theories. There is no first century evidence whatsoever for postulating the existence of a developed lectio continua of the Pentateuch and the Prophets in NT times, and a great deal of information—from both Christian and Jewish sources—casting doubt upon it. Justin Martyr's description of an early church service (First Apology 1:67), in which Scripture was to be read as long as time permitted (/ie)(pty /y^Loptc) lessens the probability that the early church had a fixed lectionary. 83 A similar interpretation can be deduced from 1 Clement 40:1. Further• more, the Mishnaic passage Meg. 4:4 suggests that even in later times there appears to have been no continuous reading of the Prophets. In addition, the fact that the Jewish scholars at Yavneh had to regulate 84 the calendar makes the idea of a fixed Jewish calendar before this time highly improbable. 85 Critics would now invariably agree with L. Morris when he states: Wherever we look there are conjectures and uncertainties. We do not know when systematic reading began or what form it first took. When the triennial cycle evolved we do not know at what time of year it began and whether there may not have been several different triennial cycles. We do not know the relation of the triennial to the annual cycles, nor the precise connection of the LXX with the cycles.86 with the publication of a Geniza fragment, that the list of Prophetic readings in early Jewish liturgy differed from the ones now used. He set out to determine exactly what were the early readings. utThe Septuagint and Jewish Worship, p. 45. 83This is noted by W.D. Davies, p. 73. 84Rosh-ha-Shanah 2:9f. (Danby, pp. 190f;) and G.F. Moore, II, p. 23. Cf. W.D. Davies, p. 90.. 85Crockett's discussion of this problem (in a lengthy excursus) 25 The textual critic cannot determine precisely what texts, if any at al 1 ? were. systematical ly read \n . the f irs,.t. century 1 iturgy. Ttii s is true eyen though there seems to have Been some sort,of tradition Of readings, both of the Law and of the Prophets, in the early Church (e.'g,, Lk. 4:16-19; and Acts 13-15), and though it seems probably that some of the ordered readings from the Pentateuch mentioned in the Mjshnah (e.g., Meg. 3:4-6) reflect, in part, a first century situation. Summary It is at present impossible to convincingly determine the source(s) of the author of Hebrews' quotations. This is especially true if divergencies are not lightly dismissed as "errors of memory." Whether he took his texts from a version of the Bible—either Greek or Hebrew— or from a collection of pre-selected Biblical texts—be it a collection of testimonia or a list of liturgical passages—is unknown. In addition, recent research is making the situation more complex. The Qumran finds have revealed diverse Hebrew textual traditions, as well as early collections of testimonia. One can no longer neglect the possibility that the author of Hebrews used (if only in part) Hebrew texts or pre-set collections of citations. Meanwhile, work in the Septuagintal field has begun to detect a textual situation as complex as that of the Hebrew Bible. Although a text quite similar or even idential to our LXX still represents, for the critic, the most is perhaps the most systematic rebuttal of the lectionary theory. B.Z. Wacholder's learned prolegomenon to Mannas book is perhaps the most brilliant. Also helpful are McNamara's comments in Targum and Testament (pp. 46f.) and in The New Testament and Palestinian Targums (pp. 42f.). 86 • The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries (London: Tyndale Press, 1964T7~p. 34. 87 We have to speak of "probabilities" when using these later texts. Kistemaker often forgets this. For example, when speaking of the canticles and hymns now collected in the LXX (following the Psalter), he states (p. 47): "Although the list was not drawn up immediately at the dawn of the Christian era, we may be certain that the hymns circulated among the early Christians and that many...were sung in the church near the end of the first century A.D. already." 26 ltkely source for Hebrews' citations,, |t |s,.nQ longer a matter of comparing the citations with A and B.. Perhaps the liturgical area is the only one that recent studies have simplified: however intriguingly this theory can be applied to Hebrews, the uncertain origin and destination Of the letter, coupled with the lack of'evidence favoring such a theory, renders this option more hypothetical than ever. The incertitudes of this area must be appreciated by anyone attempting to analyze Hebrews' exegetical practices. The conception that one has about the source of the quotations greatly determines how one then explains the author's use of Scripture.' 27 CHAPTER III FIRST CENTURY EXEGETICAL PRACTICES Said R. Simon: "Alas for the man who regards the Torah as a Book of mere tales and everyday matters!"...The Torah....contains in all its words supernatural truths and sublime mysteries. Observe the perfect balancing of the upper and lower worlds. Israel here below is balanced by the angels on high, of whom it says: "Who makest thy angels into winds" (Ps. civ. 4). For the angels in descending on earth put on themselves earthly garments, as otherwise they could not stay in this world, nor could the world endure them. Now, if thus it is with the angels, how much more so must it be with the Torah...The stories of the Torah are thus only her outer garments, and whoever looks upon that garment as being the Torah itself, woe to that man.1 Once the author of Hebrews has stripped away Scripture's "outer garments," ortce he has reinterpreted the "mere tales and everyday matters," what does he see? Since he begins with a pre-understanding of Jesus as the Christ, and of the Bible as divinely inspired (1:5f.; 5:5; 8:8f.), what do the Scriptures mean to him? In answering these questions, the critics go to the author's contemporaries for guidance. They do so for three main reasons. Understanding these motives will help us to appreciate much of the research in this area. First, and most obvious, the modern historian tries to see everyman as a child of his age. He is intent on gaining an entry into the author's different mode of reasoning by studying his particular world view. Second, many studies dealing with Hebrews have a distinct apologetic tone. The critic's purpose is" often one of showing how Hebrews' exegetical method is different from or better than that of his contemporaries. Third, 'The Zohar* tr. M. Simon and H. Sperling (London: Soncino Press, 1934), p. 2TTTBeha 'alothekha 152a). 2E.g., Ps. 102:26-28 in Heb. 1:10-12. The text originally clearly speaks of God the Father, the Creator, but by transfer!ng the name kyrios to Jesus, the author of Hebrews is able to address him with the words of the Psalm, and to call him the creator of heaven and earth. 28 much of Hebrews' method can perhaps only be grasped by understanding how his contemporaries .'viewed Scripture. This is so because, as we have seen in the previous chapter, it is impossible to determine the exact text which the author of Hebrews used. Some aspects of the authors method may be understandable only through comparison with the techniques of his contemporaries, to the degree that they can be understood. Recent work concerning the exegetical procedures of Hebrews' con• temporaries raises serious problems for the NT scholar. The debatable areas can be reduced to two. The first concerns matters of definition. That is, are the key terms such as "midrash," "allegory," and "typology" precisely defined in a commonly accepted manner? The second area involves the viability of using the author of Hebrews' contemporaries in order to better understand him. Do they really help us to more clearly grasp the author's particular method? The purpose of this chapter is to outline some of the potentially troublesome research concerning Philo and the Qumran sectaries, as well as the rabbinic, targumic, and 3 Apocryphal traditions, insofar as they bear on Hebrews. Hebrews' exegetical method is often called "midrashic," which equates it to some degree with a type of Scriptural interpretation usually associated with the rabbis. This "chapter-opeifs with adiscussion of the elusively simple term "midrash." It stresses, as the previous chapter did with textual matters, the innate complexity of such an inquiry. 3 A discussion of Pseudo-Philo was not included because so little is known about it, and so little of what is known applies to Hebrews. The basic text is M.R. James' English translation (1917) now republished with a very extensive and erudite prolegomenon by L.H. Feldman (including a comprehensive bibl iography) :The Biblical Antiquities of Phi 1o (N.Y.: KTAV, 1971). 29 Rabbinic Exegesis The task of the first century Jewish thinker--!'ndeed his very life force—was to discover and to apply the Scriptural word, that divinely inspired message containing all of God's teaching and guidance for man. 4 The two essential and subtle poles were then "le rattachement et la reference constante a 1'Ecriture et 1'adaptation au present."^ The term used to describe this process is "midrash," coming from the root drs ((j*yi) meaning "to examine," "to search," "to explicate."^ "May God us keep, From Single Vision and Newton's sleep"7 might well express the first century Jewish view, with the effort being placed on setting g some rules of interpretation rather than putting a single meaning on a text. "Les Mattres en Israel devaient concilier deux obligations, en apparence contradictoire: d'une part 1'interdiction soit d'ajouter a la Loi qui contient tout, soit d'en rien retrancher puisqu'elle est sacree; d'autre part, la neWssnibe1 d'adapter cette Loi aux circonstances, d'edicter la Loi orale, dont quelques prescriptions eliminent pratiquement tels^commandements anciens...." J. Bonsi rven, Exegese rabbi ni que et exegese Paulinienne (Paris: Bibliotheque de theologie historique, 1939), p. 13. 5R. Bloch, "Midrash," VDBS 5(1957): col. 1266. g F. Brown, S.R. Driver, C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966). Midrashim are found in all rabbinic literature. The field is a specialist's concern, and many key works remain untranslated. 7W. Blake, "A Letter to Thomas Butts," (1802) in Poems and Prophecies (N.Y.: Dutton, 1927), p. 323. g Called "middot," or "norms" and."measures," developed and collected classically for halakhic texts by Hi 11 el, and later expanded by his successors. J. Bowker gives oneeof the clearest descriptions of these rules in The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1969), p. 315. I have avoided using the terms "peshat" and "derash" for literal and applied exegesis, respectively. There is now some controversy over whether "peshat" really means "literal" or if it should rather be taken as the authoritative and generally accepted text. See R. Loewe, "The 'Plain' Meaning of Scripture in Early Jewish Midrash," Papers of the Instjtute of JeWish Studies, ed. J.G. Weiss, vol. I (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964), pp. 140-85. 30 Hebrews, 3;7-19. is usually taken a? a good example of a midrash. After the presentation of the text, Ps. 95:7-11 [yv. 7-1 f], comes, an explanation ("Who were they that heard and yet were rebellious? Was |t not all those who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses?") and adaptation ("For we share in Christ.")fvv- 12-19] using relevant parts of the text, as well as other Scriptural sections (Nb. 14:29) to bolster the argument. And, if one wishes, the whole section can be seen within the frequently used rabbinic technique of inclusion* from oc*itft(y.s [v. 12] to arr 1 crr 1 ou/[y. 193. The area of midrashic studies is now in flux. There are two driving forces behind the contemporary discussion of Jewish exegesis: (1) Can the term midrash be precisely defined?; (2) How valid is it to take rabbinic midrash as the standard by which the first century midrashic genre is to be strictly understood? This section examines these questions and seeks to determine what repercussions the answers have on the interpretation of Hebrews. Wright and Bloch introduce us to the first query. Is "midrash at present...an equivocal term...used to describe a mass of disparate material...and approaching the point where it is 9 no longer meaningful...?" Can a true understanding of the term be had only through "une serieuse etude critique, historique et litteraire de cette tradition et des ecrits qui la vehiculent...?^ G.W. Buchanan begins his commentary on Hebrews with the statement, "The document entitled 'To the Hebrews' is a homiletical midrash based 11 on Ps. 110." While it is debatable that the entire letter is "based on Ps. 110," that the document itself is a midrash is also questionable in the light of modern scholarship. According to A.G. Wright, a text cannot be called a midrash unless it is grounded completely upon the 12 Scriptural quotation and is not mediated by another concept. Since Christians no longer preserve Scripture as the basic point of reference, using Jesus instead, their use cannot be called "midrashic." While Wright's thought clarifies one side of the argument, Le De'aut's lights *A.G, Wright, "The Literary Genre Midrash," CBC; 28(1966): 108. 10R. Bloch, "Note methodologique pour 1'etude de la 1 itte'rature rabbinique," RechScR x'l jij (1955): 196. 11 To the Hebrews (Garden City: Doubleday, 1972), p. xix. 31 up the other; "Midrash...jgav* b.e.described hut nQt defined, for it is. a way of thinking and reasoning...which, refuses tp he conceptualized, where it is first of all the response to the question: what does 13 Scripture want to say for the life of today?" Does midrash exist for the sake of the text of does the text exist for the sake of the contemporizing argument? Each NT scholar will have to decide how narrowly or broadly he wishes to define the term. The effort to situate the problem of midrash—both halakhic and 14 haggadic—within historical perspective began' with R. Bloch, was 15 extended by G. Vermes, and is most systematically being carried out 16 by J. Neusner. If a true understanding of midrash can only come through a study of its roots and growth, great care must be taken to trace the evolution of this form. Such a concern inevitably leads to the attempt to place the rabbinic works into some sort of chronological order. Neusner is concerned with applying the results of form criticism to rabbinic works, and has made an attempt at classifying rabbinic material into "forms" and then tracing their evolution. The theories of Neusner and his predecessors are not unanimously accepted, especially their attempt to date the rabbinic works by using internal and external evidence. Many17 continue to place much trust in the tradition, satisfied to follow it in placing the rabbis and their sayings in traditional chronological order. This position is most cogently and cautiously expressed by R.N. Longenecker: ""Wright, "The Literary Genre Midrash." 13 Introduction, pp. 269-70. On this matter he is following Bloch. 14 Her two important articles are "Midrash" in VDBS and "Note methodologique," presenting a new synthesis in the first, and elaborating her method in the second. Wright (p. 109) gives a complete bibliography of Bloch's works. G. Vermes (pp. 7-9) presents an excellent summary of her work in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961). Bloch greatly utilized A.-Robertas work. He had postulated that the roots of the midrashic genre could be traced in post-exilic^Scripture, calling this midrashic use "anthological style,"""qui consiste a reemployer, 1ttteralement ou equivalement, les mots ou formules des ecritures anterieures." ("Genres ljtteraires, "VDBS, 5Q957): col. 411.) 15 He adamantly believes that NT interpretation of Scripture can only be understood within the context of midrashic development as a whole. See Scripture and Tradition, pp. 227f. 32 A major problem in the use of rabbinic materials for the elucidation of first-century practice is, of course, the lateness of the codifications. Yet we are dealing with a religious mentality that took great pride in the preservation of the traditional; and while changes due to development or differing circumstances cannot be denied, this desire to preserve the traditional--barring other considerations—minimizes the severity of the problemJS The importance lies in appreciating the tradition-preserving essence of this culture while still taking account of the natural tendency for change. Extravagant claims in the area of rabbinic dating are not difficult to find. Following are two revealing examples of an extreme, though quite representative, position concerning Hebrews. S. Kistemaker gives strong indication that he believes rabbinic sources purporting to deal with first century material to be trustworthy. For exampile, when looking at Hebrews' use of Ps. 110:1, he finds "convincing" Strack-Billerbeck's excursus that postulates a progression of Jewish thought in the understanding of this psalm, from messianic interpretation in the first century to a revision of this concept ca. 150 with R. ben Elisha. Kistemaker considers this argument, founded on traditional rabbinic dating of material, "unequivocal" proof of messianic interpretation 19 of this psalm among first century Jews. A.B. Mickelsen also reasons 20 in this manner. Basing himself on a quotation from R. Marcus, he finds it "perfectly proper" to compare Hebrews with all rabbinic material, assuming the second and third century doctrines to be exact representations 21 of first century practice. "Unequivocal proof" and "perfectly proper" '"Especially in The Rabbinic Traditions, vol. 3. 17Notably Doeve who (pp. 177f.), aware of form criticism and its possible uses for dating rabbinic sources, nevertheless does not consider Jewish tradition to have worked in that manner. G.F. Moore summarizes: "But the task of Joljanan ben Zakkai and his followers was one of conservation , not of reformation." (I, p. 331.) 18 Longenecker, pp. 24-25. 19 Kistemaker, pp. 27f. 20 Mickelsen, pp. 20f. Similarly, Reid, pp. 96f. 33 are misleading qualifiers in these cases since they fail to indicate the scope of the problem. This attempt to place midrash in proper historical context implies questioning whether rabbinic midrash should be viewed as representative of first century Jewish exegesis. Three factors have to be considered in this light. First, ever since Goodenough's major study pointing out that many Jews living in Palestine and in the Diaspora were not part of the rabbinic 22 tradition, the existence of many "types" of Jews in the first century has 23 become firmly established. Goodenough confirmed what others had long supposed (but without evidence). Rabbinic literature cannot be regarded as the total content of Jewish thought—event in Palestine—or even as 24 faithfully representing the Pharisaic tradition. Second, research is increasingly coming to support the position that there were varieties of exegetical methods within each "sect" of first century Judaism. The rabbinic exegetical method itself has always been 21 or (although indirectly) shown the problems arising when trying to classify exegetical practices into certain geographical camps, e.g., Alexandrian 27 or Palestinian. Third, it is only reasonable to suppose that whatever has been recorded in the particular traditions themselves cannot automatically be taken as representative of that particular stream of consciousness. Were rabbinic practices noted due to their normal presence or their innovative nature? Indeed, what place rabbinic theology had in rabbinism and what place rabbinism maintained on the 28 lives of all Jews are questions still very much under debate. It is useful to review the main points. The rabbinic tradition represents the outcome (not the equivalent) of only one (albeit, probably the most prevalent) first century Jewish stream. We cannot even be certain of the precise character of mainstream rabbinic exegetical practice, either by examining its own tradition or by trying to differentiate it from others. The uncertain basis for defining the term midrash can be linked, in great part, with the contemporary effort to view midrash in historical perspective. Given these factors, it is only natural that there should be a reassessment of principles and a shift away from rabbinic midrash as the standard by which the genre is to be strictly understood and used for NT studies. To try to classify a particular NT book's exegetical practice as "Palestinian" or "Alexandrian," to equate "rabbinic" with "Palestinian," and "rabbinic midrash" with "first century midrash" now seems more tenuous than ever. In short, one should no longer ask: Does Hebrews tDD. Daube, "Alexandrian Methods of Interpretation and the Rabbis," Festschrift Hans Lewald (Basel: Verlag Helbing, 1953), pp. 27-44. 27 Quite recently, Lowy has divided midrashic works not into geographical camps, but into methodological ones: (1) normative, (2) literal 1st, and (3) allegorical. See "Some Aspects of Normative and Sectarian Interpretation of the Scriptures," ALUOS vi(1966-68): 98-163. 28 M- Smith also discusses the problem?attacking the "myth of normative Judaism." See "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century," in Israel: Its Role in Civilizatjon, ed, M. Davis (N.Y.: Harper and Row, 1956). " ~ 35 use Palestinian exegetical practices?. The'.origin-Of Hebrews'.exegetical practices cannot at present be determined. The question should he: Can the rabbinic mode of reasoning be of any use in better understanding Hebrews"exegetical method? Coupled with, the modern attempt to "really understand and appreciate'' the wealth, variety, and importance of Jewish 29 thought, this change of emphasis is an important consideration. NT scholars' use of rabbinic material has greatly changed over the past century. From F. Johnson's description of rabbinic exegesis in the late nineteenth century, "the obscurities, the superstitions, 30 the cabal isms, the puerilities, the absurdities, the insanities...," to I. Abraham (1909) who apologetically goes to great lengths to cautiously suggest than an appreciation and understanding of rabbinic material 31 might be an aid to the study of NT exegesis, there is now a tremendous 32 interest by NT scholars in understanding Jewish exegetical practices. This feeling was prophesied nearly forty years ago by Bonsirven (Exegese, p. 5): "C'est a 1'intention des exegetes et des theologiens Chretiens que nous avons entrepris cet ouvrage: ils se referent volontiers a 11hermeneutique rabbinique...Presqu1invariablement ils repetent les m£mes lieux communs: les rabbins se servaient dans 1'explication de la Bible des sept regies d * Hi 11 el, qui se sont ehsuite dilatees dans les treize d'Ismael; leurs methodes hermeneutiques comprenaient quatre genres indiques par les quatre lettres PRDS...Nous avons le sentiment que la realite est moins simple " 30 Johnson, p. 34. 31 I. Abraham, "Rabbinic Aids to Exegesis," in Essays on Some Biblical Questions, ed. H.B. Swete (London: MacMillan and Co., 1909). Supplemented by G.F. Moore's now classic critique, "Christian Writers on Judaism," HTR xiv(l921): 1970254. Prof. Ellis' career illustrates this point. His early book, Paul's Use of the Old Testament,astutely summarizes and presents the early and mid twentieth century viewpoint that though an understanding of Jewish midrash is heihpful in understanding Paul's exegetical method, it is more important to realize how much the early Christian tradition and Jesus himself have influenced him. However, in two recent articles, Ellis has begun to believe that an understanding of the midrashic mode of thought can be the critical factor in discerning the meaning of some NT segments. See "Midrash, Targum, and New Testament Quotations," Neotestamentica et Semitica, ed. E.E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (Edinburgh: T.ST. Clark, 19691; "Midrashic Features in the Speeches in Acts," Melanges Bibligues (Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1970). Prof. Ellis has informed me that his forthcoming articles will pursue this area of research. 36 Granted that the interest is related in part to the general fascination 33 in Biblical hermeneutics, and the spectacular archaeological finds at . 34 Qumran, there seems to be a fervent desire to deal with Jewish material on a more direct level. Many scholars are now concerned with determining how Jewish techniques can illuminate certain NT passages. There is a movement away from finding material parallels between rabbinic and NT texts, towards discovering formal similarities, i.e. the use by Christians 35 of rabbinic techniques to arrive at particular Christian interpretations FOr example, the realization that the key Scriptural text for structuring and understanding a rabbinic passage was often not clearly cited, or not cited at all—intentionally or due to loss during revision—has led to 36 some recent exciting interpretations of some NT passages. How does this apply more specifically to Hebrews? Unfortunately, this letter has not been included in the recent work done by NT scholars in the field of Jewish exegesis, and my attempts to apply the methodology of various recent studies to Hebrews have been in vain. Nevertheless, the rabbinic mode of exegesis is always useful in understanding some of Hebrews' basic peculiarities. For example, the use of the rabbinic gezerah shawah (i.e. whenever the same word occurs in two Scriptural passages, it is possible to use one of those passages to shed light on the other) is clearly exemplified in Heb. 4: the words KWv-tCoiOrftV of Ps. 95 used in Heb. 3 and ^ar/Vac/ow of Gen. 2:2 used in Heb. 4 enable a particular exegesis to unfold concerning "the rest." Also, 37 the typically rabbinic method of stringing together various parts of Scripture—haraz—is revealed in a series of quotations in Heb. 38 1:5-13. The argument from silence, familiar to Philo and used in 33 Contemporary hermeneutical discussion, anchored in the question of the meaning of language (sparked in great part by M. Heidegger's thought), is concerned with the pre-understanding of the exegete approaching a text and his ability both to understand an ancient passage, and to translate and transmit this understanding to his contemporaries. The important works include: R. Bultmann, "The Problem of Hermeneutics," in Essays: Philosophical and Theological, tr. S. Greig (London: SCM, 1955); J.M. Robinson and J.B. Cobb, Jr. (ed.), The New Hermeneutic (N.Y.: Ha/per and Row, 1966); and P. Ricoeur, Le conflit des interpretations (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1969). 34 / E.g., M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (N.Y.: Scribners, 37 Heb. 7:3, was also known to some of the rabbis. Lastly, the use of a fortiori reasoning is common to the rabbis and is evident in Heb. 3:3 and Heb. 6:7f. Targum Traditions Etymologically, targum (although of uncertain origin) means "a translation^ practically, it signifies a translation of a book or books of Scripture into Aramaic, with commentary being of secondary 40 importance. The targum tradition was the process of expounding, explaining, and contemporizing41 (in the vernacular Aramaic) the meaning of Scripture(in traditional Hebrew) during the weekly synagogue 42 meetings. Potentially, the targums have always been a valuable source of information for the NT scholar. Many reasons can be adduced for this. Originating in popular liturgy, targums were likely to be well known by grass-roots Judaism, and consequently by a considerable portion of 43 the early Christians. Also, for the most part being haggadic, these collections probably suffered fewer changes over the years than did the more legal corpus of material. Moreover, since the first century Bible 1961); and F.F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (London: Tyndale Press, 1959). 35 Crockett's thesis pinpoints this. . 36 The most important studies remain: J.W. Doeve's pioneering work, Jewish Hermeneutics (1954); '(to*. Gertner, "Midrashim in the New Testament," JSS 7(1962): 267-92; P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965); L. Crockett, The Old Testament in Luke (1966); B. Malina, "Matt. 2 and Is. 41:2-3," St.BibFr 17(1967): 291-303; and M.. Miller, "Midrash, - Targum., and the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament'1 (1971). 37 Bonsirven, p. 336. 38 Spicq, I, pp. 59f. 39 H.L. von Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 3 (iMu;nc!ben:: CH. Beck'sche, 1926), p. 694. 4(^".. .le T.P. appartient a un genre litteraire.. .beaucoup plus proche du midrash proprement dit que de la version." (Bloch, "Note," p. 211.) However, Wright's note of caution is important: "Certainly the sections of expansions in these targums are midrash, but that the whole targum should be called a midrash is open to question...The purpose of the targum is to give a translation plus incidental material; the purpose of the midrash is to give homiletic material with incidental connection to the text." (pp. 422-23.) 38 44 Was handed.down to the early Christians as an interpreted hook?.. any indication of how other first century groups; and writings interpreted it is always a valuable addition. The big stumbling block has always been the lateness of our extant targums. However, recent studies have led to a reassessment of the dating of the available targumic collections, and a realization that some of them, though obviously written much later than the letter to the Hebrews, might quite accurately represent first century thought and tradition. 45 The Palestinian Targums have become especially important, due to 46 three mid-twentieth century finds. In 1930, P. Kahle discovered various fragmenrtss of the Palestinian Targums in the Cairo Geniza, dating as early as the seventh century, suggesting no one recension (i.e. the fragments disagreed among themselves), and acknowledged as better 47 representing the first century Aramaic language than Targum Onkelos. "Les targums.. .clarifient les recits, donnent de 1'interest au texte, remplissent les lacunes, harmonisent les contradictions, eliminent les problernes doctrinaux, illustrent les affirmations abstraites^, donnent une reponse a des questions de curiosite ou a des questions polemiques... surtout, ils eliminent les anthropomorphismes et les objections au texte sacre." A.D. Macho, "Le Targum Palestinien," ReyScR 47(1973): 174. 42 The origin of oral targums is traced to Ezra (Neh. 8:8), but it would now seem impossible to critically verify any such date. The synagogue practice is at least as old as the first century B.C., and is probably much older. See G.F. Moore, I, pp. 283f. 43 This is especially important for Hebrews, a writing regarded by imaiiiy -as ti.n\f:1 Ueae.ediibyl Otiitar^bjinl ItsrchoiceiandcwsecQfaS,cr;jptuwe\Sr. J (Above, pp. 21 f-) 44 "The latter-day Judaism as well as Christianity did not evolve from the religion of Israel in the OT, but from the Jewish religiosity that flourished during the intertestamental period."H.Flusser, HTR 610968): 109.. 45 McNamara (T.&T., p. 15) sees enough similarity between these groups of various Palestinian exegetical traditions to want to group them under a single Palestinian targum- I prefer the term "Palestinian Targums." 46 Before 1930 there was a basic set of known targums which.had frozen the oral tradition at one point or another. Onkelos. (0), the officially recognized Babylonian version of the Pentateuch, was deemed the oldest (second century A.D.). Two versions of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch were known: Pseudo-Jonathan (Tjl)--or, as it issal so'called, 39 Twenty years later, Prof- A.Dfez Macho, perusing manuscript? in the Vatican Library, found a complete version of the Palestinian Targum that had been misclassiffed under Onkelos. ft differed from existing 48 ~ Versions, Finally, materials from the caves of Qumran slowly began to reveal the presence of written targums from at least the first century, targums strikingly similar to that of the Palestinian Targums to the 49 50 Pentateuch. The trend seems to be —though not without valid 51 opposition --towards placing an early date on the bulk of the Palestinian Targums. A great deal of work is now being done to see how targumic 52 passages can illuminate particular NT texts. Could the author of Hebrews have been using (in part or in whole) a targumic text for his quotations? Though targums appear to clarify scores of NT passages (or at least, to shed new light on them), remarkably little is applicable to Hebrews. 53 It is a puzzle why Hebrews exhibits so few parallels. However, a few Yerushalmi I (TY I)—and The Fragmentary Targum (Tj II)—or, Yerushalmi II (TY II). There were also various Targums of the Prophets and the Hagiographa which were considered to have been written much later and, aside from Targum Jonathan of the Prophets, did not attain official recognition. For a more detailed analysis, see Le Deaut, "Les etudes targumiques," ETL 44(1968): 5-14; and M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1966), pp. 5-37. 47 Later published in London under the title The Cairo Geniza (1947). ^First published in 1956, this text is now appearing under the editorship of Macho. His related article is "The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum," VT 7(1959): 222-45. For critical editions of TO and TJ of the Prophets we have the first three volumes of A. Sperber's work, The Bible in Aramaic. Volume four (1973) presents in a less critical fashion the targums on the Hagiographa. 49 E.g., 11 Q Targ Job, 4 Q Targ Job, and 4 Q Targ Lev. 50 McNamara tries to prove throughout his work that the Pal. Targ. as a whole was early. 51 Sperber (IV, B., p.2) clearly represents the opposing viewpoint, Which bases its criticism on dating and contextual evidence. In fact, the earliest possible dating of actual written targums comes from the seventh century. Many late elements are found within the targums them• selves, e.g. the reference to the orders of the Mishna in Tj I, Ex. 26:9; and naming the two wives of Ishmael Khadtjah and Fatima (the wife and daughter of Muhammad) in Gen. 21:21. Bowker (p. 14) also forcefully 40 leads have emerged. Targum Neofiti's description of Abel as a confessor of faith seems to fit in more closely with Hebrews' account than does the 54 Biblical rendition which makes no mention of Abels faith. The targumic reverential manner of speaking of God, coupled with the frequent targumic expression "good pleasure before the Lord" might explain some 55 of the author of Hebrews' particular phrases (e.g., Heb. 10:6). Also, Le Deaut presents targumic evidence for the antiquity of the title High 56 Priest for Melchizedek. This figure might have been very familiar in the first century, suggesting why the author of Hebrews would have built his case around the otherwise vague Biblical character. Any rapprochement of the targumic texts to Hebrews must appreciate the fact that there is simply not enough evidence to posit Hebrews' dependence on the targumic tradition. Any individual targumic text can stresses the limitations: "There seems no doubt at all that their attempts in the second and third centuries to move towards a standard rendering drew on existing and far older traditions, but at present the evidence is lacking through which a direct connection might be established...between the existing written Targums and the targum as it might have been rendered in the synagogue in the earliest days." 52 The standard works are: M. McNamara, NT and Pal. Tarq. (1966) and Targum,-,and Testament (1972); Le Deaut, "Les etudes targumiques" (1968) and Introduction a la litterature targumique (1966). Avery useful bibliography has been compiled by P. Nickels, a student of Le De'aut: Targum and the New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1967). One less valuable for the NT area is B.A. Grossfeld's Bibliography of Targumic Literature (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1972). 53 For example, Le Deaut, in giving a long and fascinating list of examples where targums shed light on some NT passages (e.g., Rom. 10:6-8; 2 Cor. 3:17-4:5; and Mk. 13:22) does not deal at all with Hebrews. "Targumic Literature and New Testament Interpretation," Biblical Theology Bulletin 4(1974): 243-89. 54 McNamara, NT and Pal. Tarq., pp. 157f. 55McNamara, T.&T., pp. 93-97. 56 / * N Le Deaut, "Le titre de Summus Sacerdoce et l'exegese juive," RechScR 50(1962): 222-29. Neofiti reads on Gen. 14:18: "And Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem—he is Shem the Great—brought out bread and wine, for he was the priest who ministered in the High Priesthood before the Most High God." 41 be later than the first century? and even though the particular texts might come to be meticulously studied using both internal and external evidence, nothing but a tentative conclusion can ever be brought forth concerning their date and subsequent relation to Hebrews. Practically, this means that targumic texts will have very little force in arguments concerning Hebrews' use of Scripture. The coming section which discusses Phi lo and the Qumran sectaries arrives at similar conclusions. However, it is important to first discuss the nature of two terms which are often confused yet frequently used when discussing Hebrews' exegetical method: allegory and typology. Allegory and Typology This exegetical concept £typology} is basic to Hebrews' interpretation of the 0T.57 His typology is very close to allegory 58 Its [Allegory's^ greatest development in the NT is found in Heb. 7-10.59 In allegory the interpreter attaches a meaning to the narrative which he wants it to convey. His reasons for doing so are entirely subjective.. Allegory and typology are two prominent yet deceptively simple terms used in the on-going attempt to categorize certain non-literal exegetical practices. Were they clearly defined and applied, there would be no need for discussion. However, as the precedingg quotations begin to. show, this area of scholarship is confused and charged with emotion. The situation demands further analysis.^ 7Sowers, p. 91. See also Hanson, p. 96; van der Ploeg, p. 228; and R. Williamson, PJiiloJ^;^ (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970), p. 54. 58W,A. Shotwel 1, The Bjbl ical Exegesis of Justin, Mrtyr (London: McMillan, 1965), p. 58: 59M. Burrows. An Outline of Biblical Theology (Phil.: Westminster Press, 1965), p. 52. Also, R. Grant, The Letter and the Spirit (London: CDr", 1957), p. 55. ^°Mickelsen, pp. 13-22. 61The following studies are basic: (1) H. de Lubac's historical 42 It is important to realize that modern interpreters do not approach this area as detached observers. Many feel charged to justify the "typological method" because:tt is frequently used by NT writers. This method Cto be discussed below;], reflects a view of history in which the world is divided into two ages, and it fits very well into the early Christian impression of Christ being the inaugurator of a new divine Hejlsgeschichte. Ellis adds: "This typological view of OT history is 62 a rare, if not unknown, element in contemporary Jewish exegesis." Mickelsen's discussion of typology and allegory carries this apologetic CO line of reasoning to its extreme:.position. He is obviously intent on showing that typology (used by the author of Hebrews) was much superior to allegory (used by non-Christians at the time). Must we read "a courageous endeavor...an outstanding accomplishment?" Or be told that though typology "did not measure up to modern standard...it pointed the way to the future day?" (p. 21) And why does he have to blur whatever fine distinctions may exist: "Allegory...only seeks to put across some particular idea under the sponsorship or protection of a me.v.er.edi piece of literature?" (p. 20) Again, "His reasons fjthe allegorist'sj are entirely subjective." (p. 20) Although broad biases are at work in any discussion of typology and allegory, the main problem centers on how broad a definition one wants to give these terms. The lack of a commonly accepted definition causes most of the confusion. The problem is a persistent one, because the search for any usable definition invariably skirts two precipices. A fallooffione results in a definition too broad to be of use, and an overly restricted definition awaits the tottering seeker on the other side. An examination of the term "allegory" clearly reveals this. treatment of both terms, emphasizing the early Church Fathers, "Typologie et al 1 egorjsme," RechScR 34 (1947): 180-226; (2) K.-S.. Wogl.lc,o,mbeisfcanalysis of typology, "The Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology," in Essays on Typology, eds. 61'. VT. Lampe and K. J. Woo li combe (London: SCM, 1957); (3) Grant's overview of allegory from its Greek beginnings to Qrigen, The Letter and the Spirit; and (4) R.P.C. Hanson's section (pp. 11-96) in his book on Origen's use of Scripture, Allegory and Event. 62E11is, Paul's Use of the Old Testament, p. 54. 'Mickelsen, pp. 13-22. 43 The word ocXA^vopw. a very late64 and infrequent term in classical Greek culture, etymological ly means "to say something" (J^eouJ) in "another (AXXO ) fashion," and so has as its primary meaning "figurative language." A derived meaning becomes "to say""other" than the obvious 55 sense, or to interpret a text in terms of something else. H.A. Wolfson bases his definition of the term on its etymological roots, and thinks it a mistake to make over-subtle distinctions between what is genuine allegory and what is not. "The allegorical method essentially means the interpretation of a text in terms of something else, irrespective CC of what that something else is." If one accepts this stance (and ¥• Wolf son does not elaborate) all interpretation—including "typological" and "literal"--can rightfully be termed allegorical because one always views a text in terms of something else.67 This extreme perspective is helpful in realizing that the degree of difference, not of principle, must then become the determining factor in delimiting these exegetical 68 terms. However, the term allegory is more often used in a much more restricted manner. It becomes cammethod)fofdfde^ takes64 eac" h term, in a passage to be expounded, as a symbol or cryptogram It is probably Hellenistic. The common word before this time was ortoVotDt (=the real, the underlying meaning), de Lubac suggests (pp. 180f.) that the word SXX-r^opcV , in its exegetical sense, might have first been coined by Paul in Gal. 4:21-24. Similarly, Woolcombe, pp. 50f. 65 What we call allegorical interpretation seems to have arisen with the early Greek philosophers (most rigorously with the Stoics from the fourth century) in their attempt to understand the works of Homer and Hesiod. Philo of Alexandria became the master of this art, applying it to the Bible. It is uncertain how early the Jewish tradition began making use of this method. See J. Gutmann, "Aristobulus of Paneas," EJ,vol. 3, pp. 444-45. 66Wolfson, I, p. 34. fi7 R. Bultmann also makes no distinction between allegory and typo!ogy. The Theology of the New Testament, tr. K. Grobel, vol. 1 CN. T.: C. ScrTbner and Sons7T9^TT, pp. 116f. 68 P. Buchsel also arrives at this conclusion in studying the terms allegory and typology in "txXVrWcW^TDNT, ed. G. Kittel, vol. 1, p. 262. 44 of an idea. Paul clearly employs this method in Gal. 4:22f.: For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem* for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother... Now wej1 brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. Typological interpretation, as a look at its etymology will begin to suggest, is also not self-explanatory. The word TUKOS , a noun formed from the stem of T69 See CH. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: SPCK, 1938), p. 11. Also, Wool combe, p. 40. 70G.H. Liddell et.aill, A Greek-English Lexicon 9th ed. (Oxford: Univ. Press, 1968). 71 de Lubac suggests that there was no clear-cut division between typology and allegory even in Paul's time. Grant (p. 134) also concludes: "All terminology in the first century is fluid." 72Cf. Grant, p. 137; and L. Goppelt, "nfrros, 2vrirvit6$, rum uos, uTforunu>&i1>" JML> ed. G. Friedrich, vol. 8, p. 248.. 73 Sowers, p. 89. Similarly, Spicq, I, p. 346; Buchanan, pp. xxiv-xxv; R.J. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale Press, 1971), p. 40; R.A. Markus, "Presuppositions of the Typological Approach to Scripture," 45 As in the case of allegory, typology has. currently taken on a more specific sense. "Typology now means the interpretation of earl|er events, persons, and institutions in Biblical history which become proleptic entitles, or 'types', anticipating later events, persons, and institutions 73 which, are their antitypes." This method has also come to imply an appreciation for history, one where the literal sense of the Scriptural 74 passage is not precluded. Thus, Adam becomes a type of the "coming one" (TCJTTO5 TOO MiVkovtos) in Rom. 5:12-21, and one has only to remember the allegorical use of "women" in Gal. 4:22f. to see the different appreciation of the primary sense of Scripture. .In Hebrews, the various ways that God has spoken to the fathers becomes a type for which his revelation through the Son was an antitype. The levitical priesthood also becomes a type for which Melchizedekh (and consequently Jesus, who belonged to his order) was the antitype. What does the above discussion suggest? Clearly, the disagreement concerning how one should name Hebrews' exegetical method reflects a more basic lack of consensus about what the terms allegory and typology really mean. The problem is not made simpler by those who feel compelled to defend the typological method because they think it represents the early Christian way and is also closer to the modern attitude of respecting the literal meaning of the Bible. What is to be done? Without a doubt, each person who uses these terms must now define them very specifically, and the definition has to be both narrow enoughtto: limit the area to a workable size, and broad enough to adequately describe CQRJ58(1957): p. 447; and C.K. Barrett, "The ]MtWpm^itTori)t)f^the Old Testament in the New," CHB, vol. 1 (1970): 410. 74Cf. Williamson: "Typology does not say that the text of the OT means something other than it says;" (p. 530)- and Buchanan: "Typology is not designed to give a hidden meaning to the type or to change the meaning originally intended by it." (p. xxv) Also, France, p. 4,0. Woolcombe's statement summarizes well: "Typological exegesis is the search for linkages between events, persons, or things within the historical framework of revelation, whereas allegorizing is the search for a secondary hidden meaning underlying the primary and obvious meaning of the narrative." (p. 40) 75Rarth believes that "Exegesis is for the author of Hebrews the hearing participation in the dialogue that goes on within God " 46 a way of thinking found in many authors. However, I would advocate gofng one step further and not use the terms at all. Exegetical terms should be aids to a better understanding of a complex situation, and "typology" arid "allegory" no longer seem to serve this purpose. I can see no movement towards a common base by scholars who use these terms. The disagreements seem to have nestled into various camps. If one is to use a specific term, perhaps a different one, such as Barth's "dlalogical interpretation" or Spicq's "parabolisme christologique" might force a closer examination of the author of Hebrews' particular 75 method. Another valid alternative is to describe the author's method without attempting to reduce it to a graspable expression. Westcott does this well, and part of his description of Hebrews goes accordingly: "It follows that the historical truth of the Scriptural r^cxwd's; is. everywhere guarded, but the recorded facts are ttfeaijteidi as "signs", and the believer is led to see in them a fuller meaning, as the course of life is unfolded. The records are not changed, but men are changed by 76 gaining deeper insight into nature and history." In short, I am suggesting that the careful definition of the terms allegory and typology, though very much needed, may not be as helpful as using or coining a different termor describing the situation without recourse to a formula. Phi 1o, Qumrtn, and Hebrews The extant writings of Phi 1o and the Qumran sectaries, more datable than the rabbinic material, offer us a clear opportunity to examine the author of Hebrews' contemporaries. Unfortunately, the legitimate quest to see whether Phi 1 o and the Qumrlin sectaries can be of use, in particular cases, for better understanding and precisely situating Hebrews' exegetical method77 is often intertwined with the vain attempt to show Hebrews' total (p. 64) Spicq (I, p. 347) thinks that the term rtepo^oVq (Heb. 9:9; 11:19) would have been the one most favored by the author himself. 76Westcott, p. 480. 77 t stress here "exegetical" (and not "textual" or "contextual") similarity. It does not further our cause to inquire whether both authors used a similar LXX version, introduced the quotations in a like manner, or 47 dependence on, or independence of, Philo or the Qumran sectaries. This endeavor to delineate the general relationship and parallels between them is based on three major presuppostions, all of them weak, yet all of them taken up again and again. They warrant further discussion. First, and most important, many believe that the author of Hebrews can rightfully be considered somebody's disciple if enough similarities 78 can be found between the two. The flaw in this line of reasoning is that discipleship calls for more than subservience and similarity of thought, nonrdiscipleship for more than contradictory views and techniques. En other words, unless we come across a reliable early document stating that the author of Hebrews was definitely a disciple of, let us say, Philo, no amount of long and detailed lists of similarities can ever forcefully prove such a dependence. Some degree of doubt will always remain. Second,-it is often assumed that Greek and Hebrews; ways of thought can be clearly differentiated. This is Reid's basic assumption, and the one behind many other scholars' attempts to set out Hebrews' relationship 80 with Philo. The trend today is to see that the two modes of reasoning were not as antithetical as one might think, be it in their exegetical even quoted from similar parts of Scripture. These are questions asked by those concerned with proving or disproving Hebrews' dependence on Philo or the QumraYi community. 78 E.g., Williamson, pp. 533f.; Burch, pp. 18f.; Hanson, pp. 83f.; and A.C. Purdy, The Epistle to the Hebrews (N.Y.: Abingdon Press, 1955), p. 585. 79 'If this were not true, it might be difficult to see the later Schelling as Hegel's pupil; or (to use a more contemporary analogy) to realize that P. Goodman and W. Buckley, now so close in thought, were originally in anything but a master-disciple relationship. 80 Reid calls this concern to delineate Philo's relationship to the author of Hebrews "the central issue." (p. 5) There have been in modern times, strong arguments brought forth to show both enough similarities between Philo and Hebrews to warrant calling the author of Hebrews Philo's disciple (especially Spicq, I, pp. 39-91.); and enough striking differences to deter any positive conclusions (Sowers, Williamson, and Hanson). Thomas has even attempted to prove that the author of Hebrews' obvious theological and methodological differences from Philo are simply reflections and conscious adaptations of their shared past. See The Use of the Septuagint, pp. 248-311; and "The Old Testament Citations in HebrewsT^p. 308. 48 82 ft? methods^., thought patterns as„ a whole, , or more particularly in their concept of time,84 Lastly, there is the assumption that Qumranic exegesis is perfectly definable, peculiar Ct-e, different from rabbinic exegesis), 85 and perhaps comparable to Hebrews, "Midrash pesher" is the term that 86 has been coined to describe the seemingly peculiar type of exegesis practised by the Qumran sectaries, an interpretation said to be related gl J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1961). Pp. lOf. present an excellent summary of the main contrasts usually drawn between the two modes of thought. ft? Daube has begun the meticulous process of showing possible inter• dependence between the two exegetical schools: "Alexandrian Methods of Interpretation" (1953) and "Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric," HUCA 22(1949): 239-64. W.D. Davies also stresses that Palestinian Judaism was no doubt strongly influenced by Hellenistic modes.In Paul and Rabbinic Judaiisms(London: SPCK, 1948). This area of research is greatly complicated by the lack of clear primary evidence from the early Greek tradition. 83 The Semantics of Biblical Language. 84 A. Momcigliano, "Time in Ancient Historiography," in History and the Concept of Time (History and Theory, Beiheft 6, 1966). This article is, for the most part, a lucid and systematic repudiation—using classical sources—of the too-easily made distinction between Greek and Hebrew concepts of time. Cf. El lade's thought that some cyclical experience of^time is found in both the early Greeks and Jews. In Le mythe de 1 'eternel retour (Paris: Gallimard, 1969 r_rev.3 ). 85 In the past generation of scholars, Hebrews has been singled out by many as the NT book most likely to have affinities with the Qumran group. Hebrews has been seen written (1) to an Essene community in order to convert it—H. Kosmala, Hebraer-Essenes-Christen (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961); (2) to a Christian community, %ome of them having been, or being, influenced by the Essenes—Spicq, "L'Epttre aux Hebreux...et Qumran," and Y. Yadin, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews," in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1958), pp. 36-55; and (3) to a community which sprang from^ the same cultural nrilieu as did the .Qumran sect—J. Coppens, Les affinites qumranjennes de 1 'E^pttre aux Hebreux (Louvain: Publication Univ., 1962), F.F. Bruce, "'To the Hebrews' or 'To the Essenes'," NTS 9(1963): 217-32, and I.W. Batdorf, "Hebrews and Qumran: Old Methods and New Directions," in Festschrift to Honor F.W. Gingrich, ed. E.H. Barth and R.E. Cocroft~ (Leiden: E.J. Brill7T972). ftfi By W.H. Brownlee, "Biblical Interpretation Among the Sectaries Of the Dead Sea Scrolls," BA 14(1951): 54-76. He chose this term because ' the glosses following the Biblical verses quoted in these texts are usually preceeded by the phrase "its interpretation (pisheru) is": 49 to (on the basis of type.of exegesis) and distinguished from (on the basis of style and content) the previously known rabbinic midrashim. That this type of exegesis is surely definable Is perhaps misleading Because It Is uncertain what Hebrew texts were used by these members; that it is peculiar enough to warrant a separation from rabbinic exegetical practices 1s highly proBlematic, at Best. The question to ask is: Can the use of a particular text By Philo or the Qumran sectaries clarify a hitherto confusing passage in HeBrews? The attempt to use Qumranlc methods of exegesis to Better understand some NT works is not new. Certain features of the Gospel of (Matthew3 especially the "formula quotations," led Stendahl to conclude that the #o§aeil might have Been written by a "school," a community of scholars 88 studying Scripture and trying to relate it to Jesus's life. Mainly due to the seemingly very free use of the text in the citations (including alteration of the consonantal text at times), Stendahl states: "The main object of our study...will be to prove clear affinity between the type of OT interpretation to be found in a certain group of Matthew's quotations and the way in which this sect of Qumran treats the book of Habakkuk." (p. 31) Kistemaker has tried to show that the interpretative method of Hebrews (as viewed through a close analysis of eleven Psalm A 89 citations) is also very similar to that found at Qumran. What especially makes the Qumran community intriguing is their Many would see the Qumran exegetical practices as quite distinct from rabbinic methods. E.g., C. Roth, "The Subject Matter of Qumran Exegesis," VT 19(1969): 51868; B.J. Roberts, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and Old Testament Scriptures," BJRL 36(1953-54): 79f.; Ellis, "Midrashic Features," p. 306; and Lindars, p. 15. I see little justification in this, and prefer to stress the "midrashic" character of "midrash pesher" with M. Black, "The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament," NTS 18(1971-72): 1-2; E. Slomovic, "Towards an Understanding of the Exegesis of the Dead Sea Scrolls," RQ 7(1969): 4f.; L.H. SilBerman, "Unriddling the Riddle," R£ 3(1961): 323f.; and Wright, pp. 418f. 88 Gundry forcefully criticized his view. 89 However, the Achilles heel of Kistemaker's argument is his surprising failure to describe ffa.bb.tnlctwterrpr.etat.iivev^ethods which account just as well for the similarities he wishes to make between Qumran and HeBrews. 50 eschatological perspective, and their habit of relating a text to a contemporary event. Believing all the words of the prophets to enigmatically refer to the end of time, the end of time to be at hand, and to be in the presence of an interpreter who had received from God the key—the pesher—to unlock the real significance underlying the prophetic oracles, the Qumran sectaries evolved an exegetical system that was bound to be reminiscent of Hebrews' method. But, apart from 90 a few not-too-surprising similar uses of some basic texts, I have not found my readings of the Scrolls to be particularly useful in illuminating individual citations in Hebrews. The only significant lead seems to be the interpretation of Melchizedek in 11 Q Melch. "Dans le Midrash de Qumr&n (11 Q. Melk), base" sur le derash de Gen. 14, du Ps. 110, d'Is. 52, 7, et du Ps. 81, Melchise'dek devient un personnage humano- 91 divin, Messie sacerdotal et Juge eschatologique " The linking of Gen. 14 and Ps. 110, and the importance placed on Melchizedek perhaps represent the basic tradition from which the author of Hebrews developed his singular conception of Melchizedek in chapter 7. The attempt to compare Hebrews with Philo is a common one, but a mere survey of Philo's works immediately reveals a very different general 92 exegetical method from Hebrews. I was able to find only three clear 93 instances of exegetical similarities : Nb. 12:7 in Heb. 3:2, 5 and "Noah's Work as a Planter," 68;94 Gen. 14:17-20 in Heb. 7:1-10 and ^Allegorical 95 Interpretation," III, 78-82 ; anduGe;n. 22:16-17 in Heb. 6:14 and "Allegorical 90 E.g. Hab. 2:3-4 in 9Heb6 . 10:39 and I Qp. Hab; 2 Sam. in Heb. 1:5 anInterpretation,d 4 Q Fl. " III, 203. None of the similarities adds new light on 91A.D. Macho, "Le Targum Palestinian," ReyScR 47(1973): 203. 92 A peculiarity noted by many. See Williamson, pp. 576f. Sowers' work arrives at the same conclusion. Also, "...their basic hermeneutical principles are quite distinct." (Bruce, p. 1) Even Spicq, who considers the author of Hebrews to be a true (Christianized) disciple of Philo, states (I, pp. 63-64): "On voit combien I'exe'gese de He"br. est loin de celle de Phi Ion " However, Mickelsen finds the author of Hebrews' exegetical method to be very close to that of Philo. 93 Using for my ground work the Loeb Scripture Index to Philo's works (X, pp. 189-268). Thomas found five similar interpretations, but four were based on indirect quotations in Hebrews. LCL, III, 246-47. 51 Hebrews' usage, since all the passages in the.letter are.understandable without Philo's aid. !n this section, I have tried to show what happens when the question of Hebrews' dependence on either Philo or Qumran is left aside, and when we try to ascertain how helpful Philo and the Qumran sectaries are in shedding light on Hebrews' use of Scripture. I have suggested that apart from the interpretation of Melchizedek i h 1)1 Q Mel ch, little seems to be gained by perusing the works of Philo and the Qumran sectaries. The Apocryphal Literature Another potentially valuable but practically veiled source of information concerning the use of Scripture in Hebrews is the Apocryphal (and Pseudepigraphal, for those still wishing to make that distinction) 97 tradition. By setting forth some of the diverse first century thought of both Palestinian and Alexandrian provenance, it is essential for a fuller understanding of first century Judaism. Unfortunately, there are serious handicaps which the textual critic must consider. Dating, origin, destination, and provenance are--as in Hebrews—for the most part uncertain in the Apocryphal tradition, but more important our present versions are generally Greek translations of Hebrew and Aramaic originals. Precisely determining the Scriptural text used and the minute exegetical practices performed on it are then impossible. Nevertheless, some valuable information can be obtained from these sources. 98 J.K. Zink's work, the only systematic endeavor to study the Apocryphal traditionls use of Scripture, clearly brings out its possible 99 use for the NT scholar. Part of the process of determining an author's LCL, I, 353-55. LCL, I, 439. a7By "Apocryphal" I mean the yartous Jewish literary works (apart from those at Qumran, for the present discusston) written during the first two centuries before and after the Common Era, that failed to enter the Jewish canon, and were not included or mentioned (apart from Sirach) in the rabbinic tradition. 52 hermeneutical method liesin examining what parts of Scripture,he used and how; he introduced these quotations into his text. Zink has made a good Beginning at amassing such material, material that is suggestive in light of HeBrews-' method. Introductory formulae, frequent and unique in Hebrews, are rare101 and different in the Apocryphal Books studied. Stmtlarly, the favorite areas of Scripture 102 for the author of Hebrews are ignored By the Apocryphal writers. The Use; of the 01d Testament in the Apocrypha. Q. Hartmannal so" has Begun to deal with the importance of Scripture for the Apocryphal writers, preferirngg to concentrate on only four passages rather than to attempt a more sweeping survey of the entire tradition. It is a suggestive study. However, Zink1s work is the only one that enaBles the student to get an overview. 99 He limits his study to ten Books: 4 Ezra, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Ben Sira, Baruch, Additions to Daniel, the Prayer of Manasseh, and I and II Maccabees. The presuppositions behind much of his study are questionable. He assumes relatively fixed LXX and Hebrew traditions, and then attempts to find the sources for the citations—either in the Greek or Hebrew texts that we now have—in order to use this "fact" to help determine the original language of the particular text. 100Unlike other NT works, there is no reference in Hebrews to a particular Scriptural section or to a human author (unless one takes "in David" of 4:7 to refer to a specific person or book). There is no use of the characteristic word denoting fulfilment (TTX/]/)OUJ and its derivatives). See B.M. Metzger, "The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the New Testament and Mishnah," JBL 70(1951): 297-307. Furthermore, there is no denoting Scripture as "something written" (Y^ypotKroti), the favorite rabbinic way of introducing a citation (Metzger, p. 305). Instead, thexauthor of Hebrews uses a verb of saying (X^yto, and especially Xt'ywv) without combining it (as commonly done) with the name of a prophet or with "Scripture." For further information see Spicq, I> pp. 336f.; Westcott, pp. 476f.; Reid, pp. 44f.; J. Bonsirven, Exegese rabbinique et exegese Paulinjenne (Paris: Bibliotheque de The"ologie Historique, 1939); and D.M. Turpie, The New Testament View of the Old (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1872T 101 Of 83 passages, 17 have introductory formulae. 102 Zink's Appendix A (pp. 191-93) at first glance points out five possible similarities, three of them using the same verse and two using nearby verses—related if one takes, the entire context into account. Same verse: Gen. 14:19-20 In Judith 13:18-20 and Heb. 7:1-2; Gen. 22:17 in The Add. to Daniel, Prayer of Azariah 13 (LXX=Dan.3:36) and Heb. 6:13-14; Dt. 32:36 in 2 Mace. 7:6 and Heb. 10:30. 53 .... Interesting as these details may be, they are not of much use in better understanding Hebrews. Analyzing minute.exegetical practices in the Apocryphal tradttton (e.g., How does the author view his text? How does he work with it and mold it?) becomes a matter of guesswork. Modern textual research is greatly complicating the issue by revealing the diverse nature of the first century Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. This trend, when applied to the Apocryphal (translated) works, clearly indicates the uncertainty that must face the modern scholar when he attempts to determine precisely how the author of a particular Apocryphal work made use of Scripture. Zink's tentative conclusions, based on a more secure but now outdated vision of the first century text, must be viewed as even more hypothetical. To summarize, "midrash," "allegory," and "typology" are all variously defined, and perhaps undefinable, terms used by the majority of scholars to explain a variety of different phenomena. Precision of definition is required. There seems to be a shift away from supposing that the author of Hebrews depended on one of his contemporaries towards determining how useful the rabbinic and targumic works, Philo, Qumran and the Apocryphal tradition are for the NT scholar. A redirection of purpose is in order. What does this imply for a study of Hebrews? If midrash is a term at present describing a mass of disparate material (Wright), if a meaningful understanding of it can only come through a study of its genesis and evolution (Bloch), it is surely only through a diligent examination of recent literature concerning Jewish exegesis that the student of Hebrews can attempt to define and to apply this tenti—and only provisionally. Moreover, rabbinic midrash can no longer automatically be considered the standard by which first century Jewish exegesis is to he understood. A similar note of caution applies as well to the terms "allegory" and "typology." I have suggested that Same context: 2 Sam. 7:13 in 4 Ez. 3:24 and Heb. 1:5; Gen. 47:29 in I Mace. 2:49. and Heb. 11:21. However, a closer examination of the specific Greek texts in question reveals that the three similarities of verse are all superficial, since they use different sections of the verse. Five close contexts.remain,and a detailed look soon reveals a great difference in every case. 54 these tw.0 terms are used in such a variety of ways, and with.such underlying emotion that it might he.advantageous to categorize Hebrews' exegetical method in a different way or by a different term. I have hinted throughout this chapter that a shift in purpose is necessary. It is misleading to try to show that the author of Hebrews depended on any of his contemporaries. Theoretically, it is deceptive to assume that finding mrnifj^la similarities between two people or groups of people warrants our calling one the disciple of the other. Practically, that the author of Hebrews depended on rabbinic midrashim is impossible to determine. Two reasons have been given: (1) the rabbinic texts were written after the first century, and one cannot judge with any degree of accuracy how far back the traditions go; and (2) what importance rabbinism had On first century thought cannot be ascertained. That the author depended on Philo is also difficult to determine, for Greek and Hebrew thought cannot be divided as neatly as hitherto imagined. That he depended on the Qumran sectaries is unknown because it is very difficult to categorize the particular type of exegesis practised at Qumran. And even though recent evidence tends to support the idea that the greater part of the Palestinian Targums accurately reflects first century thought, that the author of Hebrews depended on the targumic tradition can also not be determined because any targumic text can reflect a thought later than the first century. The redirected question is then: Can the author of Hebrews' method be illuminated by the works of his contemporaries? The answer seems disappointingly negative. The rabbinic techniques can facilitate the understanding of similar ways found in Hebrews, e.g. gezerah shawah, haraz, and a fortiori reasonings And the targums (e.g., Neofiti, Gen. 14:18) and the Qumranic material (e.g., 11 Q Melch) suggestively offer an understanding of Melchizeiekh similar to that of Hebrews. But very little in the letter seems to be made clearer by perusing the works of Philo and the Qumran sectaries, or of the rabbis, the targums, and the Apocryphal traditions. The author of Hebrews' method of interpreting Scripture is quite indepedent of any that we know. 55 CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION When a man finishes he is only beginning, and when he stops, he is as puzzled as ever. (Ecclus.l8:6(jer.Bible3) The survey of areas important for a critical interpretation of Hebrews' use of Scripture is completed. We must now ask how this inquiry has contributed to an understanding of a sound starting point for further study. There are three interrelated areas of summary and recommendation. The first is concerned with the increasing difficulty of determining the particular form of Scripture that the author of Hebrews used. Although our present LXX compilation still represents the text which is closest to that used by Hebrews, we have seen how modern textual studies have underlined the fragility of such a theory. The finds at QumraVi have clearly revealed the possible variety of first century Hebrew texts of the Bible, and P.Katz has pointed to the composite nature of our LXX versions. The discovery of testimonia at QumrSh, coupled with a more sophisticated way of examining possible col• lections of such proof-texts, raises the possibility that some NT writings reflect this influence. Furthermore, although the likelihood that the author of Hebrews relied on some liturgical collection(s) seems quite remote, it cannot be discarded altogether. Textual analysis of Hebrews now runs its course between the Scylla of traditional exegetes who are content with comparing Hebrews' quotations with the LXX, and the Charybdis of radical interpreters who are skeptical about the possibility of isolating Hebrews' textual source. 56 The second area of discussion focuses on the difficulty of isolating the exegetical methods of Hebrews' contemporaries and the feasibility of applying these methods to Hebrews in order to better understand the letter. The rabbinic material now must be broken down into pericopae that are individually analyzed and at least tentatively dated before they can be applied to the first century. The same stricture applies to the use of the targums, many of which probably reflect first century thought. Important intro• ductory work in the Apocryphal field also reveals many textual problems and questions about the texts' Sitz im Leben. Concerning the QumraVi sectaries and Philo, the material must be sorted out and then questioned in different terms. That is, instead of asking if Hebrews is dependent on Philo and/or the Qumrtn sectaries, one must ask if they are of use in reaching a better understanding of Hebrews. The same point made in relation to Hebrews' other con• temporaries as well, to the extent that they can be isolated, yields a surprisingly negative conclusion. The author of Hebrews' contem• poraries seem to help us very little in better understanding his use of Scripture. And finally, the student must realize that general terms like "midrash," "allegory," and "typology" are not self-explanatory. If they are to be used at all in characterizing Hebrews' exegetical method it must be done with careful precision. The foregoing analysis may appear to be largely annihilating in its insistence that the "facts" are few. But the emphasis on how little evidence the historian of Hebrews has to work with is therapeutic and has far-reaching implications. It challenges the conventional attitude of historians to ignore the problem of lost data and to organize existing information into as seamless a web as possible, assuming the novelist's role of omniscient narrator. 57 When one is not constantly aware of this dearth of information, much scholarly literature on Hebrews resembles a lipogram, a piece of writing in which the author rejects all words containing a certain letter. The psychological reaction of an unwarned reader who encounters such a lipogram is a vague uneasiness, the sense that something inexplicable is wrong; it is the same kind of feeling that Kafka's "K" had in The Trial. Scholarly work on Hebrews must now determine precisely what evidence is available, and especially what evidence is not. In isolating what we know, as well as what has gone wrong and why, the road to further research is cleared. Future historians will then have to decide what direction this road should take. 58 BIBLIOGRAPHY Texts Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Ed. by R.H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford: Univ. Press, 1913. The Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version. Ed, by Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1973. Biblia Hebraica. Ed. by Rudolph Kittel and Paul Kahle. 14th ed. Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1966. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo. Tr. by M.R. James (with a prole• gomenon by Louis H. Feldman). New York: KTAV, 1971. The Dead Sea Scriptures in English Translation. Tr. and ed. by Theodore H. Gaster. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1964. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Tr. by Geza Vermes. Harmondsworth, Middlesex::: Penguin Books, 1962. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan. V; Qumrfn Cave 4_. Ed. by John M. Allegro. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. (Loeb Classical Library.) Tr. by Kirsopp Lake and J.E.L. Oulton. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1926-32. The Greek New Testament. Ed. by Kurt Aland et al_. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1968. Neophytj I_. Targum Palestinense. MS de l_a Biblioteca Vaticana. Tomo I_: Genesis. Ed. by Alejandro Dfez Macho. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientfficas, 1968. 59 The Midrash on Psalms. (Yale Judaica Series, vol. XIII.) Tr. by Wil 1 lam Gordon Braude.;New Haven: Tale Univ. Press, 1959. Midrash Rabbah. Tr. and ed. by H. Freedman and Maurice Simon. 10 vols. London: Soncino Press, 1939. The Mishnah. Tr. by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1958. Mishnayoth. Tr. by Philip Blackman. 6tvo'ilis)S:s. New York: Judaica Press, 1963. The Old Testament in Greek. Vol. I_ (Octateuch). Ed. by Alan England Brooke and Norman McLean. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1906-11. Pesikta Rabbati. (Yale Judaica Series, vol. XVIII.) Tr. by William Gordon Braude. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1968) The Works of Philo. (Loeb Classical Library.) Tr. by F.H. Colson et al_. 10 vols, (and 2 suppl.) London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1929-62. Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX Interpreted. Ed. by Alfred Rahlfs. 8th ed. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1965. The Targums of OnkeT.os and of Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch With the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum. Tr. by John Wesley Etheridge. 2 vols. New York: KTAV, 1968 (reprint of 1862-65 edition). Vetus Testamentum Graecum Gottingensis Edjturn. Vol. X. Psalmi cum Odis. Ed. by Alfred RahTfs. 2nd ed. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprech.t, ,1967. 60 Vetus Testamentum Graecum Gottingensis Editum. Vol. XV. Ieremias , Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae. Ed. by (Joseph Ziegler. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1957. The Zohar. Tr. by Maurice Simon and Harry Sperling. London: Soncino Press, 1934. 61 Reference Works A Bi bliography of Targum Literature. (Bibliographica Judaica, No. 3.) Compiled by Bernard Grossfeld. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1972. A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint. Compiled by Sebastian P. Brock, Charles T. Fritsch and Sidney Jellicoe. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973. A Greek-English Lexicon. Compiled by Henry George Liddell et al. 9th ed. Oxford: Univ. Press, 1968. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Compiled by Walter Bauer. Translated and adapted by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1957. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by F. Blass and A. Debrunner. Tr. and rev. by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Compiled by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19661 Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash. Hermann L. von Strack and Paul Billerbeck. Vols. 3 and 4. Munchen: CH. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1926. Targum and New Testament: A Bib!iography Together with a_ New Testament Index. Compiled by Peter Nickels. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1967. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger. London: United Bible Societies, 1971. 62 Commentaries Bonsirven, Joseph. Saint Paul: L'Epftre aux Hebreux. (Verbum Salutis, Vol. XII.) Paris: Beauchesne et ses Fils, 1943. Bruce, F.F. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. (The New London Commentary on the Bible.) London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1964. Buchanan, George Wesley. To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusion. (Anchor Bible.) Garden City: Doubleday, 1972. Burch, Vacher. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Source and Message. London: Williams and Norgate Ltd., 1936. Davies, John Howard. A Letter to Hebrews. (The Cambridge Bible Commen• tary.) Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1967. Hering, Jean. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Tr. by A.W. Heathcote and P.J. Allcock. London: Epworth Press, 1970. Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. (The International Critical Commentary.) Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1924. Montefiore, Hugh. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1964. Purdy, Alexander C. and Cotton, J.H. The Epistle to the Hebrews. (The Interpreter's Bible, vol. XI.) New York: Abingdon Press, 1955. Spicq, C. L'Epttre aux Hebreux. (2 vols.) Paris: Librairie LeCoffre, 1950-52. Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews. 3rd ed. London: MacMillan and Co., 1914. 63 Books Blackman, Edwin Cyril. Biblical Interpretation: Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957. Bonsirven, Joseph. Exegese rabbinique et exegese Paulinienne. Paris: Bibliotheque de Theologie Historique, 1939. Borgen, Peder. Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. (Suppl. to Nov. Test., vol. X.) Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965. Bowker, John. The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1969. Braun, Herbert. Qumran und das Neue Testament. 2 vols. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1966. Bruce, F.F. Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1959. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Tr. by K. Grobel. 2 vols. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1951-55. Burkitt, Francis Crawford. The Gospel History and its Transmission. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1907. Burrows, Millar. An Outline of Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1946. Burrows, Millar, The Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Viking Press, 1955. Burrows, Millar. More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Seeker and Warburg, 1958. 64 Carrington, Philip. The Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study in the Making of the Marcan Gospel. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1952. Chasles, R.H. LVancien testament dans le 'tiouveau.. Paris: Gabalda, 1937. Coppens, Joseph. Les affinites qumraniennes de 1'Epttre aux Hebreux. (Analecta Loveniensia Biblica et Orientalia.) Louvain: Publications Univ., 1962. Danielou, Jean. Phi 1 on d'Alexandrie. Paris: Martin et fils, 1958. Dodd, C.H.. According to the Scriptures. London: Nisbet, 1952. Dodd, CH. The Old Testament in the New. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965. Doeve, Jan Will em. Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Leiden: Van Gorcum and Co., 1954. Eliade, Mircea. Le mythe de 1'eternel retour. Paris: Gallimard, 1969 (rev.). Ellis, Edward Earle. Paul's Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957. Finch, Rowland George. The Synagogue Lectionary and the New Testament. Oxford: Univ. Press, 1939. France, R.T. Jesus and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale Press, 1971. Freed, Edwin D. Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John. (Suppl. to Nov. Test, vol. XI.) Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965. Gerhardsson, Bdrger. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Uppsaliensis XXII.) Tr. by E.J. Sharpe. Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1961. 65 Gerhardsson, Biirger. Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity. (Coniectanea Neotestamentica XX.) Tr. by E.J. Sharpe. Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1964. Goodenough, Erwin Ramsdell. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. (Bollingen Series XXXVII.) 13 vols. New York: Pantheon Books, 1953-69. Grant, Robert McQueen. The Letter and the Spirit. London: SPCK, 1957. Guilding, Aileen. The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship. Oxford: Univ. Press, 1960. Gundry, Robert Horton. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967. Hagner, Donald Alfred. The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome. (Suppl. to Nov. Test. VJ'QJIU XXXIV.) Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973. Hanson, Richard Patrick Crosland. Allegory and Event. London: SCM Press, 1959. Harris, James Rendel. (with the assistance of V. Burch-))Testimonies. 2 vols. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1916-20. Hartman, Lars. Prophecy Interpreted. Tr. by N. Tomkinson .(with the assistance of J. Gray.)-Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells, 1966. Harvey, Van A. J_he_ Historian and the Believer: The Morality of Historical Knowledge and Christian Belief. London: SCM Press, 1967. Jellicoe, Sidney. Septuagint and Modern Study. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968. 66 Johnson, F. The Quotations of the New Testament from the Old Considered in the Light of General Literature. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1896. Kadushin, Max. The Rabbinic Mind. New York: Blaisdell Publ. Co., 1952. Kahle, Paul Ernst. The Cairo Geniza. 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959. Kistemaker, Simon. Psalm Citations in Hebrews. Amsterdam: Wed. G. Van Soest, 1961. Kosmala, Hans. Hebr'aer-Essener-Christen. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961. Le Deaut, Roger. Liturgje jujve et le Nouveau Testament. Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1965. Le De'aut, Roger. Introduction a la litterature targumique. Rome: Institut Bib!ique Pontifical, 1966. Leonard, William. Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Critical Problem and the Use of the Old Testament. London: Burns, Oates, and Washbourne Ltd., 1939. Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of Old Testament Quotations. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids: W.ft. Eerdmans, 1975. j-Mann, Jacob. The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue: A Study in the Cycles of the Readings from the Torah and the Prophets, as well as from Psalms, and in the Structure of Midrashic Homilies. Prolegomenon by B.Z. Wacholder. Vol. I. New York: KTAV, 1971 (1940 prig.). 67, Mann, Jacob and Sonne, Isaiah. The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue. Vol. II. Cincinnati: The Mann-Sonne Publ. Committee, 1966. Marrou, H.I. A Short History of Education in Antiquity. Tr. by G. Lamb. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956. McNamara, Martin. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1966. McNamara, Martin. Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1972. Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. Moore, George Foot. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. 2 vols. New York: Schocken Paperback, 1971 (1927 orig., 3 vols.). Morris, Leon. The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries. London: Tyndale Press, 1964. Neusner, Jacob. The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70. 3 vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971. Pavda, P. Les citations de 1'Ancien Testament dans 1'Epttre aux Hebreux. Paris: Presses Univ., 1904. Pfeiffer, Robert H. A History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949. Pringent, Paul. Les testimonia dans le Christianisme primitif: L'EpTtre de Barnabe I-XVI et ses sources. Paris: Librairie LeGoffre, 1961. 68 Rigaux, Beda. The Letters of St. Paul: Modern Studies. Tr.; and ed. by S. Yonick. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1968. Rosenblatt, Samuel. The Interpretation of the Bible in the Mishnah. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1935. Schro'ger, Friedrich. Per Verfasser Hebraerbriefes als Schriftausleger. Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1968. Shires, Henry M. Finding the Old Testament in the New. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974. Shotwell, Willis A. The Biblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr. London: MaMmilil'an, l!T965. Sibinga, J.Smit. The Old Testament Text of Justin Martyr, Vol. I_: The Pentateuch. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1963. Smits, C. Oud-Testamentische Citaten in het Nieuwe Testament, Peel IV: Pe Brief aan de Hebree'e'n; Het Oude Testament in het Nieuwe. Malmberg: S-Hertogenbosch, 1963. 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, No. I.) Zurich: EVG-Verlag, 1965. Sperber, Alexander. New Testament and Septuagint. New York: Viking Press, 1940. (reprinted from the JBL, LIX, pp. 193-293.) Sperber, Alexander. The Bible in Aramaic. Parts I-IVB. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968-73. Starfelt, Eric. Studier i rabbjnsk och nytestamentlig skrifttolkning. (Studia Theologica Lundensia 17.) Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1959. (English summary, pp. 260-88.) 69 Stendahl, Krister. The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968 (1954 orig.). Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. New York: KTAV, 1968 (from 2nd ed., rev. 1914 by R.R. Ottley.). Synge, Francis Charles. Hebrews and the Scriptures. London: SPCK, 1959. Thackeray, H. St. John. The Septuagjnt and Jewish Worship. A Study in Origins (Schweich Lectures, 1920.) London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1923. Turpie, David McCalman. The New Testament View of the Old: A Contribution to Biblical Introduction and Exegesis. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1872. , ' * Vanhoye, Albert. La structure litteraire de 1'EpTtre aux Hebreux. Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1963. Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. (Studia Post-Biblica, vol. 4.) Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961. Vis, Albert. AIT Inquiry into the Rise of.Christianity out of Judaism. Amsterdam: Wed. G. Van Soest, 1936. de Vuyst, J. "Pud en Nieuw Verbond" in de Brief aan de Hebreeen. Kampen, Nederland: J.H. Kok, 1964. de Waard, Jan. A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament. (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, vol. IV.) Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966. Warfield, B.B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1951. 70. i Werner, Eric. The Sacred Bridge. The Interdependence of Liturgy and Music in the Synagogue and the Church, during the First Millenium. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1959. Williamson, Ronald. Phi 1o and the Epi stle to the Hebrews. (Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des Hellenistischen Judentums, vol. IV.) Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970. Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Philo. The Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1962. 7Tl Articles and Essays Abraham, I. "Rabbinic Aids to Exegesis," in Essays on Some Biblical Questions of the Day. Ed. by H.B. Swete. London: MacMillan and Co., Ltd., 1909. Altmann, Alexander. "Bible: Allegorical Interpretation," Encyclopedia Judaica. Vol. 4, pp. 895-99/' Audet, Jean Paul. "L'hypothese des testimonia," Revue Biblique 70(1963): 381-405. Barrett, C.K. "The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New," in vol. I of the Cambridge History of the Bible. 3 vols. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1963-70. Barth, Markus. "The Old Testament in Hebrews," in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation. Ed. by William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962. Batdorf, I.W. "Hebrews and Qumran: Old Methods and New Directions," in Festschrift to Honor F. Wilbur Gingrich. Ed. by E.H. Barth and R.E. Cocroft. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972. Black, Matthew. "The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament," New Testament Studies 18(1971/72): 1-14. Bloch, Renee. "Note methodologique pour 1'etude de la litterature rabbinique," Recherches de Science Religieuse xiiii (1955): 194-227. Bloch, Renee. "Midrash," in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement. Vol. V. Ed. by Henri Cazelles. Paris: Leclee, 1957. Brown!ee, William Hugh. "Biblical Interpretation Among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls," The Biblical Archaeologist 14(1951): 54-76. 72 Bruce, F.F. "Qumran and Early Christianity," New Testament Studies 2(1956): 176-90. Bruce, F.F. '"To the Hebrews' or 'To the Essenes'," New Testament Studies 9(1963): 217-32. Bruce, F-F. "Recent Contributions to the Understanding of Hebrews," Expository Times 80(1969): 260-64. Buchler, Adolf. "The Reading of the Law and Prophets in a Triennial Cycle," Judaism Quarterly Review 5(1893): 420-68 and 6(1894): 1-73. Buchsel, Friedrich. "«XX^yop/u)>" in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Ed. by Gerhard Kittel. Tr. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. I. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1964. Caird, George B. "The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews," Canadian Journal of Theology 5(1959): 44-51. Carmignac, Jean. "Les citations de 1'Ancien Testament dans 'La guerre des fils de lumiere contre les fils de tenebres1," Revue Bib!ique 63(1956): 234-60, 375-90. Carmignac, Jean. "Les citations de 1'Ancien Testament et specialement des Poemes du Serviteur dans les Hymnes de Qumran," Revue de Qumran 2(1959/60): 357-94. Carmignac, Jean. "Le genre litteraire du 'pesher' dans la Pistis- Sophia," Revue de Qumran 4(1964): 497-522. Carmignac, Jean. "Le document de Qumran sur Melkisedeq," Revue de Qumran 7(1970): 343-78. Cave, CH. "The Parables and the Scriptures," New Testament Studies 11(1965): 374-87. 73. Colson, F.H. "Philo's Quotations from the Old Testament," Journal of Theological Studies xli(1940): 237-51. Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. "The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text," Israel Exploration Journal 16(1966): 81-95. Daube, David. "Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric," Hebrew Union College Annual 22(1949): 239-64. Daube, David. "Alexandrian Methods of Interpretation and the Rabbis," in Festschrift Hans Lewald. Basel: Verlag Helbing and Lichtenhahn, 1953. Davies, W.D. "Reflections on Archbishop Carrington's The Primitive Christian Calendar,,." in Christian Origins and Judaism. London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1962. de Lubac, Henri. "Typologie et allegorisme," Recherches de Science Religieuse 34(1947): 180-226. Ellis, Edward Earle. "Midrash, Targum, and New Testament Quotations," in Neotestameiitica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of M. Black. Ed. by Edward Earle Ellis and M. Wilcox. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1969. Ellis, Edward Earle. "Midrashic Features in the Speeches of Acts," Melanges Bibliques en hommage au R.P. Beda Rigaux. Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1970. Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. "'4 Q Testimonia' and the New Testament," Theological Studies 18(1957): 513-37. Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. "The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in the Qumran Literature and in the New Testament," New Testament Studies 7(1960/61): 297-333- .74 Gertner, M. "Midrashim in the New Testament," Journal of Semitic Studies 7(1962): 267-92. Goppelt, Leonhard. "rvnos» vtvri'rorros, romkos .virorotnacn $ in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Ed. by Gerhard Friedrich. Tr. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. VIII. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1972. Grech, Prosper. "The 'Testimonia' and Modern Hermeneutics," New Testament Studies 19(1973): 318-24. Grossfeld, Bernard. "Bible. Translations: Aramaic," Encyclopedia Judaica. Vol. 4, pp. 841-51. Guilding, Aileen. "Some Observed Rubrics and Lectionary Allusions in the Psalter," Journal of Theological Studies 3(1952): 41-55. Gutmann, Joseph. "Aristobulus of Paneas," Encyclopedia Judaica. Vol. 3, pp. 444-45. Hallewy, E.E. "Biblical Midrash and Homeric Exegesis," Tarbiz 30-31 (1961): 157-69. Hanson, Anthony. "The Gospel in the Old Testament According to the Hebrews," Theology 52(1949): 248-52. Hanson, Anthony T. "Christ in the Old Testament," Studia Evangelica 2(1964): 393-407. Hi 1 Iyer, N. "Matthew's Use of the Old Testament," Evangelical Quarterly 36(1964): 12-26. Horton, F.L. "Formulas of Introduction in the Qumran Literature," Revue de Qumran 7(1971): 5Q5-14. 75: Howard, George. "Hebrews and Old Testament Quotations," Novum Testamentum 10(1968): 208-16. Hruby, K. "Exegese rabbinique et exegese patristique," Revue des Sciences Religieuses 47(1973): 341-72. Jacobs, Louis. "Hermeneutics," Encyclopedia Judaica. Vol. 8, pp. 366-72. Katz, Peter. " ou K-VCJ, OQS' OO ^ ere ly^rixXtVoJ . Heb. xiii, 5: The Biblical Source of the Quotation," Biblica 33(1952): 523-25. Katz, Peter. "The Quotations from Deuteronomy in Hebrews," Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 49(1958): 213-23. Knox, Wilfred L. "A Note on Philo's Use of the Old Testament," Journal of Theological Studies xiii (1940): 30-34. Kraft, R.A. "Barnabas' Isaiah Text and the 'Testimony Book' Hypothesis," Journal of Biblical Literature 79(1960): 336-50. Le Deaut, Roger. "Le titre de Summus Sacerdos et 1'exegese juive?" Recherches de Science Religieuse 50(1962): 222-29. y s ' Le Deaut, Roger. "Les etudes targumiques. Etat de la recherche et perspective pour 1'exegese de 1'Ancien Testament," Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 44(1968): 5-34. Le De'aut, Roger. "Apropos a Definition of Midrash," Interpretation 25(1971): 259-82. Le Deaut, Roger. "Targumic Literature and New Testament Interpretation," Biblical Theology Bulletin 4(1974): 243-89. 76 Lindars, Barnabas. "Second Thoughts IV: The Book of Testimonies," Expository Times 75(1964): 173-75. Loewe, Raphael. "The 'Plain' Meaning of Scripture in Early Jewish Midrash," in Papers of the Institute of Jewish Studies. Ed. by J.G. Weiss. Vol. I. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964. Lowy, S. "Some Aspects of Normative and Sectarian Interpretation of the Scriptures," The Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society vi(1966/68): 98-163. Macho, Alejandro Diez. "Le Targum Palestinien," Revue des Sciences ReTigjeuses 47(1973): 169-231. Malina, B. "Matt. 2 and Isa. 41:2-3; A Possible Relationship?"" Studium Biblicum Franciscum 17(1967): 291-303. Manson, T.W. "The Argument from Prophecy," Journal of Theological Studies xlvi(1945): 129-36. Marcus, Ralph A. "Presuppositions of the Typological Approach to Scripture," Church Quarterly Review 158(1957): 442-51. Metzger, Bruce M. "The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the New Testament and Mishnah," Journal of Biblical Literature 70(1951): 297-307. Miller, Merrill P. "Targum, Midrash, and the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament," Journal for the Study of Judaism 2(1971): 29-82. Moore, George Foot. "Christian Writers on Judaism," Harvard Theological Review xiv(1921): 197-254. Neusner, Jacob. "'Pharisaic-Rabbinic' Judaism: A Clarification," History of Religions 12(1973): 250-70. 77-Neusner, Jacob. "The Study of Religion as the Study of Tradition: Judaism,""History of Religions 14(1975): 191-206. Nicole, Roger. "New Testament Use of the Old Testament," in Revelation and the Bible. Ed. by C.F.Henry. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958. Perrot, C. "Luc 4, 16-30 et la lecture biblique de l'ancienne synagogue," Revue des Sciences Religieuses 47(1973): 324-40. Rendall, Robert. "The Method of the Writer to the Hebrews in Using Old Testament Quotations," Evangelical Quarterly 27(1955): 214-20. Robert, Andre. "Genres 1itteraires," in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement. Vol. V. Ed. by Henri Cazelles. Paris: Leclee, 1957. Roberts, Bleddyn Jones. "The Dead Sea Scrolls and Old Testament Scriptures," Bulletin of the. John Rylands Library 36(1953/54): 75-96. Roth, Cecil. "The Subject Matter of Qumran Exegesis," Vetus Testamentum 10(1960): 51-68. Sabourin, L. "Auctor epistolae ad Hebraeos ut interpres Scripturae," Verbum Domini 46(1968): 275-85. Sandmel, Samuel. "Parallelomania," Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1-13. Silberman, Lou H. "Unriddling the Riddle: A Study in the Structure and Language of the Habakkuk Pesher (I Qp Hab.)," Revue de Qumran 3(1961): 323-64. Skehan, Patrick W. "A Fragment of the 'Song of Moses' (Deut,32) from Qumran," Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 136(1954): 12-15. 78 Slomovic, Eliezer. "Toward an Understanding of the Exegesis in the Dead Sea ScrolIs," Revue de Qumrtn 7(1969): 3-15. Smith, Morton. "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century," in Israel: Its Role in Civilization. Ed. M. Davis. N.Y.: Harper and Row, 1956. Smith, Morton. "Goodenough's Jewish Symbols in Retrospect," Journal of Biblical Literature 86(1967): 53-68. Smith, D.M., Jr. "The Use of the Old Testament in the New," in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays. Ed. J.M. Efird. Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 1972. Spicq, C. "Le Philonisme de l'EpTtre aux Hebreux," Revue Biblique 56(1949): 542-72 and 57(1950): 212-42. Spicq, C. "Alexandrinismes dans l'EpTtre aux Hebreux," Revue Biblique 58(1951): 481-502. Spicq, C. "L'EpTtre aux Hebreux, Apollos, Jean-Baptiste, les Hellenistes, et Qumrein," Revue de Qumrftn 1(1959): 365-90. Spicq, C. "Paul:/ EpTtre aux Hebreux," in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement. Vol. VII. Ed. by Henri Cazelles and A. Feuillet. Paris: Leclee, 1966. Stylianopoulos, T.G. "Shadow and Reality: Reflections on Heb. 10: 1-18," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 17(1972): 215-30. Sundberg, Albert C. "On Testimonies," Novum Testamentum 3(1959): 268-81. Thomas, K.J. "The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews," New Testament Studies 11(1965): 303-25. van der Ploeg, J. "L'exegese de 1'Ancien Testament dans l'Epitre aux Hebreux," Revue Biblique 54(1947): 187-228. 79 van Dodewaard, J.A.E. "La force evocatrice de la citation," Biblica 36(1955): 482-91. Venard, L. "L'utilisation des Psaumes dans l'EpTtre aux Hebreux," in Melanges E. Podechard. Lyon: Faculte's Catholiques, 1945. Vermes, Geza. "The Qumran Interpretation of Scripture in its Historical Setting," The Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society vi(1966/ 68): 85-97. Vermes, Geza. "Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis," in vol. I of the Cambridge History of the Bible. 3 vols. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1963-70. Wool 1 combe, K.J. "The Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology," in Essays on Typology. By G.W. Lampe and K.H. Wooll- combe. London: SCM, 1957. Wright, Addison G. "The Literary Genre Midrash," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28(1966): 105-38, 417-57. Yadin, Yigael. "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews," in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. iv.) Ed. by Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1958. 80 Unpublished Material Anderson, Charles P. The Setting of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Ph.D. thesis, Columbia Univ., 1969. Cave, Charles H. The Influence of the Lectionary of the Synagogue on the Formation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. M.A. thesis, Univ. of Nottingham, 1960. Crockett, Lawrence C. The Old Testament in Luke with Emphasis on the Interpretation of Isa. 61: 1-2. Ph.D. thesis, Brown Univ., 1966. Mickelsen, A. Berkeley. Methods of Interpretation in the Epistle to the Hebrews. P'hLD).. thesis, Chicago Div. School, 1950. Reid, Richard. The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Th.D. thesis, Union Theol. Seminary, 1964. Thomas, Kenneth J. The Use of the Septuagint in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Manchester, 1959. Ziink, James Keith. The Use of the Old Testament in the Apocrypha. Ph.D. thesis, Duke Univ., 1963. 81 ABBREVIATIONS AJPhilol The American Journal of Philology ALUOS The Annual of the Oriental Society of Leeds University BA Bib!ical Archaeologist Bib Biblica BJRL John Rylands Library Bulletin CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CHB The Cambridge History of the Bible CQR The Church Quarterly Review EJ Encyclopaedia Judaica ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses ExpT Expository Times HR History of Religions HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA The Hebrew Union College Annual IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JQR Judaism Quarterly Review JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism JTS Journal of Theological Studies LCL Loeb Classical Library NT Novum Testamentum NTS New Testament Studies PL Patrologia Latina RechScR Recherches de Science Religieuse RB Revue Bib!ique 82 RQ Revue de Qumran RevRel Review of Religion RevScR Revue des Sciences Religieuses StBibFr Studium Biblicum Franciscum TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ThSt Theological Studies •VDBS Dictionnaire de la Bible^Supplement VT Vetus Testamentum ZFNW Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
