Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Prolegomenon to the study of Hebrews’ use of scripture : a methodological, textual, and bibliographic… Desjardins, Michel Robert 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 D48.pdf [ 5.23MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093763.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093763-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093763-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093763-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093763-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093763-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093763-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093763-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093763.ris

Full Text

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 @ M i c h e l S o b e r t D e s j a r d i n s , 1 9 7 6 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thesis for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of R e iiQAO <xS U. cj(£P The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date Q t 4 / 7 £ ABSTRACT This thesis is pr incipal ly an examination of modern research concerning the author of Hebrews' use of Scr ipture. l t 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 f ie lds is making i t increasingly more d i f f i c u l t 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 Bibl ical text(s) that the author of Hebrews used as a basis for his exegesis. The evidence indicates that i t is becoming more and more d i f f i c u l t 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 B i b l e -be i t Greek or Hebrew--or a collection of pre-arranged Bibl ica l texts be i t a set of testimonia or a l i s t of l i turg ica l 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 l i terature and the writings of Phi 1o and the Qumran sectaries, appear to help us very l i t t l e in better understanding his use of Scripture. Furthermore we see that under close scrutiny the seemingly simple terms "midrash, "allegory," and "typology" become d i f f i c u l t 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. i i i The lack of available data about Hebrews' exegetical method must force the interpreter of this letter to redirect his aims. The time for a l l -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 F irst 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 l ike to thank Prof. Charles P. Anderson for his many gentle and perceptive suggestions. I also received helpful cr it ic isms in the early stages of my writing from Edmund Ballantyne and Prof. Paul Mosca. For that I am grateful. Most deeply and most direct ly I am indebted to David Gr i f f i ths for the example he sets in pursuing knowledge without arrogance or satiety. n ^ n * y^&w 1 1 ' a n a ' a n ~r >h^p ~T S a a > r v r T a n )<~"nin} n a n x n T - T T — T D ' f t a J ; o ^ a • r r r 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The New Testament writers used Bibl ical 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 Scr iptureJ Almost every NT book has now been analyzed, and the wealth of material is fast becoming as 3 4 burdensome as i t is helpful. - The letter to the Hebrews especially 5 is far from lacking detailed interpretations. This paper is concerned with s i f t ing the ever-growing mass of scholarly data and isolating a sound starting point for c r i t i c a l l y examining the use of Scripture by the author of Hebrews. A careful definit ion of my purpose.will, I 'I use the term "Scripture" instead of the more common designation "OT" for two reasons. F i r s t , "OT" used of the mid-f irst 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-f irst 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 l i terature includes: (A) A bibliographic overview: M. Mi l le r , "Targum, Midrash, and the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament," JSJ 2(1971): 29-82. (B) Recent surveys: R.N. Longenecker, Bibl ical 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 (Ph i l . : Westminster Press, 1974). (C) Theoretical overviews: B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic ( P h i l . : 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. B r i l l ,1965); K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and i t s Use of the 01d Testament ( P h i l . : Fortress Press, 1968 CI954 or ign3~l ; R-H. Gundry, The Use, of the 01 d Testament tnS^. Matthew (Lei den: E.J. B r i l l , 1967); L. Crockett, The: Old Testament in Luke (Brown Univ. d i s s . , 1966); E.E. E l l i s , 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: Cr i t i ca l Problem  and the Use of the Old Testament (London: Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, 193917" 3 Even extra-rcanonical l i terature is being examined. E .g . , J.K. Zi nk, The Use of the Old Testament in the Apocrypha (Duke Univ. d i s s . , 1963); L. Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted (Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells, 1966); WvA. Shotwell, The Bibl ica l Exegesis of Justin Martyr (London: MacMillan, 1965); J .S. Sibinga, The 01d Testament Text of Justin Martyr (Leiden: E.J. B r i l l , 1963); D.A. Hagner, The Use of the 01d and New  Testaments iii Clement of Rome (Leiden: E.J . B r i l l , 1973); and K. Hruby, "Exeg¥se rabbinique et exegese patrist ique," 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. C P . Anderson, The Setting of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Columbia Univ. d i s s . , 1969)7 pp. 15f. 5 Important l i terature 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 d i s s . , 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: L ibra ir ie 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, vo l . 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 d i s s . , 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 a l l 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 i^e6rew$;, 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 c itat ions. 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 i t possible for the NT scholar to present a ver i f iable historical aperc^ u of Hebrews' particular exegetical method? In other words, the emphasis wil l l i e less on questions asked within history than on questions asked about i t . 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 le t ter ' s use of Scripture. This work does not profess to present a thorough examination of a l l the data, but is concerned with delimiting some issues of method and logic raised by modern research. The c r i t i c a l problems in SQripjturjal iiinteppretatronr.can'rbe'di vide'd into two parts, the f i r s t dealing with textual and the second with exegetical matters. That i s , in order to understand how the author 7 8 9 of Hebrews uses Scripture i t 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 l ight on his method. The importance of the f i r s t 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 intr icac ies . 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 Bibl ical passage. To do a complete study i t 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 real ize that al lusive use of Scripture was often a conscious l i terary practice. Cf. Gundry, pp. x i f . 9 "Necessary" only for those doing a t rad i t io -c r i t i ca l study of the text.- But there are other ways of understanding the let ter . 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 c r i t i c a l task is to try to appreciate the use of Scripture in i t s f i r s t century A . D . ^ Weltbjld and yet to avoid converting paral lels tnto influences and influences into sources. 1 1 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 f i r s t century Greek and Hebrew Bibl ical texts and explores alternative sources for Hebrews' use of a particular passage, i .e . testimony books and l i turg ica l col lections. Chapter three examines (1) the nature of the terms allegory and typology, which are commonly used to describe f i r s t century exegetical practices, and (2) the f i r s t century practices' themselves, represented in part by the rabbinic works and the tar-gum tradit ions, as well as by the Apocryphal l i terature 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 T e x t , 1 2 Rahlfs (8th ed.) for the LXX, 1 3 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 C E . 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 incl ination inte l l igent ly discussed by S. Sandmel in "Parallelomania," JBL 81(1962): 1-13; E l l i s , p. 82; and R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event (London: SCM Press, 1959). 1 2 R . Kittel and P. Ka,hle, Bibl ia Hebraica, 14th ed. (SStu^fgaVt: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1966). 13 A. Rahlfs, Septuagiiita, 2 v o l . , 8th ed. (SStiu t^gaKt: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1965). 14 K. Aland, et. a l . , 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, i t 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 f i r s t century Greek and Hebrew Bibl ical texts, as well 2 as the most l ike ly reading for the quotations in Hebrews;itself, determining what alternative textual sources might have also been available, and suggesting what f i r s t century text(s) (Bibl ical or 3 otherwise) could have provided the author of Hebrews with his quotations. The textual c r i t i c s have usually concluded that Hebrews shows no dependence on the Hebrew text, but re l ies instead on some form of the Greek Bibl ical 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 s l ight ly difference Greek source, or by supposing that he altered his available text intentionally (for theological reasons) or unintentionally (through s l ips of memory). I am assuming that the author of Hebrews is responsible for the extant form of the let ter . The textual history of Hebrews is not well enough established to be sure that present pecul iar it ies 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 t radit ion, 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. F i r s t , the d ist inct poss ib i l i ty of backreadings from a LXX manuscript on the quotations in Hebrews, See P. Katz, "oi AT <rt KVO, ov<f* oi j»\ <ri lyKXT*AiVtv , Heb. x i i i 5, The Bibl ical Source of the Quotation," Bib 33(1952): 524f., re: Heb. 12:15. Second, the opposite assimilation of the completed Hebrews text to the LXX. See B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek  New Testament (London: United Bible Society, 1971), p. 663, re: the Tack of w&s fjuotrcov In Heb.'1:12. 3 The dating of Hebrews is an important consideration for the textual c r i t i c . This is a much, disputed question. However, an upper l imit can be set at the end of the f i r s t century A.D. , and a maximum lower one three generations ear l ier with the death of Jesus. See Splcq, I, pp. 253-65 and Anderson, pp. 109 -^16. 6 A quasi-stabi l i ty has been achieved by assuming uniform (for the Hebrew) and assessable (for the Greek) f i r s t century Bibl ical texts, and by minimizing the d i f f i c u l t i e s involved in discussing some non-Bibl ical sources which could have also provided the author of Hebrews with his c itat ions. Textual discoveries at Qumran, recent transformations in the LXX f i e l d , and continuing research in such areas as l i turgiology 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 Bibl ical interpretation and to suggest their implications for an analysis of Hebrews' use of Scripture. F i rst Century Text The diversity of both the Hebrew and Greek f i r s t century A.D. Bibl ical texts is now sol id ly 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 tradit ions. In a different manner, the f i r s t century Hebrew text 5 has almost invariably been considered to be f ixed. However, as more and more of the Dead Sea material is deciphered and published, i t is becoming increasingly evident that, though the text of some of the Bibl ical sections found there is remarkably similar to the Massoretic Text (thereby lending support to the traditional claim of the MT's antiquity ), "the most str iking feature of the b ib l ica l manuscripts ^Of the many theories, those put forth by P.A. de Lagarde and P. Kahle are pivotal . The f i r s t 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. J e l l i c o e , 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. Fr i tsch, and S. Je l l i coe , A Classi f ied Bibliography of the Septuagint (Leiden: E.J. B r i l l , 197377" 5 A noted exception is G.F. Moore, Judaism in the F i rst Centuries  of the Christian Era, vol . 1 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 192777 pp. lOOf. 7 found in the v ic in i ty of Qumran is the diversity of their textual t radi t ions. . . the p lura l i ty of the dist inct text types preserved " 7 There may now be differences of opinion concerning the number of Hebrew g recensions circulating in f i r s t century Palestine, but one thing is firmly established: the pre-A.D. 70 Hebrew text—l ike i t s Greek sister--was not uniform. In practice, how does this changed conception of the Hebrew text affect the textual c r i t i c ? Certainly the practice of looking almost exclusively to the Greek texts for source material wil l 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 s tab i l i ty 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 , 1 0 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 posit ion. Prompting B.J. Roberts to exclaim, "the Bibl ical texts among the Dead Sea Scrol ls do indicate the existence of a pre-Massoretic Hebrew text which, to a l l 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. 7 F.M. Cross, J r . , "The Contribution of the QumraVi Discoveries to the Study of the Bibl ical Text," IEJ_ 16(1966): 81. Cross (p. 94) posits two textual families. M. McNamara sees the DSS and Targums providing evidence for three tradit ions: 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 i l luminating. 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, vo l . 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 def inite ly 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, s tatesoutr ight ly (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 i f the author had the ab i l i t y to employ the Hebrew, why did he not show i t 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-t i c a l l y corrected the "inferior" LXX. The second l ies more in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century need to determine how accurate 12 a translation the LXX i s , than in the f i r s t century Hel lenist ic Jewish thought which saw the LXX as being as valid--and at times more so--as the Hebrew text. The f i r s t presupposition is simply untenable in l ight of the discoveries at Qumran. The author of Hebrews, more exp l i c i t l y 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. 1 4 Based on raw stat ist ics—and very l i t t l e 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 i t 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 tr ies to show (pp. 1-28) that the author of Hebrews, though using the LXX, "corrected i t by the Hebrew original whenever necessary." In The Quotations of the New Testament from the  Old ( P h i l . : American Baptist Publication Society, 1896). 13 See Spicq, I, pp. 334Ff-1 4 G . Howard, "Hebrews and Old Testament Quotations," NT 10(1968): 208-16. 9 is deceiving. The suggestive question i s : of the 24 di f fer ing 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 l ike ly Bibl ical source for the c r i t i c dealing with Hebrews is not to (simplify the matter by much. It is far from certain what f i r s t 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, l ike the Hebrew Bible, represent theoutcome of a long and divers i f ied textual tradit ion. To distinguish between the various sources and to separate the "primitive" sections from the "edited" ones are the present concerns of the LXX c r i t i c . P. Katz, the man most responsible for in i t ia t ing this perspective, states: In the LXX no imaiEU!Sicr(.ipttash(homo.g:e.ne0:us throughout...In fact , the question to be asked i s : 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: " . . . l e s accords de Hebr. avec A contre B sont nombreux..;Mais, par a i l l eurs , Hebr. est plusieurs fois d 1accord 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: i t is highly l ike ly that the author used an ear l ier 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. l 6 S p i c q , I, p. 335. 17 The Use of the Septuagint in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Univ. of 10 (3) since textual analysis i t s e l f 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 f i r s t became available in the nineteenth century as key witnesses to the LXX, i t 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 s t y l i s t i c or exegetical concerns. For example, one might picture him altering a particular word or phrase 19 20 for s t y l i s t i c reasons or to convey a desired theological perspective. These questions wil l be considered in the following chapter. What concerns the textual c r i t i c is the poss ib i l i ty that the author of Hebrews used a different source (Bibl ical 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 d i s s . , 1959). He has also published what i s , 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 differ ing from A/B. 1 9E.(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 shi f t 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 i t to adapt Scripture in a peculiar way: Jesus' resurrection, his suffering and shameful death, his messianic ministry, and his b ir th. 21 Moreover, i t 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) tr ied to.reconcile Of. the Greek to a Hebrew text which is no longer avai lable. Nor can we ignore the following poss ib i l i t i es : 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 l i turg ica l tradit ion. 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 f i r s t a note on one of the most used and abused explanations of Hebrews' minor variations from the LXX: the author's f a l l i b l e memory. I include this section now because one often meets this type of reasoning from those wishing to prove that i t 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. d ist inct poss ib i l i ty 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 le t ter , but i t has been f r u i t f u l l y 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 l i t e r a l l y translating the Hebrew. 2 7 Below, pp. 13if. 28 Below, pp. 21 .f• 12 Memory Often the NT c r i t i c , confronted with a Scripture-l ike c i tat ion that is not exactly represented in older extant l i terature, wi l l appeal to the .formul'aV<'c^ problem. In other words, he wil l 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 i s , 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 c i t ing 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 d i f f i c u l t i e s with such an appeal. For one thing, alternatives may better explain the s ituat ion, e.g. the author's use of testjmonia, midrashic rewriting of Scripture, or l i turg ica l alterations. For another, the ancients' memory may not have been as faulty as we l ike to imagine. The f i r s t suggestion is an obvious note of caution; the second can be profitably expanded. Today i t 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 c learly shows how memorizing the tradit ion formed the basis of education for the early Jews. Although i t is evident that Gerhardsson's evidence, coming as i t does from anywhere in the rabbinic corpus, cannot be 31 safely assumed for pre-70 Jewish practice, i t is certain that the use of memory for the f i r s t century Jew—and for classical man in Kistemaker, p. 57. Concerning the long quotation from Jeremiah (Heb. 8:8-12) he adds: "Since j t is the longest quotation in the entire NT, i t is a b i t 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 integral ly incorporated into the educational system than i t is today. To deny any lapses of memory among the f i r s t century Jews would be fool ish, 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. u t i l i z e ici {J:5-13j un f lor i lege scripturaire destine" a prouver 1 'excellence de Jesus.36 L'auteur a manifestement util ise" un recueil de Testimonia tel qu ' i l en exista i t 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 mi l ieu." Important works (in order of publication) are Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript; Smith, "A Comparison of Early Christian and Early Rabbinic Tradit ion," 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. B r i l l , 1971), pp. 143-79. 32 Cf. J . I . Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, t r . 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 f i r s t 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 i t s extreme form by R. Harris (1920-21),4^ and revised and modified extensively by C H . Dodd 42 (1952), the hypothesis--in any of i ts 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, i t is worthwhile to examine the problem in some deta i l . ^Spicq, II , p. 333. 37 ' <*. s Spicq, "L'Epitre aux Hebreux, Apolilios, Jean Baptiste, les Hellenistes, et Qumran," RO 1(1959): 384. 38 Probably f i r s t 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  L ibr i Tres (Migne, PL_, i v ) . 39 E .g . , 4 Q Testimonia in the QumrSn community, Cyprian (see preceding note); and Papias1 attribution of the logia to Matthew in Eusebius, Ecc l . H is t . , I l l , xxxix, 16(LXL, I, 296-97). 4 0 E . Hatch, Essays in Bibl ical 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 f r u i t f u l l y 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 edit ion); Freed, p. x i ; Lindars, pp. 23f.; Hagner, p. 95; and Gundry, pp. 163-66. 15 The testimom"a hypothesis in c lassic expression was put forth by Harris in order to explain certain pecul iar it ies 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, L td . , 1936T7~p. 43. 46 This can be most clearly seen in the works of Sowers and Bruce. The f i r s t considers the discovery of 4 Q Testimonia to have wiped away a l l 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 al legorical interpretation (reading into a passage a meaning not intended by the original author) were i t not for the fact that Hebrews does not use the original passages, but re l ies on testimonia. Thus, Hebrews' method of exegesis is r a t i f i e d , and disturbing relations with Phi 1o are rendered even less l ike ly . 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 i t "might well be regarded as the 'text' of the Epistle to the Romans," and that i t 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 l i terature includes: J.A. Fitzmyer, '"4 Q Testimonia' and the New Testament," ThSt 18(1957): 513-37; P. Pringent, Les testimonia dans le christianisme pr imit i f (Paris: L ibra i r ie LeCoffre, 1961), pp. 16-28; and E l l i s , 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 Patr ist ic citations and other times with a Hebrew version (e .g . , the "Atj/tc wp^S" citat ions: Heb. 8:8-12; 10:16f., 30 £See E l l i s , 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 f i t well into the picture of early Christian preaching." (Stendahl, p. 208.) 16 believed the testimonia to be a single col lection of Scriptural texts, predating the NT writings, and used in Christian polemic against the Jews. Furthermore, he thought that Matthew the Apostle put the col lection 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." 5 0 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 i t was a single book--nor, for that matter, a book at a l l . Also, there was no reason to suppose that this testimony book was polemical rather than l i turg ica l 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 th i r ty years, Nevertheless, i t 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 i ts methodological p i t f a l l s . In the Stone Lectures given at Princeton in 1950, C H . Dodd put 53 forth an alternative theory. His motive was to underline the creativity and unity of the early Christians while s t i l l 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 tradit ion 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 a l l , but rather something belonging to the body of 54 instructions imparted oral ly in the main." "The impression-•-is that 49 Based on Papias' statement. See Footnote 39. 5 0 H a r r i s , II , p. 44. 51 Cf. T.W. Manson's statement: " . . . the earl iest form of the 'Testimony Book' was determined by the form of the primitive preaching and the book i t s e l f 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 Harris 1 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 i ts 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 t i t l e 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 f i fteen 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 i t 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 Scr ip . , p. 81), then the quotation f a l l s 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 crit ique has become the clarion cal l for those few feeling as uneasy about Dodd's proposals as they were with Harr i s 1 . Unfortunately, Sundberg's argument is not well defended. Three reasons can be given. F i r s t , using the l i s t of quotations printed at the end 18 They became leaders c r i t i c a l l y and emotionally involved in following and understanding the tradition in i t iated by Jesus, rather than followers passively selecting isolated passages from a ready-made col lect ion. 59 After Dodd's proposal three events occurred which le f t a s ignif icant impression upon the testimonia hypothesis: the finds at Qumran, the renewed interest in Jewish exegesis, and the mounting importance attributed to lectionaries for understanding f i r s t century thought. Most start l ing of a l l 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 f i r s t century. This dearth had plagued Harris 1 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 Bibl ical study. However, the publication of some Qumran Cave 4 fragments, entit led " 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 i t easy to maintain the Christian origin of the testimony l i t e r a t u r e . . . there should be, therefore, no a pr ior i 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 l i s t 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 tr ied to show, by quantitative analysis alone, that Dodd's chosen citations were not the most basic. And th i rd , 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 i s 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 posit iyely expla,tn textual divergencies without recourse to testimonia. K., Stendahl, working on Matthew1s c i tat ions, beljeyes the Jewish hermeneu-tfcal methods—properly assessed —to account more naturally for the 63 NT peculiarft ies that Harris wanted to explain --even in the l ight cn of the Qumran finds of testimonia. In addition, one shoot from the growing interest in Jewish exegesis has been the fascination found in l iturgy and the real ization that perhaps lectionaries had a notable influence over the form of certain NT texts. The early stages of some relat ively fixed sequence' of messianic texts...may not go back to a single written source nor be combined through exegetical ref lexion, but may rather be compositions created by prophetic figures for use in l i t u r g y . " 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. 6 6 Would i t be so remarkable i f the author had followed a non-Biblical ( l i turg ica l ) source? The following section looks more closely at this point. fin The texts can be found in J.M. Al legro, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan. V: Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 53-60. They are discussed in Fitzmyer's a r t i c le (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. Mi l le r , "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 forceful ly concerning Hebrews' use of testimonia. They did so mainly for two reasons. F i rst ,as already mentioned, the available evidence is suf f ic ient ly sparse to warrant disharmony. Second, and more important, each c r i t i c hypothesizes a different kind of testimonia col lection available to the author of Hebrews. The most frequent assumption is that Harris 1 theory represents the only'testimonia hypothesis. S. Kistemaker is a good example^ of one who believes that once Harris 1 position is refuted, the entire theory f a l l s . 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 col lection due to the textual variations found in the le t ter ' s quotations; and two, the use of a testimonia col lection necessarily implies an ignorance of the larger tota l i ty of Scripture, an ignorance which is not otherwise shown by the author of Hebrews. Kistemaker's position is not va l id . Few scholars since Harris have believed in the existence of one testimonia col lect ion. 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 Harris 1 theory; rather, the last f i f t y years of research must be considered. F i rst century Jews used written and (no doubt) oral testimonia and f l o r i l e g i a 6 9 as apologetic, and study aids. It is quite possible (albeit s t i l l 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. 6 5 M i l l e r , p. 55. 6 6 Westcott, p. 475. ^ 7This lack of accepted definit ion 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 c r i t i c intent on determining Hebrews' Scriptural source. Lectionaries "for some time cr i t ic ism has Been concerned to understand the documents of the New Testament not only in the l ight of their setting in l i f e conceived in a broad sense, but also especially in the l ight 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 f ie ld of research. Many scholars of the B ib le 7 1 and 72 related f ie lds 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, i f 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 f i r s t 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 this theory. S. Kistemaker(1964) has based his entire work on i t . 69 Testimonia and f l o r i l e g i a , though not normally differentiated, do have s l ight ly different implications. The f i r s t suggests an ulter ior (apologetic) reason for making a col lect ion; 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. 7 1Examples 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 l i t terature targumigue (Rome: Institut Bfblique Pont i f i ca l , 1966). 73 Westcott, p. 474. The Psalms play a very important role in Hebrews. According to Bishop: Westcott's calculat ion, 11 o:uife* of 29 quotations in Hebrews are taken from this col lect ion. 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 l e t t e r , 7 Kistemaker postulates that the source of most of Hebrews' quotations was 78 the l i turgy familiar to him and his readers. The purpose of this section is to determine how val id 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 tr iennial 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, a l l these passages can be tied 7-4 c o p. 58. 75 Spicq (I , p. 336) sees the quotations from Deuteronomy originating in l i turgy, but does not elaborate. 76 One of the main thrusts i s : "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 fa i l to receive "(p. 75) To lend partial credence to th is , 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 specif ic festival or feature of Israel 's worship."(p. 71) As a suggestion, his theory is provocative; as a forceful proposition i t lacks support and must even muster a hypothetical "King's fest iva l" in order to explain the quotations in chapters 1-3. 7 7 Reid narrows i t down to one, attempting to prove that Ps. 8 "is real ly the key to the whole ep ist le . " (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 l i turgy in Hebrews would seem to l i e in an unpublished M.A. thesis (Univ. of Nottingham, 1960) by C H . 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 ar t i c le 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 ar t i c le is to show "that the arrangement of the Psalter was determined by the cyle of the ecclesiast ical 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 l iturgy and, more part icular ly , 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 g i f t of the Holy Sp i r i t (the Pentecostal theme), and an indication of the oath made to Abraham which, l ike the Psalm, stresses the immutability of the Promise. Chapter seven then proves the superiority of Jesus' high priesthood by using terms drawn from the f i r s t 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 i t has. The crucial issue in the study of early Jewish l iturgy 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 i t 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 ear l ier view concerning Jewish l i turgy: "The Pentateuch was divided o y R . Marcus (in his introduction to Phi 1o Supplement of the LCL pp. x i i -x iv) finds much s imi lar i ty 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 i l lust rated, 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." Actua l l y , he could not dwell on this point because there is no support for i t . Wjestcott's word of caution, " i f there were adequate evidence," points to the Achil les heel of this and other lectionary theories. There is no f i r s t century evidence whatsoever for postulating the existence of a developed lect io 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 i t . 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 Cr i t ics 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 i t f i r s t took. When the triennial cycle evolved we do not know at what time of year i t 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 c y c l e s . 8 6 with the publication of a Geniza fragment, that the l i s t of Prophetic readings in early Jewish l iturgy differed from the ones now used. He set out to determine exactly what were the early readings. u t T h e Septuagint and Jewish Worship, p. 45. 8 3 T h i s 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.. 8 5 Crockett ' s discussion of this problem (in a lengthy excursus) 25 The textual c r i t i c cannot determine precisely what texts, i f any at al 1 ? were. systematical l y read \n . the f irs,.t. century 1 iturgy. Ttii s is true eyen though there seems to have Been some sort,of tradit ion 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 i t seems probably that some of the ordered readings from the Pentateuch mentioned in the Mjshnah (e .g . , Meg. 3:4-6) re f lec t , in part, a f i r s t century s ituation. Summary It is at present impossible to convincingly determine the source(s) of the author of Hebrews' quotations. This is especially true i f divergencies are not l ight ly dismissed as "errors of memory." Whether he took his texts from a version of the Bible—either Greek or Hebrew— or from a col lection of pre-selected Bibl ical texts—be i t a col lection of testimonia or a l i s t of l i turg ica l passages—is unknown. In addition, recent research is making the situation more complex. The Qumran finds have revealed diverse Hebrew textual tradit ions, as well as early collections of testimonia. One can no longer neglect the poss ib i l i ty that the author of Hebrews used ( i f only in part) Hebrew texts or pre-set collections of c i tat ions. Meanwhile, work in the Septuagintal f i e l d 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 s t i l l represents, for the c r i t i c , 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 b r i l l i a n t . 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 "probabil it ies" when using these later texts. Kistemaker often forgets th is . For example, when speaking of the canticles and hymns now collected in the LXX (following the Psalter) , he states (p. 47): "Although the l i s t 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 f i r s t century A.D. already." 26 l t k e l y source for Hebrews' citations,, |t |s,.nQ longer a matter of comparing the citations with A and B.. P e r h a p s the l i turg ica l area is the only one that recent studies have s impl i f ied: 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 a r e a 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 Scr ipture. ' 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 a l l i t s 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 i t says: "Who makest thy angels into winds" (Ps. c iv . 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, i f thus i t is with the angels, how much more so must i t 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 i t s e l f , 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 :8 f . ) , what do the Scriptures mean to him? In answering these questions, the c r i t i c s go to the author's contemporaries for guidance. They do so for three main reasons. Understanding these motives wi l l help us to appreciate much of the research in this area. F i r s t , and most obvious, the modern historian tr ies 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 d ist inct apologetic tone. The c r i t i c ' s purpose is" often one of showing how Hebrews' exegetical method is different from or better than that of his contemporaries. Third, 'The Zohar* t r . M. Simon and H. Sperling (London: Soncino Press, 1934), p. 2TTTBeha 'alothekha 152a). 2 E . g . , Ps. 102:26-28 in Heb. 1:10-12. The text or ig inal ly 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 cal l 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, i t 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 f i r s t concerns matters of def in i t ion. That i s , are the key terms such as "midrash," "allegory," and "typology" precisely defined in a commonly accepted manner? The second area involves the v iab i l i t y of using the author of Hebrews' contemporaries in order to better understand him. Do they real ly 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 tradit ions, insofar as they bear on Hebrews. Hebrews' exegetical method is often called "midrashic," which equates i t 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 l i t t l e is known about i t , and so l i t t l e 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 Bibl ical Antiquities of Phi 1o (N.Y.: KTAV, 1971). 29 Rabbinic Exegesis The task of the f i r s t century Jewish thinker--!'ndeed his very l i f e force—was to discover and to apply the Scriptural word, that divinely inspired message containing a l l 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 f i r s t 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 conci l ier 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 anc iens . . . . " J . Bonsi rven, Exegese rabbi ni que et  exegese Paulinienne (Paris: Bibliotheque de theologie historique, 1939), p. 13. 5R. Bloch, "Midrash," VDBS 5(1957): co l . 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 a l l rabbinic l i terature. The f ie ld is a spec ia l is t ' 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 c lass ica l ly for halakhic texts by Hi 11 e l , 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 l i t e r a l and applied exegesis, respectively. There is now some controversy over whether "peshat" real ly means " l i t e r a l " or i f i t should rather be taken as the authoritative and generally accepted text. See R. Loewe, "The 'Pla in ' 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 a l l those who le f t Egypt under the leadership of Moses?") and adaptation ("For we share in C h r i s t . " ) f v v - 12-19] using relevant parts of the text, as well as other Scriptural sections (Nb. 14:29) to bolster the argument. And, i f 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 f lux. There are two driving forces behind the contemporary discussion of Jewish exegesis: (1) Can the term midrash be precisely defined?; (2) How val id is i t to take rabbinic midrash as the standard by which the f i r s t century midrashic genre is to be s t r i c t l y 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 f i r s t query. Is "midrash at present...an equivocal term...used to describe a mass of disparate material. . .and approaching the point where i t is 9 no longer meaningful...?" Can a true understanding of the term be had only through "une serieuse etude cr i t ique, historique et l i t t e r a i r e de cette tradit ion et des ecrits qui la veh icu lent . . . ?^ G.W. Buchanan begins his commentary on Hebrews with the statement, "The document entit led 'To the Hebrews' is a homiletical midrash based 11 on Ps. 110." While i t is debatable that the entire letter is "based on Ps. 110," that the document i t s e l f is a midrash is also questionable in the l ight of modern scholarship. According to A.G. Wright, a text cannot be called a midrash unless i t 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 c la r i f i es one side of the argument, Le De'aut's l ights *A.G, Wright, "The Literary Genre Midrash," CBC; 28(1966): 108. 1 0 R . Bloch, "Note methodologique pour 1'etude de la 1 itte'rature rabbinique," RechScR x'l j i j (1955): 196. 1 1 To the Hebrews (Garden City: Doubleday, 1972), p. xix. 31 up the other; "Midrash...jgav* b.e.described hut nQt defined, for i t is. a way of thinking and reasoning...which, refuses tp he conceptualized, where i t is f i r s t of a l l the response to the question: what does 13 Scripture want to say for the l i f e 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 wi l l 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 i t s roots and growth, great care must be taken to trace the evolution o f 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 cr i t ic ism 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. Many1 7 continue to place much trust in the tradit ion, sat isf ied to follow i t 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 art ic les are "Midrash" in VDBS and "Note methodologique," presenting a new synthesis in the f i r s t , 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. B r i l l , 1961). Bloch greatly ut i l i zed A.-Robertas work. He had postulated that the roots of the midrashic genre could be traced in post-exilic^Scripture, ca l l ing this midrashic use "anthological style,"""qui consiste a reemployer, 1ttteralement ou equivalement, les mots ou formules des ecritures anterieures." ("Genres l j t t e r a i r e s , "VDBS, 5Q957): co l . 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 Tradit ion, pp. 227f. 32 A major problem in the use of rabbinic materials for the elucidation of f irst-century practice i s , of course, the lateness of the codif ications. Yet we are dealing with a religious mentality that took great pride in the preservation of the tradit ional ; and while changes due to development or differ ing circumstances cannot be denied, this desire to preserve the tradit ional--barring other considerations—minimizes the severity of the problemJS The importance l ies in appreciating the tradition-preserving essence of this culture while s t i l l taking account of the natural tendency for change. Extravagant claims in the area of rabbinic dating are not d i f f i c u l t to f ind. 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 f i r s t 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 f i r s t century to a revision of this concept ca. 150 with R. ben El isha. Kistemaker considers this argument, founded on traditional rabbinic dating of material, "unequivocal" proof of messianic interpretation 19 of this psalm among f i r s t century Jews. A.B. Mickelsen also reasons 20 in this manner. Basing himself on a quotation from R. Marcus, he finds i t "perfectly proper" to compare Hebrews with a l l rabbinic material, assuming the second and third century doctrines to be exact representations 21 of f i r s t century practice. "Unequivocal proof" and "perfectly proper" '"Especially in The Rabbinic Traditions, vo l . 3. 1 7 Notably Doeve who (pp. 177f.), aware of form cr i t ic ism and i ts possible uses for dating rabbinic sources, nevertheless does not consider Jewish tradit ion 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 qual i f iers in these cases since they fa i l 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 f i r s t century Jewish exegesis. Three factors have to be considered in this l ight . F i r s t , ever since Goodenough's major study pointing out that many Jews l iv ing in Palestine and in the Diaspora were not part of the rabbinic 22 tradit ion, the existence of many "types" of Jews in the f i r s t century has 23 become firmly established. Goodenough confirmed what others had long supposed (but without evidence). Rabbinic l i terature cannot be regarded as the total content of Jewish thought—event in Palestine—or even as 24 fa i thfu l ly representing the Pharisaic tradit ion. Second, research is increasingly coming to support the position that there were varieties of exegetical methods within each "sect" of f i r s t century Judaism. The rabbinic exegetical method i t s e l f has always been or <pc d i f f i c u l t to categorize clearly and d is t inct ly . Daube's thesis that 21 R. Marcus, "Wolfson's Reevaluation of Phi lo," RevRel xi i i(1949): 373. I also object to yet another aspect of Mickelsen's methodology. His support for this bel ief—a bel ief that deeply colors later judgments in his work—is a quotation from one authority, Marcus, whose discussion is in fact simply a l i s t ing of other "authorities" who reason in a similar fashion. In effect then, because L. Ginzberg and L. Finkelstein and V. Aptowitzer have used this method, Marcus uses i t ; and since Marcus uses i t , then Mickelsen does likewise. Nowhere are we told why i t is used and what the arguments for and against i t might be. 22 22 E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vols. 1-13 (N.Y.: Pantheon Books, 1953-69). E .g. , " . . . the writings of the rabbis can similarly not be assumed to represent the Judaism of a l l Jews even in Palestine." (vol. 12, p. 185.) Even M. Smith's excellent review (of reviews) of Goodenough's work, arriving at a quite negative evaluation of the whole ("He was trying to make a point, and he fai led") readily admits that "one of the major results of Goodenough's work" has been to c learly show the existence of varieties of expressions differ ing from the rabbinic mold. See "GoodenoughUsJewish Symbols in Retrospect," JBL 86(1967): 53-68. 23 E.g. , Bowker (pp. 36-37) takes this as an axiom. 24 So, Neusner, '"Pharisaic-Rabbinic 1 Judaism: A C lar i f i ca t ion , " HR 12(1973): 250-70. 25 E.g. , Doeve: " . . . the l iberty obtained in haggadic exegesis is often so great and the method of going to work so dependent on the ingenuity of the exegetist, that i t is out of the question to attempt to give a consistent system of norms for this exegesis." (p. 64) 34 rabbinic exegesis was based on Hel lenist ic models has, more spec i f i ca l ly (although indirectly) shown the problems a r i s i n g when trying to c lassi fy exegetical practices into certain geographical camps, e . g . , Alexandrian 27 or Palestinian. Third, i t 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 l ives of a l l Jews are questions s t i l l 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) f i r s t century Jewish stream. We cannot even be certain of the precise character of mainstream rabbinic exegetical practice, either by examining i ts own tradit ion or by trying to differentiate i t from others. The uncertain basis for defining the term midrash can be l inked, in great part, with the contemporary effort to view midrash in historical perspective. Given these factors, i t 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 s t r i c t l y understood and used for NT studies. To try to c lass i fy a particular NT book's exegetical practice as "Palestinian" or "Alexandrian," to equate "rabbinic" with "Palestinian," and "rabbinic midrash" with " f i r s t century midrash" now seems more tenuous than ever. In short, one should no longer ask: Does Hebrews t D D . 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) l i te ra l 1st, and (3) a l legor ica l . 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 F i rst Century," in Israel: Its Role in C iv i l i za t jon , 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 "real ly 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 obscurit ies, the superstitions, 30 the cabal isms, the puer i l i t i es , the absurdities, the i n s a n i t i e s . . . , " 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: i l s se r e f e r e n t v o l o n t i e r s a 11hermeneutique rabbinique...Presqu 1invariablement i l s repetent les m£mes lieux communs: les rabbins se servaient dans 1'explication de la Bible des sept regies d * Hi 11 e l , 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 rea l i te est moins simple " 30 Johnson, p. 34. 31 I. Abraham, "Rabbinic Aids to Exegesis," in Essays on Some  Bibl ical Questions, ed. H.B. Swete (London: MacMillan and Co., 1909). Supplemented by G.F. Moore's now class ic cr i t ique, "Christian Writers on Judaism," HTR xiv(l921): 1970254. Prof. E l l i s ' career i l lustrates 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, i t is more important to realize how much the early Christian tradit ion and Jesus himself have influenced him. However, in two recent a r t i c l e s , E l l i s has begun to believe that an understanding of the midrashic mode of thought can be the c r i t i c a l factor in discerning the meaning of some NT segments. See "Midrash, Targum, and New Testament Quotations," Neotestamentica et Semitica, ed. E.E. E l l i s and M. Wilcox (Edinburgh: T . S T . Clark, 19691; "Midrashic Features in the Speeches in Acts," Melanges Bibligues (Gembloux: J . Duculot, 1970). Prof. E l l i s has informed me that his forthcoming art ic les wil l pursue this area of research. 36 Granted that the interest is related in part to the general fascination 33 in Bibl ical 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 leve l . 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 s imi la r i t i es , i .e . the use by Christians 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 c i ted, or not cited at a l l—intent iona l ly or due to loss during revision—has led to 36 some recent exciting interpretations of some NT passages. How does this apply more spec i f i ca l ly to Hebrews? Unfortunately, this letter has not been included in the recent work done by NT scholars in the f i e ld 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 pecul iar i t ies . For example, the use of the rabbinic gezerah shawah ( i . e . whenever the same word occurs in two Scriptural passages, i t is possible to use one of those passages to shed l ight on the other) is c learly 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 typical ly 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 35 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 ab i l i t y 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, t r . 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 conf l i t des interpretations (Paris: Editions du Seui l , 1969). 34 / E .g. , M. Black, The Scrol ls and Christian Origins (N.Y.: Scribners, 37 Heb. 7:3, was also known to some of the rabbis. Lastly, the use of a for t ior i 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 translat ion^ pract ica l ly , i t s ignif ies a translation of a book or books of Scripture into Aramaic, with commentary being of secondary 40 importance. The targum tradit ion was the process of expounding, explaining, and contemporizing 4 1 (in the vernacular Aramaic) the meaning of Scripture(in traditional Hebrew) during the weekly synagogue 42 meetings. Potential ly, the targums have always been a valuable source of information for the NT scholar. Many reasons can be adduced for th is . Originating in popular l i turgy, targums were l ike ly 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 f i r s t century Bible 1961); and F.F. Bruce, Bibl ical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (London: Tyndale Press, 1959). 35 Crockett's thesis pinpoints th is . . 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. B r i l l , 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.. Mi l le r , "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. Bil lerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol . 3 (iMu;nc!ben:: C H . Beck'sche, 1926), p. 694. 4 (^".. . le T.P. appartient a un genre l i t t e r a i r e . . .beaucoup plus proche du midrash proprement d i t 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 Christ ians as an interpreted hook?.. any i n d i c a t i o n of how other f i r s t century groups; and wri t ings interpreted i t 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 col lect ions, and a real ization that some of them, though obviously written much later than the letter to the Hebrews, might quite accurately represent f i r s t century thought and tradit ion. 45 The Palestinian Targums have become especially important, due to 46 three mid-twentieth century f inds. 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 f i r s t century Aramaic language than Targum Onkelos. "Les targums.. . c l a r i f i e n t les rec i ts , donnent de 1'interest au texte, remplissent les lacunes, harmonisent les contradictions, eliminent les problernes doctrinaux, i l lustrent les affirmations abstraites^, donnent une reponse a des questions de curiosite ou a des questions polemiques... surtout, i l s 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 i t would now seem impossible to c r i t i c a l l y verify any such date. The synagogue practice is at least as old as the f i r s t 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 Christ ianity did not evolve from the rel igion of Israel in the OT, but from the Jewish re l ig ios i ty that flourished during the intertestamental period."H.Flusser, HTR 610968): 109.. 45 McNamara (T.&T., p. 15) sees enough s imi lar i ty 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 o f f i c i a l l y 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 (Tj l ) --or , as i t issal so 'ca l led, 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, F inal ly , materials from the caves of Qumran slowly began to reveal the presence of written targums from at least the f i r s t century, targums str ik ingly similar to that of the Palestinian Targums to the 49 50 Pentateuch. The trend seems to be —though not without val id 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 c lar i fy scores of NT passages (or at least, to shed new l ight on them), remarkably l i t t l e is applicable to Hebrews. 53 It is a puzzle why Hebrews exhibits so few paral le ls . 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 o f f i c i a l 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: Bibl ical Institute Press, 1966), pp. 5-37. 47 Later published in London under the t i t l e The Cairo Geniza (1947). ^ F i r s t published in 1956, this text is now appearing under the editorship of Macho. His related a r t i c le is "The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum," VT 7(1959): 222-45. For c r i t i c a l editions of TO and TJ of the Prophets we have the f i r s t three volumes of A. Sperber's work, The Bible in Aramaic. Volume four (1973) presents in a less c r i t i c a l fashion the targums on the Hagiographa. 49 E.g. , 11 Q Targ Job, 4 Q Targ Job, and 4 Q Targ Lev. 50 McNamara tr ies 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 i ts cr i t ic ism on dating and contextual evidence. In fact , the ear l iest 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 forceful ly 40 leads have emerged. Targum Neofit i 's description of Abel as a confessor of faith seems to f i t in more closely with Hebrews' account than does the 54 Bibl ical rendition which makes no mention of A b e l s fa i th . 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 t i t l e High 56 Priest for Melchizedek. This figure might have been very familiar in the f i r s t century, suggesting why the author of Hebrews would have bui l t his case around the otherwise vague Bibl ical 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 tradit ion. Any individual targumic text can stresses the l imitations: "There seems no doubt at a l l that their attempts in the second and third centuries to move towards a standard rendering drew on existing and far older tradit ions, but at present the evidence is lacking through which a direct connection might be established...between the existing written Targums and the targum as i t might have been rendered in the synagogue in the ear l iest 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 l i t terature targumique (1966). Avery useful bibliography has been compiled by P. Nickels, a student of Le De'aut: Targum and the New Testament (Rome: Bibl ical 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 l i s t of examples where targums shed l ight on some NT passages (e .g . , Rom. 10:6-8; 2 Cor. 3:17-4:5; and Mk. 13:22) does not deal at a l l with Hebrews. "Targumic Literature and New Testament Interpretation," Bibl ical 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 t i t r e de Summus Sacerdoce et l'exegese ju ive," 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 f i r s t 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 f o r t h concerning their date and subsequent relation to Hebrews. Pract ica l ly , this means that targumic texts wil l have very l i t t l e force in arguments concerning Hebrews' use of Scripture. The coming section which discusses Phi lo and the Qumran sectaries arrives at similar conclusions. However, i t is important to f i r s t 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 i t 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 analys is .^ 7Sowers, p. 91. See also Hanson, p. 96; van der Ploeg, p. 228; and R. Williamson, P J i i l o J ^ ; ^ (Leiden: E.J. B r i l l , 1970), p. 54. 5 8 W,A. Shotwel 1, The Bjbl ical Exegesis of Justin, Mrtyr (London: McMillan, 1965), p. 58: 5 9 M . Burrows. An Outline of Bibl ical Theology ( P h i l . : Westminster Press, 1965), p. 52. Also, R. Grant, The Letter and the Sp i r i t (London: C D r " , 1957), p. 55. ^°Mickelsen, pp. 13-22. 6 1 The following studies are basic: (1) H. de Lubac's historical 42 It is important to real ize that modern interpreters do not approach this area as detached observers. Many feel charged to just i fy the "typological method" because:tt is frequently used by NT writers. This method Cto be discussed below;], ref lects a view of history in which the world is divided into two ages, and i t f i t s very well into the early Christian impression of Christ being the inaugurator of a new divine Hejlsgeschichte. E l l i s adds: "This typological view of OT history is 62 a rare, i f not unknown, element in contemporary Jewish exegesis." Mickelsen's discussion of typology and allegory carries this apologetic CO l ine of reasoning to i ts 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. . . i t pointed the way to the future day?" (p. 21) And why does he have to blur whatever fine distinctions may exist: "Al legory.. .only seeks to put across some particular idea under the sponsorship or protection of a me.v.er.edi piece of l i terature?" (p. 20) Again, "His reasons fjthe a l l e g o r i s t ' s j 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 definit ion one wants to give these terms. The lack of a commonly accepted def init ion causes most of the confusion. The problem is a persistent one, because the search for any usable definit ion invariably skirts two precipices. A fal looff ione results in a definit ion too broad to be of use, and an overly restricted definit ion awaits the tottering seeker on the other side. An examination of the term "allegory" clearly reveals th is . 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 Bibl ical Origins and Patr ist ic Development of Typology," in Essays on Typology, eds. 61'. VT. Lampe and K. J . Woo l i combe (London: SCM, 1957); (3) Grant's overview of allegory from its Greek beginnings to Qrigen, The Letter and the Sp i r i t ; and (4) R.P.C. Hanson's section (pp. 11-96) in his book on Origen's use of Scripture, Allegory and Event. 6 2 E 1 1 i s , Paul's Use of the Old Testament, p. 54. 'Mickelsen, pp. 13-22. 43 The word ocXA^ vopw. a very l a t e 6 4 and infrequent term in classical Greek culture, etymological ly means "to say something" (J^eouJ) in "another ( A X X O ) fashion," and so has as i ts 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 definit ion of the term on i ts etymological roots, and thinks i t a mistake to make over-subtle distinctions between what is genuine allegory and what is not. "The al legorical method essential ly means the interpretation of a text in terms of something else, irrespective CC of what that something else i s . " If one accepts this stance (and ¥• Wolf son does not elaborate) a l l interpretation—including "typological" and " l i teral"--can r ight fu l ly be termed al legorical because one always views a text in terms of something e l s e . 6 7 This extreme perspective is helpful in real iz ing that the degree of difference, not of pr inciple , 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^ takes each term, in a passage to be expounded, as a symbol or cryptogram 64" It is probably Hel lenist ic . The common word before this time was ortoVotDt (=the rea l , the underlying meaning), de Lubac suggests (pp. 180f.) that the word SXX-r^ opcV , in i ts exegetical sense, might have f i r s t been coined by Paul in Gal. 4:21-24. Simi lar ly , Woolcombe, pp. 50f. 65 What we cal l al legorical 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 i t to the Bible. It is uncertain how early the Jewish tradit ion began making use of this method. See J . Gutmann, "Aristobulus of Paneas," EJ ,vol . 3, pp. 444-45. 6 6 Wolfson, I, p. 34. fi7 R. Bultmann also makes no dist inction between allegory and typo!ogy. The Theology of the New Testament, t r . K. Grobel, vo l . 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. K i t t e l , vo l . 1, p. 262. 44 of an idea. Paul c learly employs this method in Gal. 4:22f.: For i t 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 f lesh, 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, l ike Isaac, are children of promise. Typological interpretation, as a look at i ts etymology wil l begin to suggest, is also not self-explanatory. The word TUKOS , a noun formed from the stem of T<JTTT£IV(which basically means "to strike") was very common and had a variety of meaning in c lassical l i terature , 7 ^ including the NT. It was the context which gave the word i ts meaning, and to say that somebody used a "typological" method of interpretation meant very l i t t l e unless "typological" was defined in more depth. 7 1 Four of i t s 72 y basic uses can be found in the NT : (IJTUTTDS is sometimes employed in i ts more "c lass ical" sense of "mark" (Jn. 20:25) or " idol" (Acts 7:43), and at times (2) as an "example" or "model" to follow (Rom. 6:17). It can also signify (3) an ear l ier event or person or place that corresponds to a later (post-Christ) one (Rom. 5:14), or (4) pointstitotitihehiheaiv.enjly original or model, whereby the earthly one becomes the oL-vtiTOTros (Heb. 8:5). 69 See C H . Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: SPCK, 1938), p. 11. Also, Wool combe, p. 40. 7 0 G . H . Liddell e t .a i l l , 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 f i r s t century is f l u i d . " 7 2 C f . Grant, p. 137; and L. Goppelt, "nfrros, 2vrirvit6$, rum uos, uTforunu>&i1>" JML> e d . G. Fr iedrich, vol . 8, p. 248.. 73 Sowers, p. 89. S imi lar ly , 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 specif ic sense. "Typology now means the interpretation of earl|er events, persons, and institutions in Bibl ical history which become proleptic ent i t les , 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 l i te ra l 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 al legorical 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 lev i t i ca l 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 ref lects a more basic lack of consensus about what the terms allegory and typology real ly mean. The problem is not made simpler by those who feel compelled to defend the typological method because they think i t represents the early Christian way and is also closer to the modern attitude of respecting the l i t e r a l meaning of the Bible. What is to be done? Without a doubt, each person who uses these terms must now define them very spec i f i ca l ly , and the definit ion has to be both narrow enoughtto: l imit the area to a workable s ize, 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. 7 4 C f . Williamson: "Typology does not say that the text of the OT means something other than i t says;" (p. 530)- and Buchanan: "Typology is not designed to give a hidden meaning to the type or to change the meaning or ig inal ly intended by i t . " (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 al legorizing is the search for a secondary hidden meaning underlying the primary and obvious meaning of the narrative." (p. 40) 7 5 Rar th 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 a l l . Exegetical terms should be aids to a better understanding of a complex s ituation, 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 specif ic 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 val id alternative is to describe the author's method without attempting to reduce i t to a graspable expression. Westcott does this wel l , and part of his description of Hebrews goes accordingly: "It follows that the historical truth of the Scriptural r^ cxwd's; i s . everywhere guarded, but the recorded facts are ttfeaijteidi as "signs", and the believer is led to see in them a fu l le r meaning, as the course of l i f e 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 definit ion 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 method 7 7 i s 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. 7 6 Westcott, p. 480. 77 t stress here "exegetical" (and not "textual" or "contextual") s imi lar i ty . It does not further our cause to inquire whether both authors used a similar LXX version, introduced the quotations in a l ike manner, or 47 dependence o n , o r i n dependence o f , P h i l o o r t h e Qumran s e c t a r i e s . T h i s endeavo r t o d e l i n e a t e t h e g e n e r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p and p a r a l l e l s between them i s based on t h r e e m a j o r p r e s u p p o s t i o n s , a l l o f them weak , y e t a l l o f them t a ken up a g a i n and a g a i n . They w a r r a n t f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n . F i r s t , and most i m p o r t a n t , many b e l i e v e t h a t t h e a u t h o r o f Hebrews can r i g h t f u l l y be c o n s i d e r e d somebody ' s d i s c i p l e i f enough s i m i l a r i t i e s 78 can be f ound between t he two . The f l a w i n t h i s l i n e o f r e a s o n i n g i s t h a t d i s c i p l e s h i p c a l l s f o r more t h an s u b s e r v i e n c e and s i m i l a r i t y o f t h o u g h t , n o n r d i s c i p l e s h i p f o r more t h an c o n t r a d i c t o r y v i ews and t e c h n i q u e s . En o t h e r w o r d s , u n l e s s we come a c r o s s a r e l i a b l e e a r l y document s t a t i n g t h a t t h e a u t h o r o f Hebrews was d e f i n i t e l y a d i s c i p l e o f , l e t us s a y , P h i l o , no amount o f l o n g and d e t a i l e d l i s t s o f s i m i l a r i t i e s can e v e r f o r c e f u l l y p rove such a dependence . Some deg ree o f doub t w i l l a lway s r e m a i n . S e c o n d , - i t i s o f t e n assumed t h a t Greek and Hebrews; ways o f t h o u g h t can be c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . T h i s i s R e i d ' s b a s i c a s s u m p t i o n , and t h e one b e h i n d many o t h e r s c h o l a r s ' a t t e m p t s t o s e t o u t Heb rews ' r e l a t i o n s h i p 80 w i t h P h i l o . The t r e n d t o d a y i s t o see t h a t t h e two modes o f r e a s o n i n g were n o t as a n t i t h e t i c a l as one m i g h t t h i n k , be i t i n t h e i r e x e g e t i c a l even quo t ed f rom s i m i l a r p a r t s o f S c r i p t u r e . These a r e q u e s t i o n s a s ked by t h o s e c o n c e r n e d w i t h p r o v i n g o r d i s p r o v i n g Heb rews ' dependence on P h i l o o r t h e QumraYi commun i t y . 78 E . g . , W i l l i a m s o n , p p . 5 3 3 f . ; B u r c h , p p . 1 8 f . ; Han son , p p . 8 3 f . ; and A . C . P u r d y , The E p i s t l e t o t h e Hebrews (N.Y.: Ab i ngdon P r e s s , 1 9 5 5 ) , p . 5 85 . 79 ' I f t h i s were no t t r u e , i t m i gh t be d i f f i c u l t t o see t h e l a t e r S c h e l l i n g as H e g e l ' s p u p i l ; o r ( t o use a more c on t empo r a r y a n a l o g y ) t o r e a l i z e t h a t P. Goodman and W. B u c k l e y , now so c l o s e i n t h o u g h t , were o r i g i n a l l y i n a n y t h i n g bu t a m a s t e r - d i s c i p l e r e l a t i o n s h i p . 80 R e i d c a l l s t h i s c o n c e r n t o d e l i n e a t e P h i l o ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e a u t h o r o f Hebrews " t h e c e n t r a l i s s u e . " ( p . 5) The r e have been i n modern t i m e s , s t r o n g a rguments b r o u g h t f o r t h t o show bo t h enough s i m i l a r i t i e s between P h i l o and Hebrews t o w a r r a n t c a l l i n g t h e a u t h o r o f Hebrews P h i l o ' s d i s c i p l e ( e s p e c i a l l y S p i c q , I , pp . 3 9 - 9 1 . ) ; and enough s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e s t o d e t e r any p o s i t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s ( S owe r s , W i l l i a m s o n , and Han son ) . Thomas has even a t t emp t ed t o p r ove t h a t t h e a u t h o r o f Heb rews ' o b v i o u s t h e o l o g i c a l and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s f r om P h i l o a r e s i m p l y r e f l e c t i o n s and c o n s c i o u s a d a p t a t i o n s o f t h e i r s h a r e d p a s t . See The  Use o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t , pp . 2 4 8 - 3 1 1 ; and "The O l d Tes t amen t C i t a t i o n s i n H e b r e w s T ^ p . 308 . 48 82 ft? methods^. , t h o u g h t p a t t e r n s as„ a w h o l e , , o r more p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e i r c o n c e p t o f t i m e , 8 4 L a s t l y , t h e r e i s t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t Qumran i c e x e g e s i s i s p e r f e c t l y d e f i n a b l e , p e c u l i a r C t - e , d i f f e r e n t f r om r a b b i n i c e x e g e s i s ) , 85 and pe rhaps c ompa r ab l e t o Hebrews , " M i d r a s h p e s h e r " i s t h e t e rm t h a t 86 has been c o i n e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e s e e m i n g l y p e c u l i a r t y p e o f e x e g e s i s p r a c t i s e d by t h e Qumran s e c t a r i e s , an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a i d t o be r e l a t e d gl J . B a r r , The S e m a n t i c s o f B i b l i c a l Language ( London : O x f o r d U n i v . P r e s s , 1 9 6 1 ) . Pp . l O f . p r e s e n t an e x c e l l e n t summary o f t h e ma in c o n t r a s t s u s u a l l y drawn between t h e two modes o f t h o u g h t . ft? Daube has begun t he m e t i c u l o u s p r o c e s s o f show ing p o s s i b l e i n t e r -dependence between t h e two e x e g e t i c a l s c h o o l s : " A l e x a n d r i a n Methods o f I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " (1953) and " R a b b i n i c Methods o f I n t e r p r e t a t i o n and H e l l e n i s t i c R h e t o r i c , " HUCA 2 2 ( 1 9 4 9 ) : 2 3 9 - 6 4 . W.D. D a v i e s a l s o s t r e s s e s t h a t P a l e s t i n i a n J uda i sm was no doub t s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by H e l l e n i s t i c mode s . I n Pau l and R a b b i n i c Juda i i sms (London : SPCK, 1 9 4 8 ) . T h i s a r e a o f r e s e a r c h i s g r e a t l y c o m p l i c a t e d by t h e l a c k o f c l e a r p r i m a r y e v i d e n c e f r om t h e e a r l y Greek t r a d i t i o n . 83 The S e m a n t i c s o f B i b l i c a l Language . 84 A . Momc ig l i ano , "T ime i n A n c i e n t H i s t o r i o g r a p h y , " i n H i s t o r y and  t h e Concep t o f Time ( H i s t o r y and T h e o r y , B e i h e f t 6 , 1 9 6 6 ) . T h i s a r t i c l e i s , f o r t h e most p a r t , a l u c i d and s y s t e m a t i c r e p u d i a t i o n — u s i n g c l a s s i c a l s o u r c e s — o f t h e t o o - e a s i l y made d i s t i n c t i o n between G reek and Hebrew c o n c e p t s o f t i m e . C f . E l l a d e ' s t h o u g h t t h a t some c y c l i c a l e x p e r i e n c e o f^ t ime i s f ound i n b o t h t h e e a r l y G reeks and J ews . In Le mythe de  1 ' e t e r n e l r e t o u r ( P a r i s : G a l l i m a r d , 1969 r_rev.3 ). 85 In t h e p a s t g e n e r a t i o n o f s c h o l a r s , Hebrews has been s i n g l e d ou t by many as t h e NT book most l i k e l y t o have a f f i n i t i e s w i t h t h e Qumran g r o u p . Hebrews has been seen w r i t t e n (1) t o an Essene communi ty i n o r d e r t o c o n v e r t i t — H . Ko sma l a , H e b r a e r - E s s e n e s - C h r i s t e n ( L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1 9 6 1 ) ; (2) t o a C h r i s t i a n commun i t y , %ome o f them h a v i n g b e en , o r b e i n g , i n f l u e n c e d by t h e E s s e n e s — S p i c q , " L ' E p t t r e aux H e b r e u x . . . e t Qumran , " and Y. Y a d i n , "The Dead Sea S c r o l l s and t h e E p i s t l e t o t h e H e b r e w s , " i n A s p e c t s o f t h e Dead Sea S c r o l l s , e d s . C. Rab i n and Y . Y a d i n ( J e r u s a l e m : Magnes P r e s s , 1 9 5 8 ) , p p . 3 6 - 5 5 ; and (3 ) t o a communi ty w h i c h s p r a n g f r om^ t he same c u l t u r a l n r i l i e u as d i d t h e .Qumran s e c t — J . Coppens , Les a f f i n i t e s qumran jennes de 1 'E^pttre aux Hebreux ( L o u v a i n : P u b l i c a t i o n U n i v . , 1 9 6 2 ) , F.F. B r u c e , " ' T o t h e Hebrews ' o r ' To t h e E s s e n e s ' , " NTS 9 ( 1 9 6 3 ) : 2 1 7 - 3 2 , and I .W. B a t d o r f , "Hebrews and Qumran: O l d Methods and New D i r e c t i o n s , " i n F e s t s c h r i f t t o Honor F.W. G i n g r i c h , e d . E .H . B a r t h and R . E . Coc ro f t~ ( L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l 7 T 9 7 2 ) . ftfi By W.H. B r o w n l e e , " B i b l i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Among t h e S e c t a r i e s Of t h e Dead Sea S c r o l l s , " BA 1 4 ( 1 9 5 1 ) : 5 4 - 7 6 . He chose t h i s t e rm because ' t h e g l o s s e s f o l l o w i n g t h e B i b l i c a l v e r s e s quo t ed i n t h e s e t e x t s a r e u s u a l l y p r e c eeded by t h e p h r a s e " i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( p i s h e r u ) i s " : 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 i t is peculiar enough to warrant a separation from rabbinic exegetical practices 1s highly proBlematic, at Best. The question to ask i s : Can the use of a particular text By Philo or the Qumran sectaries c lar i fy 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 i t to Jesus's l i f e . 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. . .wi l l be to prove clear a f f in i ty 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 tr ied 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 d ist inct from rabbinic methods. E .g. , C. Roth, "The Subject Matter of Qumran Exegesis," VT 19(1969): 51868; B.J. Roberts, "The Dead Sea Scrol ls and Old Testament Scriptures," BJRL 36(1953-54): 79f.; E l l i s , "Midrashic Features," p. 306; and Lindars, p. 15. I see l i t t l e just i f i cat ion in th is , 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 Scro l l s , " RQ 7(1969): 4f . ; L.H. SilBerman, "Unriddling the Riddle," R£ 3(1961): 323f.; and Wright, pp. 418f. 88 Gundry forceful ly c r i t i c i zed his view. 89 However, the Achil les heel of Kistemaker's argument is his surprising fai lure to describe ffa.bb.tnlctwterrpr.etat.iivev^ethods which account just as well for the s imi lar i t ies he wishes to make between Qumran and HeBrews. 50 eschatological perspective, and their habit of relating a text to a contemporary event. Believing a l l 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 part icularly useful in illuminating individual citations in Hebrews. The only signif icant 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 d iv in , Messie sacerdotal et Juge eschatologique " The linking of Gen. 14 and Ps. 110, and the importance placed on Melchizedek perhaps represent the basic tradit ion 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 s imi lar i t ies : Nb. 12:7 in Heb. 3:2, 5 and "Noah's Work as a Planter," 6 8 ; 9 4 Gen. 14:17-20 in Heb. 7:1-10 and ^Allegorical Interpretation," III, 78-82 ; 9 5anduGe;n. 22:16-17 in Heb. 6:14 and "Allegorical 96 Interpretation," III, 203. None of the s imi lar i t ies adds new l ight on 9 0 E . g . Hab. 2:3-4 in Heb. 10:39 and I Qp. Hab; 2 Sam. in Heb. 1:5 and 4 Q F l . 9 1 A . 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, " . . . t h e i r basic hermeneutical principles are quite d is t inct . " (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 cel le 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 f ive similar interpretations, but four were based on indirect quotations in Hebrews. LCL, III, 246-47. 51 Hebrews' usage, since a l l the passages in the. letter are.understandable without Philo's a id. !n this section, I have tr ied to show what happens when the question of Hebrews' dependence on either Philo or Qumran is le f t aside, and when we try to ascertain how helpful Philo and the Qumran sectaries are in shedding l ight on Hebrews' use of Scripture. I have suggested that apart from the interpretation of Melchizedek i h 1)1 Q Mel ch, l i t t l e seems to be gained by perusing the works of Philo and the Qumran sectaries. The Apocryphal Literature Another potentially valuable but pract ical ly veiled source of information concerning the use of Scripture in Hebrews is the Apocryphal (and Pseudepigraphal, for those s t i l l wishing to make that distinction) 97 tradit ion. By setting forth some of the diverse f i r s t century thought of both Palestinian and Alexandrian provenance, i t is essential for a fu l le r understanding of f i r s t century Judaism. Unfortunately, there are serious handicaps which the textual c r i t i c must consider. Dating, or ig in , destination, and provenance are--as in Hebrews—for the most part uncertain in the Apocryphal t radit ion, but more important our present versions are generally Greek translations of Hebrew and Aramaic or iginals. Precisely determining the Scriptural text used and the minute exegetical practices performed on i t 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 tradit ionls use of Scripture, c learly brings out i ts possible 99 use for the NT scholar. Part of the process of determining an author's LCL, I, 353-55. LCL, I, 439. a 7 B y "Apocryphal" I mean the yartous Jewish l i terary works (apart f r o m those at Q u m r a n , for the present discusston) written during the f i r s t two centuries before and after the Common Era, that fa i led to enter the Jewish canon, and were not included or mentioned (apart from Sirach) in the rabbinic tradit ion. 52 h e r m e n e u t i c a l method l i e s i n e x a m i n i n g what p a r t s o f S c r i p t u r e , h e used and how; he i n t r o d u c e d t h e s e q u o t a t i o n s i n t o h i s t e x t . Z i n k has made a good B e g i n n i n g a t amassing s u c h m a t e r i a l , m a t e r i a l t h a t i s s u g g e s t i v e i n l i g h t o f HeBrews-' method. I n t r o d u c t o r y f o r m u l a e , f r e q u e n t and unique i n Hebrews, a r e r a r e 1 0 1 and d i f f e r e n t i n the A p o c r y p h a l Books s t u d i e d . S t m t l a r l y , the f a v o r i t e a r e a s o f S c r i p t u r e 102 f o r t h e a u t h o r o f Hebrews a r e i g n o r e d By th e A p o c r y p h a l w r i t e r s . The Use; o f t h e 01d Testament i n t h e A p o c r y p h a . Q. Hartmannal so" has Begun t o dea l w i t h t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f S c r i p t u r e f o r t h e A p o c r y p h a l w r i t e r s , p r e f e r i r n g g t o c o n c e n t r a t e on o n l y f o u r passages r a t h e r t h a n t o a t t e m p t a more sweeping s u r v e y o f t h e e n t i r e t r a d i t i o n . I t i s a s u g g e s t i v e s t u d y . However, Z i n k 1 s work i s t h e o n l y one t h a t e n a B l e s t h e s t u d e n t t o g e t an o v e r v i e w . 99 He l i m i t s h i s s t u d y t o te n Books: 4 E z r a , T o b i t , J u d i t h , The Wisdom o f Solomon, t h e Wisdom o f Ben S i r a , B a r u c h , A d d i t i o n s t o D a n i e l , t h e P r a y e r o f Manasseh, and I and I I Maccabees. The p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s b e h i n d much o f h i s s t u d y a r e q u e s t i o n a b l e . He assumes r e l a t i v e l y f i x e d LXX and Hebrew t r a d i t i o n s , and the n a t t e m p t s t o f i n d t h e s o u r c e s f o r t h e c i t a t i o n s — e i t h e r i n t h e Greek o r Hebrew t e x t s t h a t we now h a v e — i n o r d e r t o use t h i s " f a c t " t o h e l p d e t e r m i n e t h e o r i g i n a l language o f th e p a r t i c u l a r t e x t . 1 0 0 U n l i k e o t h e r NT works, t h e r e i s no r e f e r e n c e i n Hebrews t o a p a r t i c u l a r S c r i p t u r a l s e c t i o n o r t o a human a u t h o r ( u n l e s s one t a k e s " i n D a v i d " o f 4:7 t o r e f e r t o a s p e c i f i c p e r s o n o r book). T h e r e i s no use o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c word d e n o t i n g f u l f i l m e n t (TTX/]/)OUJ and i t s d e r i v a t i v e s ) . See B.M. Me t z g e r , "The Formulas I n t r o d u c i n g Q u o t a t i o n s o f S c r i p t u r e i n t h e New Testament and Mishnah," JBL 70(1951): 297-307. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e i s no d e n o t i n g S c r i p t u r e as "something w r i t t e n " (Y^ypo t K r o t i), the f a v o r i t e r a b b i n i c way o f i n t r o d u c i n g a c i t a t i o n ( M e t z g e r , p. 305). I n s t e a d , t h e x a u t h o r o f Hebrews uses a v e r b o f s a y i n g ( X ^ y t o , and e s p e c i a l l y Xt'ywv) w i t h o u t combining i t (as commonly done) w i t h t h e name o f a p r o p h e t o r w i t h " S c r i p t u r e . " F o r f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n see S p i c q , I> pp. 3 3 6 f . ; W e s t c o t t , pp. 476f.; R e i d , pp. 4 4 f . ; J . B o n s i r v e n , Exegese r a b b i n i q u e e t exegese  P a u l i n j e n n e ( P a r i s : B i b l i o t h e q u e de The"ologie H i s t o r i q u e , 1939); and D.M. T u r p i e , The New Testament View o f t h e O l d (London: Hodder and S t o u g h t o n , 1872T 101 Of 83 p a s s a g e s , 17 have i n t r o d u c t o r y f o r m u l a e . 102 Z i n k ' s Appendix A (pp. 191-93) a t f i r s t g l a n c e p o i n t s o u t f i v e p o s s i b l e s i m i l a r i t i e s , t h r e e o f them u s i n g t h e same v e r s e and two u s i n g n e a r b y v e r s e s — r e l a t e d i f one t a k e s , t h e e n t i r e c o n t e x t i n t o a c c o u n t . Same v e r s e : Gen. 14:19-20 In J u d i t h 13:18-20 and Heb. 7:1-2; Gen. 22:17 i n The Add. t o D a n i e l , P r a y e r o f A z a r i a h 13 (LXX=Dan.3:36) and Heb. 6:13-14; Dt. 32:36 i n 2 Mace. 7:6 and Heb. 10:30. 53 .... I n t e r e s t i n g as t h e s e d e t a i l s may be, t h e y a r e not o f much use i n b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g Hebrews. A n a l y z i n g m i n u t e . e x e g e t i c a l p r a c t i c e s i n t h e A p o c r y p h a l t r a d t t t o n ( e . g . , How does t h e a u t h o r v i e w h i s t e x t ? How does he work w i t h i t and mold i t ? ) becomes a m a t t e r o f guesswork. Modern t e x t u a l r e s e a r c h i s g r e a t l y c o m p l i c a t i n g t h e i s s u e by r e v e a l i n g t h e d i v e r s e n a t u r e o f the f i r s t c e n t u r y Hebrew and Greek S c r i p t u r e s . T h i s t r e n d , when a p p l i e d t o t h e A p o c r y p h a l ( t r a n s l a t e d ) works, c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h e u n c e r t a i n t y t h a t must f a c e t h e modern s c h o l a r when he a t t e m p t s t o d e t e r m i n e p r e c i s e l y how the a u t h o r o f a p a r t i c u l a r A p o c r y p h a l work made use o f S c r i p t u r e . Z i n k ' s t e n t a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s , based on a more s e c u r e but now o u t d a t e d v i s i o n o f t h e f i r s t c e n t u r y t e x t , must be viewed as even more h y p o t h e t i c a l . To summarize, " m i d r a s h , " " a l l e g o r y , " and " t y p o l o g y " a r e a l l v a r i o u s l y d e f i n e d , and perhaps u n d e f i n a b l e , terms used by t h e m a j o r i t y o f s c h o l a r s t o e x p l a i n a v a r i e t y o f d i f f e r e n t phenomena. P r e c i s i o n o f d e f i n i t i o n i s r e q u i r e d . T h e r e seems t o be a s h i f t away from s u p p o s i n g t h a t t h e a u t h o r o f Hebrews depended on one o f h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s towards d e t e r m i n i n g how u s e f u l t h e r a b b i n i c and t a r g u m i c works, P h i l o , Qumran and t h e A p o c r y p h a l t r a d i t i o n a r e f o r the NT s c h o l a r . A r e d i r e c t i o n o f p u r p o s e i s i n o r d e r . What does t h i s i m p l y f o r a s t u d y o f Hebrews? I f m i d r a s h i s a term a t p r e s e n t d e s c r i b i n g a mass o f d i s p a r a t e m a t e r i a l ( W r i g h t ) , i f a m e a n i n g f u l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f i t can o n l y come th r o u g h a s t u d y o f i t s g e n e s i s and e v o l u t i o n ( B l o c h ) , i t i s s u r e l y o n l y t h r o u g h a d i l i g e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f r e c e n t l i t e r a t u r e c o n c e r n i n g J e w i s h e x e g e s i s t h a t t h e s t u d e n t o f Hebrews can a t t e m p t t o d e f i n e and t o a p p l y t h i s t e n t i — a n d o n l y p r o v i s i o n a l l y . Moreover, r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h can no l o n g e r a u t o m a t i c a l l y be c o n s i d e r e d t h e s t a n d a r d by w h i c h f i r s t c e n t u r y J e w i s h e x e g e s i s i s t o he u n d e r s t o o d . A s i m i l a r n ote o f c a u t i o n a p p l i e s as w e l l t o the terms " a l l e g o r y " and " t y p o l o g y . " I have s u g g e s t e d t h a t Same c o n t e x t : 2 Sam. 7:13 i n 4 Ez. 3:24 and Heb. 1:5; Gen. 47:29 i n I Mace. 2:49. and Heb. 11:21. However, a c l o s e r e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e s p e c i f i c Greek t e x t s i n q u e s t i o n r e v e a l s t h a t t h e t h r e e s i m i l a r i t i e s o f v e r s e a r e a l l s u p e r f i c i a l , s i n c e t h e y use d i f f e r e n t s e c t i o n s o f the v e r s e . F i v e c l o s e c o n t e x t s . r e m a i n , a n d a d e t a i l e d l o o k soon r e v e a l s a g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e i n e v e r y c a s e . 54 t h e s e tw.0 terms a r e u s e d i n s u c h a v a r i e t y o f ways, and w i t h . s u c h u n d e r l y i n g emotion t h a t i t m i g h t h e . a d v a n t a g e o u s t o c a t e g o r i z e Hebrews' e x e g e t i c a l m ethod i n a d i f f e r e n t way o r by a d i f f e r e n t term. I have h i n t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h i s c h a p t e r t h a t a s h i f t i n p u r p o s e i s n e c e s s a r y . It i s m i s l e a d i n g t o t r y t o show t h a t the a u t h o r o f Hebrews depended on any o f h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . T h e o r e t i c a l l y , i t i s d e c e p t i v e t o assume t h a t f i n d i n g mrnifj^la s i m i l a r i t i e s between two p e o p l e o r groups o f p e o p l e w a r r a n t s o u r c a l l i n g one t h e d i s c i p l e o f t h e o t h e r . P r a c t i c a l l y , t h a t t h e a u t h o r o f Hebrews depended on r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m i s i m p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e . Two r e a s o n s have been g i v e n : (1) t h e r a b b i n i c t e x t s were w r i t t e n a f t e r t h e f i r s t c e n t u r y , and one c a n n o t j u d g e w i t h any degree o f a c c u r a c y how f a r back t h e t r a d i t i o n s go; and (2) what i m p o r t a n c e r a b b i n i s m had On f i r s t c e n t u r y t h o u g h t c a n n o t be a s c e r t a i n e d . T h a t the a u t h o r depended on P h i l o i s a l s o d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e r m i n e , f o r Greek and Hebrew t h o u g h t c a n n o t be d i v i d e d as n e a t l y as h i t h e r t o i m a g i n e d . T h a t he depended on t h e Qumran s e c t a r i e s i s unknown because i t i s v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o c a t e g o r i z e t h e p a r t i c u l a r t y p e o f e x e g e s i s p r a c t i s e d a t Qumran. And even though r e c e n t e v i d e n c e tends t o s u p p o r t t h e i d e a t h a t the g r e a t e r p a r t o f t h e P a l e s t i n i a n Targums a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t s f i r s t c e n t u r y t h o u g h t , t h a t t h e a u t h o r o f Hebrews depended on t h e t a r g u m i c t r a d i t i o n can a l s o not be d e t e r m i n e d because any t a r g u m i c t e x t can r e f l e c t a tho u g h t l a t e r than the f i r s t c e n t u r y . The r e d i r e c t e d q u e s t i o n i s t h e n : Can t h e a u t h o r o f Hebrews' method be i l l u m i n a t e d by t h e works o f h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s ? The answer seems d i s a p p o i n t i n g l y n e g a t i v e . The r a b b i n i c t e c h n i q u e s can f a c i l i t a t e t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f s i m i l a r ways found i n Hebrews, e.g. g e z e r a h  shawah, h a r a z , and a f o r t i o r i r e a s o n i n g s And the targums ( e . g . , N e o f i t i , Gen. 14:18) and t h e Qumranic m a t e r i a l ( e . g . , 11 Q Melch) s u g g e s t i v e l y o f f e r an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f M e l c h i z e i e k h s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f Hebrews. But v e r y l i t t l e i n t h e l e t t e r seems t o be made c l e a r e r by p e r u s i n g t h e works o f P h i l o and t h e Qumran s e c t a r i e s , o r o f t h e r a b b i s , the targums, and t h e A p o c r y p h a l t r a d i t i o n s . The a u t h o r o f Hebrews' method o f i n t e r p r e t i n g S c r i p t u r e i s q u i t e i n d e p e d e n t o f any t h a t we know. 55 CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION When a man f i n i s h e s he i s o n l y b e g i n n i n g , and when he s t o p s , he i s as p u z z l e d as e v e r . ( E c c l u s . l 8 : 6 ( j e r . B i b l e 3 ) The s u r v e y o f a r e a s i m p o r t a n t for a c r i t i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Hebrews' use of S c r i p t u r e i s completed. We must now ask how t h i s i n q u i r y has c o n t r i b u t e d t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a sound s t a r t i n g p o i n t fo r f u r t h e r s t u d y . T h e r e are t h r e e i n t e r r e l a t e d a r e a s o f summary and recommendation. The f i r s t i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e i n c r e a s i n g d i f f i c u l t y of d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p a r t i c u l a r f o r m of S c r i p t u r e t h a t t h e a u t h o r of Hebrews used. A l t h o u g h o u r p r e s e n t LXX c o m p i l a t i o n s t i l l r e p r e s e n t s the t e x t which i s c l o s e s t t o t h a t used by Hebrews, we have seen how modern t e x t u a l s t u d i e s have u n d e r l i n e d the f r a g i l i t y of such a t h e o r y . The f i n d s a t QumraVi have c l e a r l y r e v e a l e d t h e p o s s i b l e v a r i e t y of f i r s t c e n t u r y Hebrew t e x t s o f the B i b l e , and P.Katz has p o i n t e d t o the composite n a t u r e o f o u r LXX v e r s i o n s . The d i s c o v e r y o f t e s t i m o n i a at QumrSh, c o u p l e d w i t h a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d way o f e x a m i n i n g p o s s i b l e c o l -l e c t i o n s o f such p r o o f-texts, r a i s e s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t some NT w r i t i n g s r e f l e c t t h i s i n f l u e n c e . F u r t h e r m o r e , a l t h o u g h t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t the a u t h o r o f Hebrews r e l i e d on some l i t u r g i c a l c o l l e c t i o n ( s ) seems q u i t e remote, i t cannot be d i s c a r d e d a l t o g e t h e r . T e x t u a l a n a l y s i s of Hebrews now runs i t s c o u r s e between the S c y l l a o f t r a d i t i o n a l e x e g e t e s who are c o n t e n t w i t h comparing Hebrews' q u o t a t i o n s w i t h the LXX, and the C h a r y b d i s o f r a d i c a l i n t e r p r e t e r s who a r e s k e p t i c a l about t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f i s o l a t i n g Hebrews' t e x t u a l s o u r c e . 56 The s e c o n d a r e a o f d i s c u s s i o n f o c u s e s on the d i f f i c u l t y o f i s o l a t i n g t h e e x e g e t i c a l methods o f Hebrews' c o n t e m p o r a r i e s and th e f e a s i b i l i t y o f a p p l y i n g t h e s e methods t o Hebrews i n o r d e r t o b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d t he l e t t e r . The r a b b i n i c m a t e r i a l now must be broken down i n t o p e r i c o p a e t h a t a r e i n d i v i d u a l l y a n a l y z e d and a t l e a s t t e n t a t i v e l y d a t e d b e f o r e t h e y can be a p p l i e d t o the f i r s t c e n t u r y . The same s t r i c t u r e a p p l i e s t o t h e use o f the targums, many o f which p r o b a b l y r e f l e c t f i r s t c e n t u r y t h o u g h t . Important i n t r o -d u c t o r y work i n the A p o c r y p h a l f i e l d a l s o r e v e a l s many t e x t u a l problems and q u e s t i o n s about t he t e x t s ' S i t z im Leben. C o n c e r n i n g t h e QumraVi s e c t a r i e s and P h i l o , t h e m a t e r i a l must be s o r t e d out and then q u e s t i o n e d i n d i f f e r e n t terms. T h a t i s , i n s t e a d o f a s k i n g i f Hebrews i s dependent on P h i l o and/or t h e Qumrtn s e c t a r i e s , one must ask i f t h e y a r e o f use i n r e a c h i n g a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Hebrews. The same p o i n t made i n r e l a t i o n t o Hebrews' o t h e r con-t e m p o r a r i e s as w e l l , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e y can be i s o l a t e d , y i e l d s a s u r p r i s i n g l y n e g a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n . The a u t h o r o f Hebrews' contem-p o r a r i e s seem t o h e l p us v e r y l i t t l e i n b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g h i s use o f S c r i p t u r e . And f i n a l l y , the s t u d e n t must r e a l i z e t h a t g e n e r a l terms l i k e " m i d r a s h , " " a l l e g o r y , " and " t y p o l o g y " are not s e l f - e x p l a n a t o r y . I f t h e y a r e t o be used a t a l l i n c h a r a c t e r i z i n g Hebrews' e x e g e t i c a l method i t must be done w i t h c a r e f u l p r e c i s i o n . The f o r e g o i n g a n a l y s i s may ap p e a r t o be l a r g e l y a n n i h i l a t i n g i n i t s i n s i s t e n c e t h a t t h e " f a c t s " are few. But t h e emphasis on how l i t t l e e v i d e n c e the h i s t o r i a n o f Hebrews has t o work w i t h i s t h e r a p e u t i c and has f a r - r e a c h i n g i m p l i c a t i o n s . I t c h a l l e n g e s t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l a t t i t u d e o f h i s t o r i a n s t o i g n o r e the probl e m o f l o s t d a t a and t o o r g a n i z e e x i s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o as seamless a web as p o s s i b l e , assuming the n o v e l i s t ' s r o l e o f o m n i s c i e n t n a r r a t o r . 57 When one i s not c o n s t a n t l y aware o f t h i s d e a r t h o f i n f o r m a t i o n , much s c h o l a r l y l i t e r a t u r e on Hebrews resembles a l i p o g r a m , a p i e c e o f w r i t i n g i n which t h e a u t h o r r e j e c t s a l l words c o n t a i n i n g a c e r t a i n l e t t e r . The p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a c t i o n o f an unwarned r e a d e r who e n c o u n t e r s such a l i p o g r a m i s a vague u n e a s i n e s s , the sense t h a t something i n e x p l i c a b l e i s wrong; i t i s t h e same k i n d o f f e e l i n g t h a t Kafka's "K" had i n The T r i a l . S c h o l a r l y work on Hebrews must now d e t e r m i n e p r e c i s e l y what e v i d e n c e i s a v a i l a b l e , and e s p e c i a l l y what e v i d e n c e i s n o t . In i s o l a t i n g what we know, as w e l l as what has gone wrong and why, the r o a d t o f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s c l e a r e d . F u t u r e h i s t o r i a n s w i l l t hen have t o d e c i d e what d i r e c t i o n t h i s r o a d s h o u l d t a k e . 58 BIBLIOGRAPHY T e x t s Apocrypha and P s e u d e p i g r a p h a o f t h e O l d Testament. Ed. by R.H. C h a r l e s . 2 v o l s . O x f o r d : U n i v . P r e s s , 1913. The H o l y B i b l e . R e v i s e d S t a n d a r d V e r s i o n . Ed, by H e r b e r t G. May and Bruce M. Metzger. New York: O x f o r d U n i v . P r e s s , 1973. B i b l i a H e b r a i c a . Ed. by Rudolph K i t t e l and Paul K a h l e . 14th ed. S t u t t g a r t : W u r t t e m b e r g i s c h e B i b e l a n s t a l t , 1966. The B i b l i c a l A n t i q u i t i e s o f P h i l o . T r . by M.R. James ( w i t h a p r o l e -gomenon by L o u i s H. Feldman). New York: KTAV, 1971. The Dead Sea S c r i p t u r e s i n E n g l i s h T r a n s l a t i o n . T r . and ed. by Theodore H. G a s t e r . New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1964. The Dead Sea S c r o l l s i n E n g l i s h . T r . by Geza Vermes. Harmondsworth, Middlesex::: Penguin Books, 1962. D i s c o v e r i e s i n t h e Judaean D e s e r t o f J o r d a n . V; Qumrfn Cave 4_. Ed. by John M. A l l e g r o . O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1968. The E c c l e s i a s t i c a l H i s t o r y o f E u s e b i u s . (Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y . ) T r . by K i r s o p p Lake and J . E . L . O u l t o n . 2 v o l s . Cambridge: H a r v a r d U n i v . P r e s s , 1926-32. The Greek New Testament. Ed. by K u r t A l a n d e t al_. 2nd ed. S t u t t g a r t : W u r t t e m b e r g i s c h e B i b e l a n s t a l t , 1968. Neophytj I_. Targum P a l e s t i n e n s e . MS de l_a B i b l i o t e c a V a t i c a n a . Tomo I_: G e n e s i s . Ed. by A l e j a n d r o Dfez Macho. M a d r i d : C o n s e j o S u p e r i o r de I n v e s t i g a c i o n e s C i e n t f f i c a s , 1968. 59 The M i d r a s h on Psalms. ( Y a l e J u d a i c a S e r i e s , v o l . X I I I . ) T r . by Wil 1 lam Gordon Braude. ;New Haven: T a l e U n i v . P r e s s , 1959. M i d r a s h Rabbah. T r . and ed. by H. Freedman and M a u r i c e Simon. 10 v o l s . London: S o n c i n o P r e s s , 1939. The Mishnah. T r . by H e r b e r t Danby. London: O x f o r d U n i v . P r e s s , 1958. M i s h n a y o t h . T r . by P h i l i p Blackman. 6tvo'ilis)S:s. New York: J u d a i c a P r e s s , 1963. The O l d Testament i n Greek. V o l . I_ ( O c t a t e u c h ) . Ed. by A l a n E n g l a n d Brooke and Norman McLean. Cambridge: U n i v . P r e s s , 1906-11. P e s i k t a R a b b a t i . ( Y a l e J u d a i c a S e r i e s , v o l . X V I I I . ) T r . by W i l l i a m Gordon Braude. New Haven: Y a l e U n i v . P r e s s , 1968) The Works o f P h i l o . (Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y . ) T r . by F.H. C o l s o n e t al_. 10 v o l s , (and 2 s u p p l . ) London: W i l l i a m Heinemann L t d . , 1929-62. S e p t u a g i n t a , i d e s t Vetus Testamentum Graece i u x t a LXX I n t e r p r e t e d . Ed. by A l f r e d R a h l f s . 8 t h ed. 2 v o l s . S t u t t g a r t : W u r t t e m b e r g i s c h e B i b e l a n s t a l t , 1965. The Targums o f OnkeT.os and o f J o n a t h a n ben U z z i e l on t h e P e n t a t e u c h  With the Fragments o f t h e J e r u s a l e m Targum. T r . by John Wesley E t h e r i d g e . 2 v o l s . New York: KTAV, 1968 ( r e p r i n t o f 1862-65 e d i t i o n ) . V e t u s Testamentum Graecum G o t t i n g e n s i s Edjturn. V o l . X. P s a l m i cum  O d i s . Ed. by A l f r e d RahTfs. 2nd ed. G o t t i n g e n : Vandenhoeck and Ruprech.t, ,1967. 60 V e t u s Testamentum Graecum G o t t i n g e n s i s Editum. V o l . XV. I e r e m i a s , B a r u c h , T h r e n i , E p i s t u l a I e r e m i a e . Ed. by (Joseph Z i e g l e r . G o t t i n g e n : Vandenhoeck and R u p r e c h t , 1957. The Zohar. T r . by M a u r i c e Simon and H a r r y S p e r l i n g . London: S o n c i n o P r e s s , 1934. 61 R e f e r e n c e Works A B i b l i o g r a p h y o f Targum L i t e r a t u r e . ( B i b l i o g r a p h i c a J u d a i c a , No. 3.) Compiled by B e r n a r d G r o s s f e l d . C i n c i n n a t i : Hebrew Union C o l l e g e P r e s s , 1972. A C l a s s i f i e d B i b l i o g r a p h y o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t . Compiled by S e b a s t i a n P. B r o c k , C h a r l e s T. F r i t s c h and S i d n e y J e l l i c o e . L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1973. A G r e e k - E n g l i s h L e x i c o n . Compiled by Henry George L i d d e l l e t a l . 9th ed. O x f o r d : U n i v . P r e s s , 1968. A G r e e k - E n g l i s h L e x i c o n o f the New Testament and O t h e r E a r l y C h r i s t i a n  L i t e r a t u r e . Compiled by W a l t e r Bauer. T r a n s l a t e d and adapted by W i l l i a m F. A r n d t and F. W i l b u r G i n g r i c h . C h i c a g o : U n i v . o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1957. A Greek Grammar o f t h e New Testament and O t h e r E a r l y C h r i s t i a n L i t e r a t u r e , by F. B l a s s and A. Debrunner. T r . and r e v . by R o b e r t W. Funk. C h i c a g o : U n i v . o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1961. A Hebrew and E n g l i s h L e x i c o n o f t h e O l d Testament. Compiled by F r a n c i s Brown, S.R. D r i v e r , and C h a r l e s A. B r i g g s . O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 19661 Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und M i d r a s h . Hermann L. von S t r a c k and Paul B i l l e r b e c k . V o l s . 3 and 4. Munchen: C H . Beck'sche V e r l a g s b u c h h a n d l u n g , 1926. Targum and New Testament: A B i b ! i o g r a p h y T o g e t h e r w i t h a_ New Testament  Index. Compiled by P e t e r N i c k e l s . Rome: B i b l i c a l I n s t i t u t e P r e s s , 1967. A T e x t u a l Commentary on t h e Greek New Testament, by Bruce M. M e t z g e r . London: U n i t e d B i b l e S o c i e t i e s , 1971. 62 Commentaries B o n s i r v e n , J o s e p h . S a i n t P a u l : L ' E p f t r e aux Hebreux. (Verbum S a l u t i s , V o l . X I I . ) P a r i s : Beauchesne e t ses F i l s , 1943. B r u c e , F.F. Commentary on t h e E p i s t l e t o t h e Hebrews. (The New London Commentary on t h e B i b l e . ) London: M a r s h a l l , Morgan, and S c o t t , 1964. Buchanan, George Wesley. To the Hebrews: T r a n s l a t i o n , Comment and  C o n c l u s i o n . (Anchor B i b l e . ) Garden C i t y : Doubleday, 1972. B u r c h , V a c h e r . The E p i s t l e t o t h e Hebrews: I t s S o u r c e and Message. London: W i l l i a m s and N o r g a t e L t d . , 1936. D a v i e s , John Howard. A L e t t e r t o Hebrews. (The Cambridge B i b l e Commen-t a r y . ) Cambridge: U n i v . P r e s s , 1967. H e r i n g , J e a n . The E p i s t l e t o t h e Hebrews. T r . by A.W. H e a t h c o t e and P.J. A l l c o c k . London: Epworth P r e s s , 1970. M o f f a t t , James. A C r i t i c a l and E x e g e t i c a l Commentary on t h e E p i s t l e t o  th e Hebrews. (The I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i t i c a l Commentary.) E d i n b u r g h : T.&T. C l a r k , 1924. M o n t e f i o r e , Hugh. A Commentary on the E p i s t l e t o t h e Hebrews. London: Adam and C h a r l e s B l a c k , 1964. Purdy, A l e x a n d e r C. and C o t t o n , J.H. The E p i s t l e t o t h e Hebrews. (The I n t e r p r e t e r ' s B i b l e , v o l . XI.) New York: Abingdon P r e s s , 1955. S p i c q , C. L ' E p t t r e aux Hebreux. (2 v o l s . ) P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e L e C o f f r e , 1950-52. W e s t c o t t , Brooke F o s s . The E p i s t l e t o the Hebrews. 3 r d ed. London: M a c M i l l a n and Co., 1914. 63 Books Blackman, Edwin C y r i l . B i b l i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n : P h i l a d e l p h i a : W e s t m i n s t e r P r e s s , 1957. B o n s i r v e n , J o s e p h . Exegese r a b b i n i q u e e t exegese P a u l i n i e n n e . P a r i s : B i b l i o t h e q u e de T h e o l o g i e H i s t o r i q u e , 1939. Borgen, Peder. Bread from Heaven: An E x e g e t i c a l S t u d y o f t h e Concept  o f Manna i n t h e Gospel o f John and the W r i t i n g s o f P h i l o . ( S u p p l . t o Nov. T e s t . , v o l . X.) L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1965. Bowker, John. The Targums and R a b b i n i c L i t e r a t u r e : An I n t r o d u c t i o n  t o J e w i s h I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f S c r i p t u r e . Cambridge: U n i v . P r e s s , 1969. Braun, H e r b e r t . Qumran und das Neue Testament. 2 v o l s . T u b i n g e n : J.C.B. Mohr, 1966. B r u c e , F.F. B i b l i c a l E x e g e s i s i n t h e Qumran T e x t s . Grand R a p i d s : W.B. Eerdmans, 1959. Bultmann, R u d o l f . T h e o l o g y o f t h e New Testament. T r . by K. G r o b e l . 2 v o l s . New York: C. S c r i b n e r ' s Sons, 1951-55. B u r k i t t , F r a n c i s C r a w f o r d . The Gospel H i s t o r y and i t s T r a n s m i s s i o n . E d i n b u r g h : T.&T. C l a r k , 1907. Burrows, M i l l a r . An O u t l i n e o f B i b l i c a l T h e o l o g y . P h i l a d e l p h i a : W e s t m i n s t e r P r e s s , 1946. Burrows, M i l l a r , The Dead Sea S c r o l l s . New York: V i k i n g P r e s s , 1955. Burrows, M i l l a r . More L i g h t on the Dead Sea S c r o l l s . London: S e e k e r and Warburg, 1958. 64 C a r r i n g t o n , P h i l i p . The P r i m i t i v e C h r i s t i a n C a l e n d a r : A S t u d y i n t h e Making o f t h e Marcan G o s p e l . Cambridge: U n i v . P r e s s , 1952. C h a s l e s , R.H. L V a n c i e n testament dans l e 'tiouveau.. P a r i s : G a b a l d a , 1937. Coppens, J o s e p h . Les a f f i n i t e s qumraniennes de 1 ' E p t t r e aux Hebreux. ( A n a l e c t a L o v e n i e n s i a B i b l i c a e t O r i e n t a l i a . ) L o u v a i n : P u b l i c a t i o n s U n i v . , 1962. D a n i e l o u , J e a n . Phi 1 on d ' A l e x a n d r i e . P a r i s : M a r t i n e t f i l s , 1958. Dodd, C.H.. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e S c r i p t u r e s . London: N i s b e t , 1952. Dodd, C H . The O l d Testament i n t h e New. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s P r e s s , 1965. Doeve, Jan W i l l em. J e w i s h H e r m e n e u t i c s i n the S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s and A c t s . L e i d e n : Van Gorcum and Co., 1954. E l i a d e , M i r c e a . Le mythe de 1 ' e t e r n e l r e t o u r . P a r i s : G a l l i m a r d , 1969 ( r e v . ) . E l l i s , Edward E a r l e . P a u l ' s Use o f the O l d Testament. E d i n b u r g h : O l i v e r and Boyd, 1957. F i n c h , Rowland George. The Synagogue L e c t i o n a r y and t h e New Testament. O x f o r d : Univ. P r e s s , 1939. F r a n c e , R.T. J e s u s and t h e O l d Testament. London: T y n d a l e P r e s s , 1971. F r e e d , Edwin D. Old Testament Q u o t a t i o n s i n the Gospel o f John. ( S u p p l . to Nov. T e s t , v o l . XI.) L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1965. G e r h a r d s s o n , B d r g e r . Memory and M a n u s c r i p t : O r a l T r a d i t i o n and W r i t t e n  T r a n s m i s s i o n i n R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m and E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y . ( A c t a S e m i n a r i i N e o t e s t a m e n t i c i U p p s a l i e n s i s XXII.) T r . by E . J . Sharpe. U p p s a l a : C.W.K. G l e e r u p , 1961. 65 G e r h a r d s s o n , B i i r g e r . T r a d i t i o n and T r a n s m i s s i o n i n E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y . ( C o n i e c t a n e a N e o t e s t a m e n t i c a XX.) T r . by E . J . Sharpe. U p p s a l a : C.W.K. G l e e r u p , 1964. Goodenough, Erwin R a m s d e l l . J e w i s h Symbols i n the Greco-Roman P e r i o d . ( B o l l i n g e n S e r i e s XXXVII.) 13 v o l s . New York: Pantheon Books, 1953-69. G r a n t , R o b e r t McQueen. The L e t t e r and the S p i r i t . London: SPCK, 1957. G u i l d i n g , A i l e e n . The F o u r t h Gospel and J e w i s h Worship. O x f o r d : Univ. P r e s s , 1960. Gundry, R o b e r t H o r t o n . The Use o f t h e O l d Testament i n S t . Matthew. L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1967. Hagner, Donald A l f r e d . The Use o f t h e O l d and New Testaments i n Clement o f Rome. ( S u p p l . t o Nov. T e s t . VJ'QJIU XXXIV.) L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1973. Hanson, R i c h a r d P a t r i c k C r o s l a n d . A l l e g o r y and E v e n t . London: SCM P r e s s , 1959. H a r r i s , James R e n d e l . ( w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f V. B u r c h - ) ) T e s t i m o n i e s . 2 v o l s . Cambridge: U n i v . P r e s s , 1916-20. Hartman, L a r s . Prophecy I n t e r p r e t e d . T r . by N. Tomkinson .(with t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f J . G r a y . ) - U p p s a l a : A l m q u i s t and W i k s e l l s , 1966. H a r v e y , Van A. J_he_ H i s t o r i a n and t h e B e l i e v e r : The M o r a l i t y o f H i s t o r i c a l  Knowledge and C h r i s t i a n B e l i e f . London: SCM P r e s s , 1967. J e l l i c o e , S i d n e y . S e p t u a g i n t and Modern Study. London: O x f o r d U n i v . P r e s s , 1968. 66 J o h n s o n , F. The Q u o t a t i o n s o f the New Testament from t he O l d C o n s i d e r e d i n t h e L i g h t o f G e n e r a l L i t e r a t u r e . P h i l a d e l p h i a : American B a p t i s t P u b l i c a t i o n S o c i e t y , 1896. K a d u s h i n , Max. The R a b b i n i c Mind. New York: B l a i s d e l l P u b l . Co., 1952. K a h l e , Paul E r n s t . The C a i r o G e n i z a . 2nd ed. O x f o r d : B a s i l B l a c k w e l l , 1959. K i s t e m a k e r , Simon. Psalm C i t a t i o n s i n Hebrews. Amsterdam: Wed. G. Van S o e s t , 1961. Kosmala, Hans. H e b r ' a e r - E s s e n e r - C h r i s t e n . L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1961. Le Deaut, Roger. L i t u r g j e j u j v e e t l e Nouveau Testament. Rome: I n s t i t u t B i b l i q u e P o n t i f i c a l , 1965. Le De'aut, Roger. I n t r o d u c t i o n a l a l i t t e r a t u r e t a rgumique. Rome: I n s t i t u t B i b ! i q u e P o n t i f i c a l , 1966. L e o n a r d , W i l l i a m . A u t h o r s h i p o f t h e E p i s t l e t o the Hebrews: C r i t i c a l  Problem and t h e Use o f t h e O l d Testament. London: B u r n s , O a t e s , and Washbourne L t d . , 1939. L i n d a r s , Barnabas. New Testament A p o l o g e t i c : The D o c t r i n a l S i g n i f i c a n c e  o f O l d Testament Q u o t a t i o n s . P h i l a d e l p h i a : W e s t m i n s t e r P r e s s , 1961. Lon g e n e c k e r , R i c h a r d N. B i b l i c a l E x e g e s i s i n the A p o s t o l i c P e r i o d . Grand R a p i d s : W.ft. Eerdmans, 1975. j-Mann, J a c o b . The B i b l e as Read and Pre a c h e d i n t h e O l d Synagogue: A Stud y i n t h e C y c l e s o f t h e Readings from t h e T o r a h and t h e P r o p h e t s , as w e l l as from Psalms, and i n t h e S t r u c t u r e o f M i d r a s h i c H o m i l i e s . Prolegomenon by B.Z. Wacholder. V o l . I. New York: KTAV, 1971 (1940 p r i g . ) . 67, Mann, J a c o b and Sonne, I s a i a h . The B i b l e as Read and P r e a c h e d i n t h e O l d  Synagogue. V o l . I I . C i n c i n n a t i : The Mann-Sonne P u b l . Committee, 1966. Marrou, H.I. A S h o r t H i s t o r y o f E d u c a t i o n i n A n t i q u i t y . T r . by G. Lamb. New Y o r k : Sheed and Ward, 1956. McNamara, M a r t i n . The New Testament and t h e P a l e s t i n i a n Targum t o the  P e n t a t e u c h . Rome: B i b l i c a l I n s t i t u t e P r e s s , 1966. McNamara, M a r t i n . Targum and Testament: A r a m a i c P a r a p h r a s e s o f t h e  Hebrew B i b l e : A L i g h t on t h e New Testament. Grand R a p i d s : W.B. Eerdmans, 1972. M e t z g e r , Bruce M. The T e x t o f t h e New Testament: I t s T r a n s m i s s i o n , C o r r u p t i o n , and R e s t o r a t i o n . O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1964. Moore, George F o o t . J u d a i s m i n t h e F i r s t C e n t u r i e s o f t h e C h r i s t i a n E r a . 2 v o l s . New York: Schocken Paperback, 1971 (1927 o r i g . , 3 v o l s . ) . M o r r i s , Leon. The New Testament and t h e J e w i s h L e c t i o n a r i e s . London: T y n d a l e P r e s s , 1964. Neusner, J a c o b . The R a b b i n i c T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s b e f o r e 70. 3 v o l s . L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1971. Pavda, P. Les c i t a t i o n s de 1'Ancien Testament dans 1 ' E p t t r e aux Hebreux. P a r i s : P r e s s e s U n i v . , 1904. P f e i f f e r , R o b e r t H. A H i s t o r y o f New Testament Times w i t h an I n t r o d u c t i o n  t o t h e Apocrypha. New York: Harper and B r o t h e r s , 1949. P r i n g e n t , P a u l . Les t e s t i m o n i a dans l e C h r i s t i a n i s m e p r i m i t i f : L ' E p T t r e  de Barnabe I-XVI e t ses s o u r c e s . P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e L e G o f f r e , 1961. 68 R i g a u x , Beda. The L e t t e r s o f S t . P a u l : Modern S t u d i e s . Tr. ; and ed. by S. Y o n i c k . C h i c a g o : F r a n c i s c a n H e r a l d P r e s s , 1968. R o s e n b l a t t , Samuel. The I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e B i b l e i n t h e Mishnah. B a l t i m o r e : The John Hopkins P r e s s , 1935. Schro'ger, F r i e d r i c h . Per V e r f a s s e r H e b r a e r b r i e f e s a l s S c h r i f t a u s l e g e r . Regensburg: F. P u s t e t , 1968. S h i r e s , Henry M. F i n d i n g t h e O l d Testament i n t h e New. P h i l a d e l p h i a : W e s t m i n s t e r P r e s s , 1974. S h o t w e l l , W i l l i s A. The B i b l i c a l E x e g e s i s o f J u s t i n M a r t y r . London: MaMmilil'an, l!T965. S i b i n g a , J . S m i t . The O l d Testament T e x t o f J u s t i n M a r t y r , V o l . I_: The P e n t a t e u c h . L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1963. S m i t s , C. O u d - T e s t a m e n t i s c h e C i t a t e n i n h e t Nieuwe Testament, Peel IV: Pe B r i e f aan de Hebree'e'n; Het Oude Testament i n h e t Nieuwe. Malmberg: S-H e r t o g e n b o s c h , 1963. Sowers, S i d n e y G. The H ermeneutics o f P h i l o and Hebrews. A Comparison  o f the I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the O l d Testament i n P h i l o Judaeus and t h e  E p i s t l e t o t h e Hebrews. ( B a s e l S t u d i e s o f T h e o l o g y , No. I.) Z u r i c h : E V G - V e r l a g , 1965. S p e r b e r , A l e x a n d e r . New Testament and S e p t u a g i n t . New York: V i k i n g P r e s s , 1940. ( r e p r i n t e d from t h e J B L , LIX, pp. 193-293.) S p e r b e r , A l e x a n d e r . The B i b l e i n A r a m a i c . P a r t s I-IVB. L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1968-73. S t a r f e l t , E r i c . S t u d i e r i r a b b j n s k och n y t e s t a m e n t l i g s k r i f t t o l k n i n g . ( S t u d i a T h e o l o g i c a L u n d e n s i a 17.) Lund: C.W.K. G l e e r u p , 1959. ( E n g l i s h summary, pp. 260-88.) 69 S t e n d a h l , K r i s t e r . The S c h o o l o f S t . Matthew and i t s Use o f t h e O l d  Testament. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s P r e s s , 1968 (1954 o r i g . ) . Swete, Henry B a r c l a y . An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e O l d Testament i n Greek. New York: KTAV, 1968 (from 2nd e d . , r e v . 1914 by R.R. O t t l e y . ) . Synge, F r a n c i s C h a r l e s . Hebrews and t h e S c r i p t u r e s . London: SPCK, 1959. T h a c k e r a y , H. S t . John. The S e p t u a g j n t and J e w i s h Worship. A S t u d y i n  O r i g i n s (Schweich L e c t u r e s , 1920.) London: O x f o r d U n i v . P r e s s , 1923. T u r p i e , D a v i d McCalman. The New Testament View o f t h e O l d : A C o n t r i b u t i o n  t o B i b l i c a l I n t r o d u c t i o n and E x e g e s i s . London: Hodder & S t o u g h t o n , 1872. , ' * Vanhoye, A l b e r t . La s t r u c t u r e l i t t e r a i r e de 1 ' E p T t r e aux Hebreux. P a r i s : D e s c l e e de Brouwer, 1963. Vermes, Geza. S c r i p t u r e and T r a d i t i o n i n J u d a i s m . ( S t u d i a P o s t - B i b l i c a , v o l . 4.) L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1961. V i s , A l b e r t . AIT I n q u i r y i n t o t h e R i s e o f . C h r i s t i a n i t y o u t o f J u d a i s m . Amsterdam: Wed. G. Van S o e s t , 1936. de V u y s t , J . "Pud en Nieuw Verbond" i n de B r i e f aan de Hebreeen. Kampen, N e d e r l a n d : J.H. Kok, 1964. de Waard, J a n . A C o m p a r a t i v e Study o f t h e O l d Testament T e x t i n t h e Dead  Sea S c r o l l s and i n t h e New Testament. ( S t u d i e s on t h e T e x t s o f t h e D e s e r t o f J udah, v o l . IV.) L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1966. W a r f i e l d , B.B. The I n s p i r a t i o n and A u t h o r i t y o f t h e B i b l e . London: M a r s h a l l , Morgan, and S c o t t , 1951. 70. i Werner, E r i c . The S a c r e d B r i d g e . The I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f L i t u r g y and M u s i c i n t h e Synagogue and t h e Church, d u r i n g t h e F i r s t M i l l e n i u m . New York: Columbia U n i v . P r e s s , 1959. W i l l i a m s o n , R o n a l d . Phi 1o and t h e Epi s t l e t o t h e Hebrews. ( A r b e i t e n z u r L i t e r a t u r und G e s c h i c h t e des H e l l e n i s t i s c h e n Judentums, v o l . IV.) L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1970. W o l f s o n , H a r r y A u s t r y n . P h i l o . The F o u n d a t i o n s o f R e l i g i o u s P h i l o s o p h y  i n J u d a i s m , C h r i s t i a n i t y , and I s l a m . 2 v o l s . Cambridge: H a r v a r d U n i v . P r e s s , 1962. 7T l A r t i c l e s and E s s a y s Abraham, I. " R a b b i n i c A i d s t o E x e g e s i s , " i n E s s a y s on Some B i b l i c a l  Q u e s t i o n s o f t h e Day. Ed. by H.B. Swete. London: M a c M i l l a n and Co., L t d . , 1909. Altmann, A l e x a n d e r . " B i b l e : A l l e g o r i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , " E n c y c l o p e d i a  J u d a i c a . V o l . 4, pp. 895-99/' Audet, Jean P a u l . " L'hypothese des t e s t i m o n i a , " Revue B i b l i q u e 7 0 ( 1 9 6 3 ) : 381-405. B a r r e t t , C.K. "The I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the O l d Testament i n t h e New," i n v o l . I o f the Cambridge H i s t o r y o f t h e B i b l e . 3 v o l s . Cambridge: U n i v . P r e s s , 1963-70. B a r t h , Markus. "The O l d Testament i n Hebrews," i n C u r r e n t I s s u e s i n New Testament I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Ed. by W i l l i a m K l a s s e n and Graydon F. Snyder. New York: H a r p e r and B r o t h e r s , 1962. B a t d o r f , I.W. "Hebrews and Qumran: O l d Methods and New D i r e c t i o n s , " i n F e s t s c h r i f t t o Honor F. W i l b u r G i n g r i c h . Ed. by E.H. B a r t h and R.E. C o c r o f t . L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1972. B l a c k , Matthew. "The C h r i s t o l o g i c a l Use o f t h e O l d Testament i n t h e New Testament," New Testament S t u d i e s 18(1971/72): 1-14. B l o c h , Renee. "Note m e t h o d o l o g i q u e pour 1'etude de l a l i t t e r a t u r e r a b b i n i q u e , " Recherches de S c i e n c e R e l i g i e u s e x i i i i ( 1 955): 194-227. B l o c h , Renee. " M i d r a s h , " i n D i c t i o n n a i r e de l a B i b l e , Supplement. V o l . V. Ed. by H e n r i C a z e l l e s . P a r i s : L e c l e e , 1957. Brown!ee, W i l l i a m Hugh. " B i b l i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Among t h e S e c t a r i e s o f t h e Dead Sea S c r o l l s , " The B i b l i c a l A r c h a e o l o g i s t 1 4 ( 1951): 54-76. 72 B r u c e , F.F. "Qumran and E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y , " New Testament S t u d i e s 2 ( 1 9 5 6 ) : 176-90. B r u c e , F.F. '"To t h e Hebrews' o r 'To t h e E s s e n e s ' , " New Testament  S t u d i e s 9 ( 1 9 6 3 ) : 217-32. B r u c e , F-F. "Recent C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the U n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Hebrews," E x p o s i t o r y Times 8 0 ( 1 9 6 9 ) : 260-64. B u c h l e r , A d o l f . "The Reading o f t h e Law and P r o p h e t s i n a T r i e n n i a l C y c l e , " J u d a i s m Q u a r t e r l y Review 5 ( 1 8 9 3 ) : 420-68 and 6 ( 1 8 9 4 ) : 1-73. B u c h s e l , F r i e d r i c h . "«XX^yop/u)>" i n The T h e o l o g i c a l D i c t i o n a r y o f  th e New Testament. Ed. by G e r h a r d K i t t e l . T r . and ed. by G e o f f r e y W. B r o m i l e y . V o l . I. Grand R a p i d s : W.B. Eerdmans, 1964. C a i r d , George B. "The E x e g e t i c a l Method o f t h e E p i s t l e t o t h e Hebrews," Canadian J o u r n a l o f T h e o l o g y 5 ( 1 9 5 9 ) : 44-51. Carmignac, J e a n . "Les c i t a t i o n s de 1'Ancien Testament dans 'La g u e r r e des f i l s de l u m i e r e c o n t r e l e s f i l s de t e n e b r e s 1 , " Revue B i b ! i q u e 63(1956): 234-60, 375-90. Carmignac, J e a n . "Les c i t a t i o n s de 1'Ancien Testament e t s p e c i a l e m e n t des Poemes du S e r v i t e u r dans l e s Hymnes de Qumran," Revue de  Qumran 2(1959/60): 357-94. Carmignac, J e a n . "Le genre l i t t e r a i r e du 'pesher' dans l a P i s t i s -S o p h i a , " Revue de Qumran 4 ( 1 9 6 4 ) : 497-522. Carmignac, J e a n . "Le document de Qumran s u r M e l k i s e d e q , " Revue de  Qumran 7 ( 1 9 7 0 ) : 343-78. Cave, C H . "The P a r a b l e s and the S c r i p t u r e s , " New Testament S t u d i e s 11(1965): 374-87. 73. C o l s o n , F.H. " P h i l o ' s Q u o t a t i o n s from t h e O l d Testament," J o u r n a l o f  T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s x l i ( 1 9 4 0 ) : 237-51. C r o s s , Frank Moore, J r . "The C o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e Qumran D i s c o v e r i e s t o t h e S t u d y o f t h e B i b l i c a l T e x t , " I s r a e l E x p l o r a t i o n J o u r n a l 16(1966): 81-95. Daube, D a v i d . " R a b b i n i c Methods o f I n t e r p r e t a t i o n and H e l l e n i s t i c R h e t o r i c , " Hebrew Union C o l l e g e Annual 22(1949): 239-64. Daube, D a v i d . " A l e x a n d r i a n Methods o f I n t e r p r e t a t i o n and t h e R a b b i s , " i n F e s t s c h r i f t Hans Lewald. B a s e l : V e r l a g H e l b i n g and L i c h t e n h a h n , 1953. D a v i e s , W.D. " R e f l e c t i o n s on A r c h b i s h o p C a r r i n g t o n ' s The P r i m i t i v e  C h r i s t i a n Calendar,,." i n C h r i s t i a n O r i g i n s and J u d a i s m . London: D a r t o n , Longman, and Todd, 1962. de Lubac, H e n r i . " T y p o l o g i e e t a l l e g o r i s m e , " Recherches de S c i e n c e  R e l i g i e u s e 34(1947): 180-226. E l l i s , Edward E a r l e . " M i d r a s h , Targum, and New Testament Q u o t a t i o n s , " i n N e o t e s t a m e i i t i c a e t S e m i t i c a : S t u d i e s i n Honour o f M. B l a c k . Ed. by Edward E a r l e E l l i s and M. W i l c o x . E d i n b u r g h : T.&T. C l a r k , 1969. E l l i s , Edward E a r l e . " M i d r a s h i c F e a t u r e s i n the Speeches o f A c t s , " Melanges B i b l i q u e s en hommage au R.P. Beda Rigaux. Gembloux: J . D u c u l o t , 1970. F i t z m e y e r , J o s e p h A. "'4 Q T e s t i m o n i a ' and t h e New Testament," T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s 18(1957): 513-37. F i t z m e y e r , J o s e p h A. "The Use o f E x p l i c i t O l d Testament Q u o t a t i o n s i n t h e Qumran L i t e r a t u r e and i n t h e New Testament," New Testament  S t u d i e s 7(1960/61): 297-333-.74 G e r t n e r , M. "Midrashim i n the New Testament," J o u r n a l o f S e m i t i c  S t u d i e s 7 ( 1 9 6 2 ) : 267-92. G o p p e l t , Leonhard. "rvnos» vtvri'rorros, romkos .virorotnacn $ i n The T h e o l o g i c a l D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e New Testament. Ed. by G e r h a r d F r i e d r i c h . T r . and ed. by G e o f f r e y W. B r o m i l e y . V o l . V I I I . Grand R a p i d s : W.B. Eerdmans, 1972. Gre c h , P r o s p e r . "The ' T e s t i m o n i a ' and Modern H e r m e n e u t i c s , " New  Testament S t u d i e s 19(1973): 318-24. G r o s s f e l d , B e r n a r d . " B i b l e . T r a n s l a t i o n s : A r a m a i c , " E n c y c l o p e d i a  J u d a i c a . V o l . 4, pp. 841-51. G u i l d i n g , A i l e e n . "Some Obse r v e d R u b r i c s and L e c t i o n a r y A l l u s i o n s i n t h e P s a l t e r , " J o u r n a l o f T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s 3 ( 1 9 5 2 ) : 41-55. Gutmann, J o s e p h . " A r i s t o b u l u s o f Paneas," E n c y c l o p e d i a J u d a i c a . V o l . 3, pp. 444-45. H a l l e w y , E.E. " B i b l i c a l M i d r a s h and Homeric E x e g e s i s , " T a r b i z 30-31 (1961): 157-69. Hanson, Anthony. "The Gospel i n the O l d Testament A c c o r d i n g t o the Hebrews," T h e o l o g y 5 2 ( 1 9 4 9 ) : 248-52. Hanson, Anthony T. " C h r i s t i n t h e O l d Testament," S t u d i a E v a n g e l i c a 2 ( 1 9 6 4 ) : 393-407. Hi 1 I y e r , N. "Matthew's Use o f th e O l d Testament," E v a n g e l i c a l Q u a r t e r l y 36(1964): 12-26. H o r t o n , F.L. "Formulas o f I n t r o d u c t i o n i n t h e Qumran L i t e r a t u r e , " Revue de Qumran 7 ( 1 9 7 1 ) : 5Q5-14. 75: Howard, George. "Hebrews and O l d Testament Q u o t a t i o n s , " Novum Testamentum 10(1968): 208-16. Hruby, K. "Exegese r a b b i n i q u e e t exegese p a t r i s t i q u e , " Revue des  S c i e n c e s R e l i g i e u s e s 4 7 ( 1 9 7 3 ) : 341-72. J a c o b s , L o u i s . " H e r m e n e u t i c s , " E n c y c l o p e d i a J u d a i c a . V o l . 8, pp. 366-72. K a t z , P e t e r . " ou K-VCJ, OQS' O O ^  ere l y ^ r i x X t V o J . Heb. x i i i , 5: The B i b l i c a l S o u r c e o f the Q u o t a t i o n , " B i b l i c a 3 3 ( 1 9 5 2 ) : 523-25. K a t z , P e t e r . "The Q u o t a t i o n s from Deuteronomy i n Hebrews," Z e i t s c h r i f t  f u r d i e N e u t e s t a m e n t l i c h e W i s s e n s c h a f t 4 9 ( 1 9 5 8 ) : 213-23. Knox, W i l f r e d L. "A Note on P h i l o ' s Use o f t h e O l d Testament," J o u r n a l o f T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s x i i i ( 1 940): 30-34. K r a f t , R.A. "Barnabas' I s a i a h T e x t and t h e 'Testimony Book' H y p o t h e s i s , " J o u r n a l o f B i b l i c a l L i t e r a t u r e 79(1960): 336-50. Le Deaut, Roger. "Le t i t r e de Summus S a c e r d o s e t 1'exegese j u i v e ? " R e cherches de S c i e n c e R e l i g i e u s e 50(1962): 222-29. y s ' Le Deaut, Roger. "Les e t u d e s t a r g u m i q u e s . E t a t de l a r e c h e r c h e e t p e r s p e c t i v e pour 1'exegese de 1'Ancien Testament," Ephemerides T h e o l o g i c a e L o v a n i e n s e s 4 4 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 5-34. Le De'aut, Roger. "Apropos a D e f i n i t i o n o f M i d r a s h , " I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 2 5(1971): 259-82. Le Deaut, Roger. "Targumic L i t e r a t u r e and New Testament I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , " B i b l i c a l T h e o l o g y B u l l e t i n 4 ( 1 9 7 4 ) : 243-89. 76 L i n d a r s , Barnabas. "Second Thoughts IV: The Book o f T e s t i m o n i e s , " E x p o s i t o r y Times 75(1964): 173-75. Loewe, R a p h a e l . "The ' P l a i n ' Meaning o f S c r i p t u r e i n E a r l y J e w i s h M i d r a s h , " i n Papers o f t h e I n s t i t u t e o f J e w i s h S t u d i e s . Ed. by J.G. Weiss. V o l . I. J e r u s a l e m : Magnes P r e s s , 1964. Lowy, S. "Some A s p e c t s o f Normative and S e c t a r i a n I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e S c r i p t u r e s , " The Annual o f Leeds U n i v e r s i t y O r i e n t a l S o c i e t y v i ( 1 9 6 6 / 6 8 ) : 98-163. Macho, A l e j a n d r o D i e z . "Le Targum P a l e s t i n i e n , " Revue des S c i e n c e s  R e T i g j e u s e s 4 7 ( 1 9 7 3 ) : 169-231. M a l i n a , B. "Matt. 2 and I s a . 41:2-3; A P o s s i b l e R e l a t i o n s h i p ? " " Studium B i b l i c u m F r a n c i s c u m 17(1967): 291-303. Manson, T.W. "The Argument from Prophecy," J o u r n a l o f T h e o l o g i c a l  S t u d i e s x l v i ( 1 9 4 5 ) : 129-36. Marcus, Ralph A. " P r e s u p p o s i t i o n s o f t h e T y p o l o g i c a l Approach t o S c r i p t u r e , " Church Q u a r t e r l y Review 158(1957): 442-51. M e t z g e r , Bruce M. "The Formulas I n t r o d u c i n g Q u o t a t i o n s o f S c r i p t u r e i n t h e New Testament and Mishnah," J o u r n a l o f B i b l i c a l L i t e r a t u r e 7 0(1951): 297-307. M i l l e r , M e r r i l l P. "Targum, M i d r a s h , and t h e Use o f t h e O l d Testament i n t h e New Testament," J o u r n a l f o r t h e Study o f J u d a i s m 2 ( 1 9 7 1 ) : 29-82. Moore, George F o o t . " C h r i s t i a n W r i t e r s on J u d a i s m , " H a r v a r d T h e o l o g i c a l  Review x i v ( 1 9 2 1 ) : 197-254. Neusner, J a c o b . " ' P h a r i s a i c - R a b b i n i c ' J u d a i s m : A C l a r i f i c a t i o n , " H i s t o r y o f R e l i g i o n s 12(1973): 250-70. 77-Neusner, J a c o b . "The Study o f R e l i g i o n as t h e Study o f T r a d i t i o n : J u d a i s m , " " H i s t o r y o f R e l i g i o n s 14(1975): 191-206. N i c o l e , Roger. "New Testament Use o f t h e O l d Testament," i n R e v e l a t i o n  and t h e B i b l e . Ed. by C.F.Henry. Grand R a p i d s : Baker Book House, 1958. P e r r o t , C. "Luc 4, 16-30 e t l a l e c t u r e b i b l i q u e de l ' a n c i e n n e synagogue," Revue des S c i e n c e s R e l i g i e u s e s 4 7 ( 1 9 7 3 ) : 324-40. R e n d a l l , R o b e r t . "The Method o f t h e W r i t e r t o t h e Hebrews i n U s i n g O l d Testament Q u o t a t i o n s , " E v a n g e l i c a l Q u a r t e r l y 27(1955): 214-20. R o b e r t , A n d r e . "Genres 1 i t t e r a i r e s , " i n D i c t i o n n a i r e de l a B i b l e , Supplement. V o l . V. Ed. by H e n r i C a z e l l e s . P a r i s : L e c l e e , 1957. R o b e r t s , B l e d d y n J o n e s . "The Dead Sea S c r o l l s and O l d Testament S c r i p t u r e s , " B u l l e t i n o f the. John R y l a n d s L i b r a r y 36(1953/54): 75-96. Roth, C e c i l . "The S u b j e c t M a t t e r o f Qumran E x e g e s i s , " Vetus Testamentum 10(1960): 51-68. S a b o u r i n , L. " A u c t o r e p i s t o l a e ad Hebraeos u t i n t e r p r e s S c r i p t u r a e , " Verbum Domini 4 6 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 275-85. Sandmel, Samuel. " P a r a l l e l o m a n i a , " J o u r n a l o f B i b l i c a l L i t e r a t u r e 81 ( 1 9 6 2 ) : 1-13. S i l b e r m a n , Lou H. " U n r i d d l i n g t h e R i d d l e : A S t u d y i n t h e S t r u c t u r e and Language o f t h e Habakkuk Pesher (I Qp Hab.)," Revue de Qumran 3( 1 9 6 1 ) : 323-64. Skehan, P a t r i c k W. "A Fragment o f t h e 'Song o f Moses' (Deut,32) from Qumran," B u l l e t i n o f the American S c h o o l o f O r i e n t a l R e s e a r c h 136(1954): 12-15. 78 S l o m o v i c , E l i e z e r . "Toward an U n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e E x e g e s i s i n t h e Dead Sea S c r o l I s , " Revue de Qumrtn 7(1969): 3-15. S m i t h , Morton. " P a l e s t i n i a n J u d a i s m i n t h e F i r s t C e n t u r y , " i n I s r a e l : I t s R o l e i n C i v i l i z a t i o n . Ed. M. D a v i s . N.Y.: Harper and Row, 1956. S m i t h , Morton. "Goodenough's J e w i s h Symbols i n R e t r o s p e c t , " J o u r n a l o f  B i b l i c a l L i t e r a t u r e 8 6 ( 1 9 6 7 ) : 53-68. S m i t h , D.M., J r . "The Use o f t h e O l d Testament i n t h e New," i n The  Use o f t h e O l d Testament i n t h e New and O t h e r E s s a y s . Ed. J.M. E f i r d . Durham: Duke U n i v . P r e s s , 1972. S p i c q , C. "Le P h i l o n i s m e de l ' E p T t r e aux Hebreux," Revue B i b l i q u e 5 6 ( 1 949): 542-72 and 57(1950): 212-42. S p i c q , C. " A l e x a n d r i n i s m e s dans l ' E p T t r e aux Hebreux," Revue B i b l i q u e 5 8 ( 1 9 5 1 ) : 481-502. S p i c q , C. " L ' E p T t r e aux Hebreux, A p o l l o s , J e a n - B a p t i s t e , l e s H e l l e n i s t e s , e t Qumrein," Revue de Qumrftn 1 ( 1 9 5 9 ) : 365-90. S p i c q , C. "Paul:/ E p T t r e aux Hebreux," i n D i c t i o n n a i r e de l a B i b l e , Supplement. V o l . V I I . Ed. by H e n r i C a z e l l e s and A. F e u i l l e t . P a r i s : L e c l e e , 1966. S t y l i a n o p o u l o s , T.G. "Shadow and R e a l i t y : R e f l e c t i o n s on Heb. 10: 1-18," Greek Orthodox T h e o l o g i c a l Review 17(1972): 215-30. Sundberg, A l b e r t C. "On T e s t i m o n i e s , " Novum Testamentum 3 ( 1 9 5 9 ) : 268-81. Thomas, K.J. "The O l d Testament C i t a t i o n s i n Hebrews," New Testament  S t u d i e s 1 1 (1965): 303-25. van d e r P l o e g , J . "L'exegese de 1'Ancien Testament dans l ' E p i t r e aux Hebreux," Revue B i b l i q u e 5 4 ( 1947): 187-228. 79 van Dodewaard, J.A.E. "La f o r c e e v o c a t r i c e de l a c i t a t i o n , " B i b l i c a 3 6 ( 1 955): 482-91. V e n a r d , L. " L ' u t i l i s a t i o n des Psaumes dans l ' E p T t r e aux Hebreux," i n Melanges E. Podechard. Lyon: Faculte's C a t h o l i q u e s , 1945. Vermes, Geza. "The Qumran I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e i n i t s H i s t o r i c a l S e t t i n g , " The Annual o f Leeds U n i v e r s i t y O r i e n t a l S o c i e t y v i ( 1 9 6 6 / 6 8 ) : 85-97. Vermes, Geza. " B i b l e and M i d r a s h : E a r l y O l d Testament E x e g e s i s , " i n v o l . I o f t h e Cambridge H i s t o r y o f t h e B i b l e . 3 v o l s . Cambridge: Un i v . P r e s s , 1963-70. Wool 1 combe, K.J. "The B i b l i c a l O r i g i n s and P a t r i s t i c Development o f T y p o l o g y , " i n E s s a y s on T y p o l o g y . By G.W. Lampe and K.H. W o o l l -combe. London: SCM, 1957. W r i g h t , A d d i s o n G. "The L i t e r a r y Genre M i d r a s h , " C a t h o l i c B i b l i c a l  Q u a r t e r l y 28(1966): 105-38, 417-57. Y a d i n , Y i g a e l . "The Dead Sea S c r o l l s and the E p i s t l e t o t h e Hebrews," i n A s p e c t s o f t h e Dead Sea S c r o l l s . ( S c r i p t a H i e r o s o l y m i t a n a , v o l . i v . ) Ed. by Chaim Rabin and Y i g a e l Y a d i n . J e r u s a l e m : Magnes P r e s s , 1958. 80 U n p u b l i s h e d M a t e r i a l A n d e r s o n , C h a r l e s P. The S e t t i n g o f t h e E p i s t l e t o the Hebrews. Ph.D. t h e s i s , Columbia U n i v . , 1969. Cave, C h a r l e s H. The I n f l u e n c e o f the L e c t i o n a r y o f t h e Synagogue on  t h e F o r m a t i o n o f t h e E p i s t l e t o t h e Hebrews. M.A. t h e s i s , U n i v . o f Nottingham, 1960. C r o c k e t t , Lawrence C. The O l d Testament i n Luke w i t h Emphasis on t h e  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f I s a . 61: 1-2. Ph.D. t h e s i s , Brown U n i v . , 1966. M i c k e l s e n , A. B e r k e l e y . Methods o f I n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n t h e E p i s t l e t o  t h e Hebrews. P'hLD).. t h e s i s , C h i c a g o D i v . S c h o o l , 1950. R e i d , R i c h a r d . The Use o f t h e O l d Testament i n t h e E p i s t l e t o t h e  Hebrews. Th.D. t h e s i s , Union T h e o l . Seminary, 1964. Thomas, Kenneth J . The Use o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t i n t h e E p i s t l e t o t h e  Hebrews. Ph.D. t h e s i s , U n i v . o f M a n c h e s t e r , 1959. Ziink, James K e i t h . The Use o f t h e O l d Testament i n t h e Apocrypha. Ph.D. t h e s i s , Duke U n i v . , 1963. 81 ABBREVIATIONS A J P h i l o l The American J o u r n a l o f P h i l o l o g y ALUOS The Annual o f t h e O r i e n t a l S o c i e t y o f Leeds U n i v e r s i t y BA B i b ! i c a l A r c h a e o l o g i s t B i b B i b l i c a BJRL John R y l a n d s L i b r a r y B u l l e t i n CBQ C a t h o l i c B i b l i c a l Q u a r t e r l y CHB The Cambridge H i s t o r y o f t h e B i b l e CQR The Church Q u a r t e r l y Review EJ E n c y c l o p a e d i a J u d a i c a ETL Ephemerides T h e o l o g i c a e L o v a n i e n s e s ExpT E x p o s i t o r y Times HR H i s t o r y o f R e l i g i o n s HTR H a r v a r d T h e o l o g i c a l Review HUCA The Hebrew Union C o l l e g e Annual I E J I s r a e l E x p l o r a t i o n J o u r n a l JQR J u d a i s m Q u a r t e r l y Review J S J J o u r n a l f o r t h e St u d y o f J u d a i s m JTS J o u r n a l o f T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s LCL Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y NT Novum Testamentum NTS New Testament S t u d i e s PL P a t r o l o g i a L a t i n a RechScR Recherches de S c i e n c e R e l i g i e u s e RB Revue B i b ! i q u e 82 RQ Revue de Qumran RevRel Review o f R e l i g i o n RevScR Revue des S c i e n c e s R e l i g i e u s e s S t B i b F r Studium B i b l i c u m F r a n c i s c u m TDNT T h e o l o g i c a l D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e New Testament ThSt T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s •VDBS D i c t i o n n a i r e de l a B i b l e ^ S u p p l e m e n t VT Vetu s Testamentum ZFNW Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r d i e N e u t e s t a m e n t l i c h e W i s s e n s c h a f t 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093763/manifest

Comment

Related Items