LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES
527 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge
Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn
Editorial Board Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Gina Hens-Piazza, John Jarick, Andrew D. H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller, Yvonne Sherwood
This page intentionally left blank
PSALMS AND HEBREWS
Studies in Reception
edited by
Dirk J. Human and Gert J. Steyn
Copyright © 2010 by Dirk J. Human and Gert J. Steyn
Published by T & T Clark International A Continuum imprint 80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038 The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX www.continuumbooks.com Visit the T & T Clark blog at www.tandtclarkblog.com All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher, T & T Clark International.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN: 978-0567-15052-3 (hardback) Typeset and copy-edited by Forthcoming Publications Ltd. (www.forthpub.com) Printed in the United States of America by Thomson-Shore, Inc
CONTENTS Preface Abbreviations List of Contributors
vii xv ixx
Part I GENERAL HERMENEUTICS OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, HISTORY OF RELIGION AND THE THEOLOGICAL SUBSTANCE OF TWO TESTAMENTS: THE RECEPTION OF PSALMS IN HEBREWS Eckart Otto
3
BUT IS IT TRUE? PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES OF TRUTH AND THE INTERPRETATION OF PSALMS IN THE BOOK OF HEBREWS Jaco W. Gericke
27
A GOD ABOUNDING IN STEADFAST LOVE: PSALMS AND HEBREWS Alphonso Groenewald
52
Part II SPECIFIC ILLUSTRATIONS REFLECTIONS ON CREATION AND HUMANKIND IN PSALM 8, THE SEPTUAGINT AND HEBREWS Gerda de Villiers THE SON, THE ANGELS AND THE ODD: PSALM 8 IN HEBREWS 1 AND 2 Sebastian Fuhrmann
69
83
THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION OF PSALM 8:4–6 IN HEBREWS 2:6–9. PART I Leonard P. Maré
99
Psalms and Hebrews
vi
THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION OF PSALM 8:4–6 IN HEBREWS 2:6–9. PART II Chris L. De Wet
113
LXX PSALM 39:7–10 IN HEBREWS 10:5–7 Martin Karrer
126
A PROPHETIC VOICE FOR AFRICA FROM PSALM 95 Dirk J. Human
147
TI NFSPO—UNDERSTANDING PSALM 95 WITHIN, AND WITHOUT, HEBREWS
Christian Frevel
165
THE RECEPTION OF PSALM 95(94):7–11 IN HEBREWS 3–4 Gert J. Steyn
194
FROM PRIEST-KING TO KING-PRIEST: PSALM 110 AND THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF HEBREWS Gert J. C. Jordaan and Pieter Nel
229
PSALM 109(110):1–3 IN THE SEPTUAGINT: ITS TRANSLATION-CRITICAL, TRADITION-HISTORICAL, AND THEOLOGICAL SETTING Evangelia G. Dafni
241
Part III CONTEMPORARY ILLUSTRATION: AN AFRICAN EXAMPLE THE VERSIFICATION OF THE PSALMS AND THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PSALMS IN HEBREWS Herrie Van Rooy
263
Index of References Index of Authors
279 295
PREFACE Dirk J. Human and Gert J. Steyn
A Psalm seminar, entitled “Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception,” took place at the University of Pretoria on the 27th and 28th of August 2007. This was the fth annual meeting of the ProPsalms (Project Psalms) project, a specialized and interdisciplinary seminar between African and European scholars. This book is the peer-reviewed outcome of that seminar. The reception (use and interpretation) of biblical Psalms within (the so-called Epistle of the) Hebrews and the Septuagint (LXX) is depicted in various ways by this collection of essays. By focusing especially on the Psalm quotations (for example, from Pss 8, 40[39], 95[94], and 110[109]) in Hebrews, the current collection depicts both the nature of the Psalm texts that were used—with special emphasis on the Hebrew and Greek (LXX) Psalms—and the manner in which a particular early Christian writer (here the unknown author of Hebrews) utilized and interpreted the Psalms texts within his argument. Therefore, the book provides insights into the complexities of ancient hermeneutics, and the re-interpretation of religious texts. Contributions are arranged into three parts. Part I represents a more general approach to the relationship between Psalms and Hebrews. The second part provides specic illustrations of different psalms, and their reception in Hebrews and the LXX. In Part III, a nal essay conveys an African illustration on how psalms are to be received in a contemporary language and religious tradition. In the rst contribution, Eckart Otto explores the hermeneutics of biblical theology and the history of religion. He illustrates these processes through an appropriation of the reception of some Psalms in the Epistle to the Hebrews. First, the hermeneutical debate in Old Testament Theology (from Otto Eissfeldt to Walter Brueggemann) is highlighted. Especially Brueggemann’s category of a “productive misunderstanding” 1
viii
Psalms and Hebrews
appears to pose some problems. The reception of Ps 8 in Heb 2 serves as an example to illuminate some of this category’s shortfalls. Both a sociological and a theological level of description are necessary in order to derive a better understanding of the processes of reception between the two testaments. A sociological description correlates the functions of religion and societal institutions. Furthermore, a theological description (which includes a brief exposition of Hos 11:1–9), correlates divine majesty with divine suffering by exploring the idea that God overcomes his own anger when he suffers together with those who should be destroyed by his wrath. The last section of Otto’s contribution examines the reception of Pss 2 and 110 (LXX 109) in Hebrews. Once again, Brueggemann’s “productive misunderstanding” is questioned. A better proposition is proposed, namely, that the inherent meaning of the Hebrew text is unfolded coherently by the authors of the LXX and Hebrews. Otto arrives at the conclusion that a study of the history of religion reveals a sound theological substance binding the Old and the New Testament together. In his essay, Jaco Gericke considers the question as to whether the reading of the Psalms by the author of Hebrews is offering the truth. However, rather than providing an answer to this question, the contribution challenges the reader to reect on the question itself by asking what it might mean to afrm or to deny the truth of something. Various philosophical theories of truth are discussed, with reference to which it is demonstrated that, whether or not one thinks of Hebrews’ interpretation of the Psalter as true, depends on what is meant by the concept of truth itself. However, no particular view on the nature of truth is without its problems. Gericke shows not only what is involved in presupposing a particular view of truth in assessing the relation between Hebrews and the Psalter, but also what the pros and cons of holding to that presupposed view amount to. Alphonso Groenewald states that the author of Hebrews depends most heavily on the Pentateuch and the Psalms. The Pentateuch, for the most part, offers material for reection on redemptive history; while the Psalms provide for the christological material. The great debt of Hebrews to the Old Testament, however, is not simply a matter of general background and copious quotation; it also extends to fundamental Old Testament ways of thinking which are constantly presupposed, and which underlie all passages in the book. The concept of Üesed (“faithfulness, kindness, grace, steadfast love, solidarity” etc.) is one of those. According to the Hebrew Scriptures, God revealed himself to his people at Sinai. Groenewald’s contribution deals specically with three Psalms references (Pss 86; 103; 145) to the Sinai revelation. This discussion is 1
Preface
ix
followed by a short overview of this specic text in the Pentateuch. Groenewald concludes by briey indicating the possible inuence that these Old Testament texts had on Hebrews. The trajectories of Old Testament textual traditions, and their reinterpretations in New Testament literature, are most visible in those texts where explicit quotations are to be found in the New Testament. It is thus not surprising that the New Testament contributions in this volume mainly focus on the occurrences of explicit quotations in Hebrews. The rst four essays of Part II, “Special Illustrations,” deal with Ps 8 and its reception. Gerda de Villiers reects upon creation and humankind through the ages—from the Old Testament era, through the LXX epoch, into the New Testament times. From this it appears that Ps 8 underwent some signicant interpretations, dependent upon its discourse partner(s) at any given period in time. Initially, Ps 8 took a decisive stance against the worldview of the ancient Near East and the royal ideology of Egypt. Humble, yet precious in the eyes of YHWH are human beings in this Hebrew Psalm. The LXX reveals some problems with regards to the translation of the psalm’s key terms, thereby illustrating that any translation necessarily involves a process of interpretation. In the time of the Hebrews epistle, the world has radically changed and the author foresees a new creation with the Son as the redeemer of humankind. Human beings, once again portrayed as humble, become part of a new creation through belief in the Son. Sebastian Fuhrmann, in his essay on “The Son, the Angels and the Odd: Psalm 8 in Hebrews 1 and 2,” demonstrates how at least one important intention of the author of Hebrews was to contextualize the traditional interpretation of Ps 8 anew. A new interpretation of this psalm, which was used to explicate the Son’s resurrection and enthronement, is now provided by the unknown New Testament author. This psalm is now employed to prove that the humiliation of Christ was according to God’s plan. The author emphasizes the compassion of Christ for the believers, and argues for Jesus’ disgraceful suffering on the cross by means of scriptural proof from Ps 8. The name of Christ, “Son,” is higher than that of the angels, although he was humiliated to a position lower than the angels. In another contribution, Leonard Maré investigates the central question that Ps 8 poses, namely: “What is man?” This question is asked, and answered, in the context of a second question, namely: “Who is God?” The essay aims to explore how the relation between God’s glory (as it is revealed in creation), and the glory of humankind (as the apex of God’s 1
x
Psalms and Hebrews
creation), should be understood. With the Old Testament context in mind, the citation of the psalm in Hebrews is examined in the second part of the essay to ascertain how the author of Hebrews applied Ps 8 in a Messianic sense to Jesus Christ. Still focusing on Ps 8, Chris de Wet investigates “The Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 8:4–6 in Hebrews 2:6–9.” He argues that the author of Hebrews interprets Ps 8 messianically, despite its typical nature as a creation hymn. The citation given in the text excludes certain words and phrases, and new meaning is given to certain words. This makes the messianic interpretation possible. Jesus, as the Son of God, was made lower than the angels “for a little while,” but through his death and suffering has been crowned with honour and glory. But Jesus is also representative of all humankind, which means that through him, humankind will also be crowned with honour and glory. This is closer to the psalm’s original meaning, which understands the glory of humankind in relation to the glory of God. Jesus, as the Theanthropos (according to the author of Hebrews), is the representation of God’s honour and glory, which is then also transmitted (in an eschatological hope) to humankind. It is quite possible that the author of Hebrews did know the original meaning of the psalm, but in his view and according to the principles of interpretation of his own time, this meaning could only be realized in the events of Jesus’ death and suffering. Martin Karrer moves the spotlight to another important quotation in Hebrews when he discusses the LXX Ps 39:7–10 in Heb 10:5–7. It certainly is interesting that Jesus “talks” (MFHFJ) in Heb 10:5a. As this explicitly points to a kind of “Jesus logion,” it is striking that it has left no traces in any known collection of Jesus logia elsewhere, and should be ascribed to the author of Hebrews’ own interpretative presentation of the Psalm. The quoted text of LXX Ps 39:7–10 is signicant for the textual history of the LXX. Although there are traces that the author of Hebrews might have altered the text at the end of the quotation for his own purpose, it certainly is important that LXX manuscripts support the peculiarities of Hebrews within the quotation (PMPLBVUXNBUBand FVEPLITBK). According to Karrer, the quotation from LXX Ps 39:7–10 in Heb 10:5–7 gives remarkable insights into both the theology of Hebrews, as well as into the textual history of the LXX. Jesus actually speaks, and yet he exclusively speaks words from the written Scriptures of Israel— dominated by words from the Psalms. Therefore, the Psalms illustrate the Christology of Hebrews in an outstanding manner. However, the Jesus of Hebrews actualizes the Psalms. LXX Psalm 39 gets a new christological perspective (preparing Heb 13:10–14). The author of Hebrews tries to maintain the LXX wording of his quotations—as can be seen in the 1
Preface
xi
preference for TX_NB in Heb 10:5 (attested by the Old Greek), rather than using XUJB Three essays touch upon Ps 95 and its Wirkungsgeschichte. In an extensive contribution, entitled “TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95 within, and without, Hebrews,” Christian Frevel makes a thorough analysis of Ps 95. He argues that the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament is seen as a strong indication of the coherence of the Bible within itself. But this coherence is manifold and by no means unambiguous—allusions, afrmative or contrastive citations and lines of reasoning—and more than once the meaning of the Old Testament text is changed. However, despite the diversity of scripture within scripture, and explicit as well as implicit intertextuality, there still remains a strong bond between the Old and the New Testaments. How this correlation between Old and New can be perverted, by insisting on the prevalence of the New Testament, becomes clear in some results of Hebrews research. The Letter to the Hebrews has strong dealings with Old Testament allusions and citations on the one hand, but has also been accused of having an anti-judaistic implication on the other. Therefore a closer look at Hebrews and its specic dealing with the Old Testament is necessary. This article is a bold contribution to the aforementioned problem—by examining the use of Ps 95 in Hebrews. The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews as a larger issue becomes clearer with Frevel’s explication. Dirk Human focuses in his “A Prophetic Voice for Africa from Psalm 95” more on the understanding of Ps 95 in its Old Testament context(s), and adds some challenges for its New Testament interpretation. An exposition of the text in its Old Testament context in comparison with its New Testament use and understanding reveals continuity and discontinuity with regard to context, content and theological meaning of the text. Ultimately, Human reads the psalm as a challenge to his African Sitz im Leben. Gert Steyn, in his contribution, titled “The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4,” refers to the fact that about half of all the quotations in Hebrews were taken from the Psalms. The author quotes extensively from Ps 94 (LXX), presenting the latter half of the whole psalm as the third longest quotation in the New Testament. It is the rst time in the known literature of early Judaism, and early Christianity, that Ps 94 LXX is quoted, and the author introduces the quotation as words from the Holy Spirit. There are clear signs of following the LXX text as closely as possible. The key words TINFSPO and LBUBQBVTJKdetermined the delimitation of the quotation. There are very few changes to the text of the psalm itself, and it possibly represents an existing but lost Vorlage; the author’s preference for Attic above Hellenistic forms, and small 1
xii
Psalms and Hebrews
adaptations to highlight the contrast between that generation and this generation. This generation should hold on to the courage and hope—a shift in the interpretation of Ps 95(94), which is visible between his contrasting of the warning for that generation and the promise of this generation. A lengthy Midrash on the quotation follows in which the author re-quotes the beginning and the end of the initial quotation twice each, strategically placing the quotation from Gen 2:2 in its centre. Building on an existing tradition, that linked the creation and the exodus themes, a transition is made in the interpretation of LBUBQBVTJKfrom referring to the Promised Land, to now referring to a sabbatical period. Although there are clear signs of typology (Moses–Jesus, the Exodus generation–this generation), the spiritualization of “rest,” with its cultic and eschatological connotations, cannot be denied. Probably as the rst “Jesus” (Joshua) led them to the Promised Land, so this Jesus (the Son of God) would lead them to a sabbatical rest. Another major focal point in Hebrews remains the role of Ps 110—the most quoted psalm in the New Testament. The contribution of Gert Jordaan and Pieter Nel argues that there is good reason to believe that the structure of Hebrews as a whole was moulded to the basic form of Ps 110. The authors chose to follow the direction that George Buchanan (and a few others before him) took, namely, in seeing that Hebrews is basically a homiletical Midrash on Ps 110. In their contribution, “From Priest-King to King-Priest: Psalm 110 and the Basic Structure of Hebrews,” Jordaan and Nel position themselves against Saldarini’s opposing viewpoint on the homiletical Midrash theory. They argue that the author of Hebrews not only took the central verses for his sermon from Ps 110, but also used the thought-structure of the psalm as blueprint for the broad structure of his sermon. The implication is that Hebrews thereby complies with an important requirement of a typical Midrash. The Old Testament passage which it takes up for exposition (Ps 110:1, 4) remains the basic text throughout the document. Although the expounding-process requires other Old Testament passages to be quoted, the author of Hebrews constantly returns to Ps 110:1, 4 as basic text. Evangelia Dafni, furthermore, examines LXX Ps 109. In Heb 1:13 the New Testament, following rabbinic-exegetical conventions, quotes LXX Ps 109(110) in order to provide answers to typical hermeneutical questions regarding theology, messianism and angelology of the Holy Scriptures in their Hebrew/Aramaic and Old Greek form. The New Testament authors raise questions on how the identication of the monotheistic image of God in ancient Israel, with the triune God of the Early Christian Community, as well as the identication of the Old Testament concept of the Messiah, is to be legitimatized with the incarnated Jesus Christ. 1
Preface
xiii
Today, these questions could receive various answers from Old Testament as well as New Testament scholars as a result of their different historical, ideological and theological presuppositions. Modern theoretical edices, unlike the christological interpretation of the ancient Israelite Scriptures, are based on the assumption that (for the Christian) selfawareness of the identication of the Lord in question with the expected Messiah and Jesus Christ is a given fact, but for critical Old Testament scholarship this is the question it has to seek an answer to. In this essay, Dafni’s objective is to discuss the meaning of deviations in the text transmission of the LXX Ps 109(110), as well as to give some examples of interpretative and hermeneutical guidelines and perspectives on the basis of intended word-choices (as found mainly in vv. 1–3), which, in her view, are constitutive for the tradition-critical and theologico-historical setting of the whole psalm. In Part III of this volume, “Contemporary Illustration: An African Example,” Herrie van Rooy offers a presentation on how the Psalms are to be received in a contemporary African context. This essay illustrates that the messianic interpretation of the Psalms has received new attention in some circles of the Afrikaans-speaking Christian community of South Africa during recent years. This is especially the result of the publication of a new hymnbook in Afrikaans that contains a new Afrikaans version of the Psalter. The way in which the so-called Messianic Psalms were rendered in the new version has resulted in reservations being expressed in some circles. This contribution examines a number of examples of renderings of Ps 110 to illustrate the problem. It further considers the criticism levelled against the new Afrikaans Psalter and presents a short survey of the psalms linked to the Messiah in Hebrews. The interpretation of these psalms in Hebrews is compared to the interpretation underlying a number of metric versions of those psalms. The discussion of the use of a number of psalms in Hebrews refutes the position of the critics of the new Afrikaans metrical version of the Psalms. For these critics this new version must be rejected on account of its rendering of the so-called Messianic Psalms. Finally, we as editors wish to express our sincere gratitude to several people who have helped with the orthographical setting and proofreading of the book. They include A. Groenewald, G. de Villiers, and H. Janse van Rensburg and S. Duncan. We attribute this volume to the interdisciplinary co-operation between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies. 1
This page intentionally left blank
ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD ALGHJ ANRW AOTC BBB BDAG BETL BevTh BHBib BHS Bib BKAT BThS BU BWANT BZ BZAW BZNW CBC CBETH CBiPa CBQ CC CJJC CMOMLP CThM DJD 1
Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin, 1972– Abingdon Old Testament commentaries Bonner biblische Beiträge Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 1999 Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Bibliotheca Hispana Bíblica Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983 Biblica Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament. Edited by M. Noth and H. W. Wolff Biblisch-theologische Studien Biblische Untersuchungen Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZAW Beihefte zur ZNW Cambridge Bible Commentary Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Cahiers de Biblia patristica Catholic Biblical Quarterly Continental Commentaries Collection “Jésus et Jésus-Christ” Collection de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. Série littéraire et philosophique Calwer theologische Monographien Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
xvi DNP DSD EBS ECC EHST EKK EKKNT ETL EvTh ExpTim FAT FOTL FRLANT FZB GHAT HBS HCOT HNT HThKAT HTR HTS IBC ICC ICNT Int JBL JNSL JSNTSup JSOTSup JTS KAT KBL KEK KTU 2
1
Psalms and Hebrews Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike. Edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Stuttgart, 1996– Dead Sea Discoveries Encountering biblical studies Eerdmans critical commentary Europäische Hochschulschriften Theologie Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Evangelische Theologie Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Forschung zur Bibel Göttingen Handbuch zum Alten Testament Herders biblische Studien Historical commentary on the Old Testament Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Hervormde Teologiese Studies Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching International Critical Commentary International Commentary on the New Testament Interpretation Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Koehler, L., and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros. 2d ed. Leiden, 1958 Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Meyer-Kommentar) Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen–Vluyn, 1976. 2d enlarged ed. of KTU: The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Münster, 1995 (= CTU)
Abbreviations LD LHBOTS LSJ LXX
MSU MT
NABPR NCBC NEB Neot NICNT NIDOTTE NIGTC NIVAC NJB NJKV
NovT NovTSup NTS OBO ÖTBKNT OTE ÖTK OTL PaThSt PG QD RB ResQ SBAB SBB SBL SBLDS SBLMS SBLSCS SBS SNTSMS SwJT TDNT
1
xvii
Lectio Divina Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek–English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996 Septuagint Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens Masoretic Text National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion New Century Bible Commentary Neue Echter Bibel Neotestamentica New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, 1997 New International Greek Testament Commentary New International Version Application Commentary New Jerusalem Bible New King James Version Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum: Supplement Series New Testament Studies Orbis biblicus et orientalis Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament Old Testament Essays Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar Old Testament Library Paderborner theologische Studien Patrologia graeca [= Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca]. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886 Quaestiones disputatae Revue biblique Restoration Quarterly Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge Studies in biblical literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Southwestern Journal of Theology Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–76
xviii TDOT
TGl THAT THKNT ThWAT TLZ TWNT TynBul UBL VE VeE VT VTSup WBC WMANT WTJ WUNT ZABR ZAW ZNW ZTK
1
Psalms and Hebrews Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974– Theologie und Glaube Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann. 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1971–1976 Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart, 1970– Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Stuttgart, 1932–1979 Tyndale Bulletin Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur Vox evangelica Verbum et Ecclesia Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtgeschichte Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche
CONTRIBUTORS Evangelia G. Dafni, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany Gerda de Villiers, University of Pretoria, RSA Chris L. De Wet, University of South Africa, Pretoria, RSA Christian Frevel, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany Sebastian Fuhrmann, North-West University, Potchefstroom, RSA Jaco W. Gericke, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, RSA Alphonso Groenewald, University of Pretoria, RSA Dirk J. Human, University of Pretoria, RSA Gert J. C. Jordaan, North-West University, Potchefstroom, RSA Martin Karrer, Kirchliche Hochschule, Wuppertal, Germany Leonard P. Maré, University of Johannesburg, RSA Pieter Nel, North West University, Potchefstroom, RSA Eckart Otto, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany. Gert J. Steyn, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, RSA Herrie van Rooy, North-West University, Potchefstroom, RSA
1
This page intentionally left blank
Part I
GENERAL
This page intentionally left blank
HERMENEUTICS OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, HISTORY OF RELIGION AND THE THEOLOGICAL SUBSTANCE OF TWO TESTAMENTS: THE RECEPTION OF PSALMS IN HEBREWS Eckart Otto
Old Testament Theology from Otto Eissfeldt to Walter Brueggemann Exactly eighty years ago Otto Eissfeldt wrote an important article bearing the title “Israelitisch-jüdische Religionsgeschichte und alttestamentliche Theologie” (Israelite-Jewish History of Religion and Theology of the Old Testament).1 In this article Eissfeldt pleaded for a division between a history of Israelite and Jewish religion and a theology of the Old Testament. This was needed because, Eissfeldt maintained, historical scholarship would always fail to explain what revelation could mean in the Old Testament. Furthermore, while, as far as practical-theological purposes were concerned, it was possible to write a theology of the Old Testament, this would not be the task for historical-critical scholarship. Old Testament scholarship as part of the approach of Liberal German theology to Christian religion before the First World War had almost given up trying to deal with systematically structured theologies of the Old Testament, favouring instead chronologically ordered descriptions of the development of religion in the Old Testament. After the First World War, under the inuence of Karl Barth’s “Wort Gottes Theologie” (Theology of the Word of God)2 the conservative endeavour for a theology of the Old Testament was rediscovered and even a search for a 1. Otto Eissfeldt, “Israelitisch-jüdische Religionsgeschichte und alttestamentliche Theologie,” ZAW 44 (1926): 1–12. 2. Cf. Karl Barth, “Das Schriftprinzip der reformierten Kirche,” Zwischen den Zeiten 3 (1925): 215–45, and idem, Der Römerbrief (2d ed.; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1922). For Karl Barth’s hermeneutics and its relevance, cf. Dietrich Korsch, Dialektische Theologie nach Karl Barth (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), 121–45. 1
4
Psalms and Hebrews
testimony of Christ in the Hebrew Bible was attempted.3 Otto Eissfeldt, as a liberal historian, wrote his article in 1926, intending to “save” the historical-critical approach to the history of religion, and, so he thought, the overwhelming backlash of a theology of revelation within Old Testament scholarship. Walther Eichrodt responded directly to Otto Eissfeldt’s article.4 He acknowledged that the objective of any theology of the Old Testament should be the revelation in Christ, and drew on the hermeneutics of contemporary historians including Eduard Spranger. Following Max Weber,5 Spranger acknowledged that all historical writings were guided by an aim of recognition, directing the historian in selecting historical material and sources. This selection depended on a contingent decision of the historian. For the Old Testament scholar as a theologian, according to Walther Eichrodt, this decision should be that Christ was God’s revelation to humanity.6 The theological substance of the Old Testament 3. Wilhelm Vischer, “Das Alte Testament als Wort Gottes,” Zwischen den Zeiten 5 (1927): 379–95; idem, Die Bedeutung des Alten Testaments für das christliche Leben (Theologische Studien 3; Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag Zollikon, 1938); idem, Das Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments. Vol. 1, Das Gesetz (Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag Zollikon, 1934); idem, Das Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments. Vol. 2, Die frühen Propheten (Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag Zollikon, 1942). For a positive evaluation of Wilhelm Vischer’s contribution to Old Testament scholarship, cf. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments (2d ed.; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 426–33. 4. Walther Eichrodt, “Hat die alttestamentliche Theologie noch selbständige Bedeutung innerhalb der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft?,” ZAW 47 (1929): 83–91. 5. Max Weber, “Die Objektivität sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis, ” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 19 (1904): 22–87 (reprinted in idem, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre [5th ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1982], 146–214). 6. In this sense the meaning of Max Weber’s hermeneutics for a Biblical Theology of both Testaments is up to now hardly realized; cf. Eckart Otto, “Hat Max Webers Religionssoziologie des antiken Judentums Bedeutung für eine Theologie des Alten Testaments?,” ZAW 94 (1982): 187–203. For a philosophical equivalent of Max Weber’s hermeneutical approach cf. Josef Simon, Wahrheit als Freiheit. Zur Entwicklung der Wahrheitsfrage in der neueren Philosophie (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978), 228–425. The result corresponds to Max Weber’s hermeneutics: the individual has to decide about nal values (“Letztwerte”) and his or her decision determines the approach to history, and not the other Hegelian way round—that history could determine the decisions about nal values for the individual. Max Weber’s hermeneutics formulated a decisive insight of German neo-Kantianism, which inuenced him and also Wilhelm Herrmann, Karl Barth’s academic teacher at Marburg. So, it is only logical that Walther Eichrodt, inuenced by Karl Barth, took 1
OTTO Hermeneutics of Biblical Theology
5
could only be grasped if it was interpreted in the light of the central revelation of the New Testament. Otherwise, maintained Eichrodt, the sense of Old Testament literature and history would remain hidden. And yet, according to Eichrodt, this should not mean that the Old Testament has to be interpreted within a scheme of Christian dogmatics.7 In 1939 Walther Eichrodt himself published a theology of the Old Testament, a work which was systematically structured. Notably, however, this work did not derive its structure from Christian dogmatics, but centred instead around the idea of covenant.8 up this hermeneutical idea as an argument against Otto Eissfeldt’s disconnection of history of religion and theology. The Weberian hermeneutical approach remains relevant wherever history of religion and theology will be separated. See already Rainer Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit. Vol. 1, Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende der Königszeit (Grundrisse zum Alten Testament. ATD Ergänzungsreihe 8/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 32–38. Cf. also the discussion of his refusal of the possibility to write a theology of the Old Testament for more than practical reasons in Religionsgeschichte Israels oder Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments? (ed. Norbert Lohnk; Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 10; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), and the review of this discussion by Henning Graf Reventlow, “Biblische, besonders alttestamentliche Theologie und Hermeneutik IV. Alttestamentliche Theologie und / oder israelitische Religionsgeschichte. Biblischer Monotheismus. Alttestamentliche Rede von Gott,” Theologische Rundschau 71 (2005): 408–54 (408–16); cf. also below, n. 17. 7. Ludwig Köhler used a tripartite scheme of Christian dogmatics to structure the themes of his Theology of the Old Testament. This was because, for him, it was the task of a theology of the Old Testament to connect views, ideas and terms of the Old Testament, which are or could be theologically relevant, in the right order; cf. Ludwig Köhler, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Neue Theologische Grundrisse; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1936 [2d ed., 1947]). Dogmatically structured Old Testament theologies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries could only survive as a counter-position to liberal histories of Israelite and Jewish religion by the inuence of Albrecht Ritschl’s positivism of revelation, as indicated in the Theology of the Old Testament by Hermann Schultz, Alttestamentliche Theologie. Die Offenbarungsreligion in ihren vorchristlichen Entwicklungsstufen dargestellt (5th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896). I would also note the reverse undertaking of writing a Christian dogmatics following the tripartite scheme on the basis of biblical texts by Friedrich Mildenberger, Biblische Dogmatik. Eine Biblische Theologie in dogmatischer Perspektive. Vol. 1, Prolegomena. Verstehen und Geltung der Bibel; Vol. 2, Oekonomie als Theologie (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991–92). This way the hermeneutical problem of history and revelation can nd a better solution than by the intrusion of dogmatical schemes into a theology of the Old Testament. 8. Walther Eichrodt, Theologie des Alten Testaments. Vol. 1, Gott und Volk; Vol. 2, Gott und Welt; Vol. 3, Gott und Mensch (Leipzig: Ehrenfried Klotz, 1933–39). A comparable approach of systematically structuring theologies of the Old Testament, 1
6
Psalms and Hebrews
It was Gerhard von Rad who overcame the idea of a systematical structuring of a theology of the Old Testament. Such an approach, according to von Rad, suffered from the notion that one could not nd any convincing centre for the many divergent theological claims and positions within the Old Testament.9 For von Rad, the function of a theology of the Old Testament should be to re-narrate the different narratives of Old Testament traditions of Israel’s history and their projection into the future by the prophets,10 so that the Old Testament should be to a degree the repetition of Israel’s repetitions of its traditions.11 This was a theologies which claim to derive their categories from the Old Testament itself, is to be found in the Theologies of Walther Zimmerli (Grundriss der alttestamentlichen Theologie [Theologische Wissenschaft 3/1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972]) and Claus Westermann (Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzügen [Grundrisse zum Alten Testament. ATD Ergänzungsreihe 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978]). Since Lothar Perlitt’s revival of Julius Wellhausen’s late dating of the biblical theology of covenant it was no longer possible to use it as a centre of Old Testament theology, as Walther Eichrodt had suggested; cf. Ernest W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986); Eckart Otto, “Die Ursprünge der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient,” ZA(B)R 4 (1998): 1–85. On the approaches taken by Walther Zimmerli and Walther Eichrodt, cf. Eckart Otto, “Prolegomena zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments,” Kairos 19 (1977): 53–72 (56–62). The orthodox counter-position even to Walther Eichrodt’s conservative approach one can nd again with Nathan MacDonald (Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism” [FAT II/1; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2003]), who interprets the synchronically read Deuteronomy unhistorically, as if it were a “Lokaldogmatik” (dogmatics of theological loci), as observed by Udo Rüterswörden in “Alte und neue Wege in der Deuteronomiumsanalyse,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 132 (2007): 877–89 (886). Cf. also Eckart Otto, “Monotheismus im Deuteronomium. Wieviel Aufklärung es in der Alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft geben soll. Zu einem Buch von Nathan MacDonald,” ZA(B)R 9 (2003): 251–57, and the critical remarks of Georg Braulik, “Monotheismus im Deuteronomium. Zu Syntax, Redeform und Gotteserkenntnis in 4,32–40,” ZA(B)R 10 (2004): 169–94 (reprinted in idem, Studien zu den Methoden der Deuteronomiumsexegese [Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände. Altes Testament 42; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2006], 137–64). Synchronical interpretations of biblical texts, which do not follow the surface reading of the text, are susceptible to unhistorical and even dogmatical exploitation. 9. Cf. already Gerhard F. Hazel, “The Problem of the Centre in the Old Testament Theology Debate,” ZAW 86 (1974): 65–82. 10. Gerhard von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, Vol. 1, Theologie der geschichtlichen Überlieferungen Israels. Vol. 2, Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferungen Israels (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1957–60). 11. Some critics got the impression that Gerhard von Rad did not write a Theology of the Old Testament, but more an introduction to a theology or even a history of Israelite religion; cf. Hazel, “Centre,” 77–76, and see n. 73, below. 1
OTTO Hermeneutics of Biblical Theology
7
rather conservative approach, deeply rooted in the anti-liberal Erlangen School of Heilsgeschichte (Salvation History), which had Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann (1810–1877) as its most famous representative. In von Rad’s theology, this conservative thinking was resurrected in a disguised form of Traditionsgeschichte (History of Traditions), which Wolfhart Pannenberg could claim for his programme of Offenbarung als Geschichte (Revelation as History).12 Inuenced deeply by Hegelian philosophy,13 it also appealed to New Testament scholars of the Bultmann School, most notably Ernst Käsemann, who employed a programme of kerygmatic theology.14 This was possible because von Rad had reduced the task of his Theology of the Old Testament to the re-telling of the kerygmatic intentions in Old Testament traditions. It is to be noted, however, that von Rad, because he did not explain how traditions had been shaped and what kinds of interests had developed their theological kerygmata, aspects which he simply described, rather uncritically, lost with this approach the dimension of a concrete history of Israel.15 A basic hermeneutical dilemma underlies all these discussions, one which Gotthold Ephraim Lessing16 had long ago described—namely, that “zufällige Geschichtswahrheiten” (contingent historical truth) can never
12. Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Dogmatische Thesen zur Lehre von der Offenbarung,” in Offenbarung als Geschichte (ed. W. Pannenberg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), 91–114. 13. Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Weltgeschichte und Heilsgeschichte,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie. Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Hans Walter Wolff; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971), 349–66; idem, “Der Gott der Geschichte,” Kerygma und Dogma 23 (1977): 76–92; idem, “Zeit und Ewigkeit in der religiösen Erfahrung Israels und des Christentums,” in Grundfragen systematischer Theologie. Gesammelte Aufsätze (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 2:188–206. Again a circle was closed, because also Johannes Christian Konrad von Hofmann was positively inuenced by Hegelian philosophy. 14. Cf. Ernst Käsemann, An die Römer (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 8a; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1973); cf. in connection with Ernst Käsemann’s kerygmatic theology in the horizon of Rudolf Bultmann’s theology also Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Kerygma und Geschichte,” in Grundfragen systematischer Theologie (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1967), 1:79–80. 15. Cf. Otto, “Theologie des Alten Testaments,” 62–66. Gerhard von Rad’s approach was recently renewed by Hans-Jürgen Hermisson, Alttestamentliche Theologie und Religionsgeschichte (Forum Theologische Literaturzeitung 3; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2000). For a review, cf. Reventlow, “Biblische, besonders alttestamentliche Theologie und Hermeneutik IV,” 414–16. 16. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Über den Beweis des Geistes und der Kraft (Hamburg, 1777). 1
8
Psalms and Hebrews
prove “ewige Vernunftswahrheit” (eternal truth of reason);17 or, to formulate it theologically, the history of human ideas of revelation can never prove divine revelation. And yet, this dilemma also has a positive aspect, because it reminds us of a theologically necessary insight, which Augustine formulated by the words “Deus semper maior,”18 so that the plurality of theologies within the canon is a theological consequence of this insight.19 We shall come back to this problem of diversity of 17. More than 30 years ago, in my habilitation lecture of 1975 at the University of Hamburg, I expressed the opinion that the hermeneutical dilemma could only be solved by a consequent distinction between a chronologically organized history of religion in the Old Testament and the inter-testamental literature on the one hand, and a theology of the Old Testament which was organized by the hermeneutical category of application (i.e. by the prevailing ethical problems of our days, such as poverty, colonialism, apartheid, danger of nuclear war etc.) on the other; cf. Otto, “Theologie des Alten Testaments,” 66–72. I based this distinction on Johann Gustav Droysen’s differentiation between an “inquiring” or “narrating” and a “discussing” (diskussive) exposition of history, the latter collecting the results of historical research and focusing them on a special problem or challenge of our presence, in order to decide about alternatives of practical action; see Johann Gustav Droysen, Historik. Vorlesungen über Enzyklopädie und Methodologie der Geschichte (7th ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974), 276–99 (363–65). Accordingly, I refused a distinction between a historical-critical approach to the Old Testament and a pragmatic-pious, that is, uncritical approach, as Otto Eissfeldt and his modern followers suggested. There can only be one historical approach with different ways of exposition. This distinction would mean—and I was aware of this in 1975—the end of an Old Testament theology written in books, with Old Testament theology becoming a contingent achievement of interference into the endeavours of solving challenges, writing articles, taking part in discussions, and so on. Even today I am convinced that this can be an obligation of Old Testament scholars, but in between I have given lectures on the theology of the Old Testament for more than 30 years and had to write an ethics of the Old Testament. Thus, I have learned by these tasks that it is worthwhile to draft the structure of such a eld in a book that also claims to have actual relevance in current situation; cf. Eckart Otto, Ethik des Alten Testaments (Theologische Wissenschaft 3/2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994). The publication of this book side by side with Walther Zimmerli’s Theology of the Old Testament (Grundriss der alttestamentlichen Theologie) forced me to differentiate more sharply than in 1975 between theology and ethics, although even today I am convinced that all our theologies should have ethical consequences. 18. Augustinus, De Trinitate (cf. TRE IV), 692, 695. 19. Cf. Thomas Söding, Einheit der Schrift? Theologie des biblischen Kanons (Quastiones Disputatae 211; Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 78–79. Wilhelm Hermann’s differentiation between “Glaubensgrund” (basis of faith) transcending the “Glaubensgedanken” ([spoken or written down] idea of faith) was an adequate reformulation of Augustine’s “Deus semper maior” in a neo-Kantian context, one which was inuenced also by Karl Barth’s hermeneutics. On the level of language, Jurie Le 1
OTTO Hermeneutics of Biblical Theology
9
theologies within one canon later, for indeed we are not only challenged by the theological differences within the Old Testament, but also by the difference between the Old and the New Testament as part of one Christian canon. Before we return to the problem of a Biblical Theology we should follow the development within Old Testament scholarship after Gerhard von Rad’s Theology of the Old Testament. This marked a nal point in the process of rediscovering the theology of the Old Testament as a counter-reaction to the histories of religion of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. After von Rad’s Theology, a decline of the discipline of Old Testament theology began, a decline which, one must admit, likely came about as a consequence of von Rad’s approach. More clearly than others, this approach indicated the dilemma of a plurality of traditions within a theology of the Old Testament. Consequently, subsequent scholarship had to repeat the discussions of the nineteenth century, meaning that the draft of histories of religion gained ground again.20 There have been several recent attempts to escape the hermeneutical dilemma of diversity and unity in a theology of the Old Testament: Erhard S. Gerstenberger rejected the idea of unity in favour of a plurality of theologies in the Old Testament;21 Antonius H. J. Gunneweg suggested a history of religion that should become a theology by judging the Roux, in relating Augustine and Hans-Georg Gadamer (“Sprache und Hermeneutik,” in Gesammelte Werke [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1970], 2:184–98) helpfully differentiates an inner world of words transcending an outer world; cf. Jurie LeRoux, “Augustine, Gadamer and the Psalms (or: The Psalms as the Answer to a Question),” in Psalms and Liturgy (ed. Dirk Human and Cas J. A. Vos; JSOTSup 410; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 123–30. A further development of Augustine’s difference-theological approach into a consciousness-theological form will differentiate between the self-consciousness of limited freedom, which is related to a consciousness of innity as its precondition, and, as a negative dialectic claims, its consequence; cf. Jörg Dierken, Selbstbewußtsein individueller Freiheit. Religionstheoretische Erkundungen in protestantischer Perspektive (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2005), 3–194, with further reference to Schleiermacher, Hegel and Fichte. In these difference-theological approaches the problem of theological diversity within the Old and New Testament canons can nd a theological answer as a necessary consequence of the difference of “Glaubensgrund” (basis of faith) transcending all kinds of “Glaubensgedanken” (ideas of faith). But this difference does not release us from the duty of asking whether there exists a logical coherence in all the diversities of biblical texts. 20. Cf., e.g., Albertz, Religionsgeschichte. 21. Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Theologien im Alten Testament. Pluralität und Synkretismus alttestamentlichen Gottesglaubens (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001). The subtitle shows with what it is concerned—the history of religion. 1
10
Psalms and Hebrews
religious concepts of the Old Testament by Christian standards;22 and Otto Kaiser reactivated Rudolf Bultmann’s categories of an existential interpretation of the dialectic of law and gospel. In a Bultmannian way, the Old Testament as Torah with Deuteronomy as its centre and hermeneutical key,23 and correlated to the New Testament as gospel, should represent a history of failure.24 As has already argued against Rudolf Bultmann’s Theology of the New Testament,25 the categories of existential interpretation were not inherent to biblical texts, but part of a Protestant history of reception of the Bible. A further attempt to solve the hermeneutical dilemma of a theology of the Old Testament—namely, the dilemma of theological diversity of different theologies and a theological unity (which is more than just the addition of different theological traditions)—is represented by Walter Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament, which undertakes to make a postmodern virtue out of this dilemma.26 For Brueggemann, God 22. Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments. Eine Religionsgeschichte Israels in biblisch-theologischer Sicht (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993). Again, the subtitle reveals that it is concerned with a history of religion. 23. Otto Kaiser, Der Gott des Alten Testaments: Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993–2003). As for Otto Kaiser, the Torah in the sense of Deuteronomy should be the most plausible centre of the Old Testament, a position already suggested by Siegfried Herrmann, “Die konstruktive Restauration. Das Deuteronomium als Mitte biblischer Theologie,” in Wolff, ed., Probleme biblischer Theologie, 155–70. This approach is thus based on an outmoded position of research, one in which scholars counted with deuteronomistic redactions in most parts of the Old Testament. At the same time, we know that texts which sound deuteronomistic were very often post-deuteronomistic, meaning that the book of Jeremiah, for example, contradicted the Torah; cf. Eckart Otto, “Old and New Covenant: A Post-exilic Discourse between the Pentateuch and the Book of Jeremiah. Also a Study of Quotations and Allusions in the Hebrew Bible,” OTE 19, no. 3 (Festschrift Jurie LeRoux, 2006): 939–49; idem, “Der Pentateuch im Jeremiabuch,” ZA(B)R 12 (2006): 245–306. 24. Cf. Kaiser, Theologie, 3:393–424 (§15), and also the earlier work by Rudolf Bultmann, “Die Bedeutung des Alten Testaments für den christlichen Glauben,” in Glauben und Verstehen. Gesammelte Aufsätze (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1933), 313–36. 25. Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1958). 26. Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997); cf. for this approach also Jaco Gericke, “YHWH Unlimited: Realist and Non-Realist Ontological Perspectives on TheoMythology of the Old Testament,” ZA(B)R 11 (2005): 274–95, and also idem, “Does Yahweh Exist? A Philosophical-Critical Reconstruction of the Case Against Realism in Old Testament Theology” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pretoria, 2003). 1
OTTO Hermeneutics of Biblical Theology
11
is created or generated by the rhetoric of texts telling about God, meaning that a theology of the Old Testament looking for any substantial sphere behind the diversity of texts goes astray if it tries to correlate the texts to a transcendent reality beyond language. This concept is a direct critique of the approach advocated by the Tübingen School of Hartmut Gese27 and Peter Stuhlmacher,28 an approach which is based on an identity of ontological substance inherent in the historical development of religion of the Old into that of the New Testament.29 Brueggemann’s approach is guided by the attempt to overcome Lessing’s hermeneutical dilemma by means of the presupposition that the only “substance” of an Old and New Testament Theology could be the rhetoric of biblical texts, which implies that history does not have any meaning for a theology of the Old or New Testament. Lessing’s “zufällige Geschichtswahrheit” (contingent historical truth) is thus as meaningless as the “ewige 27. Hartmut Gese, Essays in Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981). 28. Peter Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). 29. A more coherent critique of the Aristotelian concept of substance than that of Walter Brueggemann’s postmodernism is Ernst Cassirer’s differentiation between “Substanzbegriff” (conception of substance) and “Funktionsbegriff” (conception of functions) of 1910/1923 as a consequence of (neo-)Kantian epistemology; for Ernst Cassirer’s essay “Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff. Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen der Erkenntniskritik,” cf. Thomas Meyer, Ernst Cassirer (Hamburg: Ellert & Richter, 2007), 58–65, 131–53. Different from postmodern approaches, which are losing the cultural framework they depend on, Ernst Cassirer transferred the Kantian epistemology (“Erkenntniskritik”) to a method of “Kulturkritik” (critique of culture) which could establish a unity beyond the Aristotelian concept of substance. It would be worthwhile to detect the meaning of Ernst Cassirer’s philosophy of “symbolic forms,” and that of his “Doktorvater” Hermann Cohen, in his approach to the Hebrew Bible, for example in his monograph, Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums. Nach dem Manuskript des Verfassers neu durchgearbeitet und mit einem Nachwort versehen von Bruno Strauss (repr. Darmstadt: Joseph Metzler, 1966), an approach which is directly relevant for any theology of the Old Testament; cf. Eckart Otto, “Die hebräische Prophetie bei Max Weber, Ernst Troeltsch und Hermann Cohen. Ein Diskurs im Weltkrieg zur christlichjüdischen Kultursynthese,” in Asketischer Protestantismus und der “Geist” des modernen Kapitalismus (ed. Wolfgang Schluchter and Friedrich Wilhelm Graf; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2005), 201–55. The better alternative to “Postmodernism” is a self-reexive modernism (see also n. 6, above) which is aware of the traps of ethnocentrism, colonialism and paternalism; cf. Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections (ed. Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia; London: T&T Clark International, 2005); Judith E. McKinley, Reframing Her: Biblical Women in Postcolonial Focus (The Bible in the Modern World 1; Shefeld: Shefeld Phoenix, 2004). 1
12
Psalms and Hebrews
Vernunftswahrheit” (eternal truth of reason). This is because, Brueggemann argues, there is no “truth” at all in biblical texts, only disputed rhetorical kerygmata and anti-kerygmata of many diverse texts. “The polyphonic openness” of the Old Testament in substance and in modes of articulation, according to Brueggemann, deserves interpretation. One of the possible interpretations would be the Christian one, which is, of course, oriented towards the New Testament; others would be the Jewish talmudic interpretation, as well as that of the Muslims (these latter being necessary critiques of Christian conceptions of Biblical Theology). Yet Brueggemann is much closer to the conceptions of Biblical Theology of such gures as Brevard S. Childs,30 James Sanders31 and others than he would like to admit. This is because Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament is also based on the formation of the canon, which Gotthold Ephraim Lessing once would have called a “zufällige Geschichtswahrheit” (contingent historical truth). However, whereas Childs takes the Christian canon as an expression of ontological substance which has its centre in Jesus Christ, Brueggemann takes it as a productive misinterpretation of the Old Testament by the early Christian authors of the New Testament. Yet could a misinterpretation be theologically productive? Yes, if it is accepted that there exists no single truth, but only different claims of truth. This would mean that the misinterpretation of texts and the original intention of authors of texts are on the same level, their inherent “truths” justifying their contradictions. The Reception of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2 The reception of Ps 8 in Heb 2 is a good example to examine, if it is accepted as a productive misinterpretation of the Old Testament in the New Testament. At a rst glance, one might come to this conclusion. Psalm 832 is concerned with everyman’s dignity as YHWH’s mandate, 30. Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); idem, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (London: SCM, 1985); idem, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (London: SCM, 1992). 31. James Sanders, Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972). For a critical discussion of these approaches, cf. James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (London: SCM, 1999), 401–38. 32. For an exegesis of Ps 8, cf. Ute Neumann-Gorsolke, Herrschen in den Grenzen der Schöpfung. Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Anthropologie am Beispiel von Psalm 8, Genesis 1 und verwandten Texten (WMANT 101; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004), and the review of Martin Arneth in ZA(B)R 11 (2005): 374–78, who correctly criticizes Neumann-Gorsolke’s differentiation of a staticresultative anthropology in Ps 8 and a dynamic one in the Priestly Source. 1
OTTO Hermeneutics of Biblical Theology
13
democratizing Egyptian royal ideology33 and consequently royalizing the Hebrew anthropology by the idea that every man is king and every woman queen.34 The authors of Hebrews interpreted this progressive anthropological concept of Ps 8 as “conservative” by taking back the democratization of ancient Near Eastern royal motifs in Ps 8, translating ben adam (human being) by hyios tou anthrpou (son of man) as a designation for Christ,35 to whom the world will be subjected. This seems to be a misinterpretation of Ps 8, yet one that is in a negative way “productive,” since it could be understood as a kind of backlash against a progressive anthropology in this psalm, in favour of an idea of divine kingship. Psalm 8 could criticize Heb 2:6–8 and its context, but what about a critique that owed in the opposite direction? This paradigmatic case illustrates that Brueggemann’s category of a “productive misunderstanding” as a link between the Old and New Testament delivers some problems. The authors did not at all misunderstand Ps 8, although they interpreted it christologically, correlating in a sophisticated way anthropology and christology. A Sociological Level to Describe the Process of Reception of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2 I start with a sociological approach to describe some substantial characteristics, ones which are inherent in the quoted and quoting texts, and which are observable in their relation to each other. In 1912 Ernst Troeltsch published his famous essay on social theories of Christian 33. Cf. Manfred Görg, “Der Mensch als königliches Kind nach Ps 8:3,” Biblische Notizen 3 (1977): 7–13. 34. For an integration of this anthropology into the context of ancient Near Eastern anthropologies, cf. Eckart Otto, Gottes Recht als Menschenrecht. Rechtsund literaturhistorische Studien zum Deuteronomium (BZABR 2; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 178–86. 35. The authors of Hebrews, in making the quotation, shifted from the anthropological statement of Ps 8, which already got an eschatological horizon in the Septuagint, to a christological one. For the eschatological interpretation of Ps 8 (LXX), cf. Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT II/76; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995), 76–78; Martin Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebräer. Kapitel 1,1–5,10 (Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 20/1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus; Würzburg: Echter, 2002), 168. In favour of an eschatological-christological understanding of the reception of Ps 8 in Heb 2 speaks the fact that this psalm is in the New Testament mostly connected with Ps 110:1 (LXX 109.1). See, e.g., 1 Cor 15:25, 27; Eph 1:21–22; cf. Hans Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 3, Hebräerbrief, Evangelien und Offenbarung. Epilegomena (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 28. For the reception of Ps 110 (LXX 109) in Hebrews, see below. 1
14
Psalms and Hebrews
churches and groups,36 a work which was inspired by his discussions with Max Weber at Heidelberg. The categories of this essay are also relevant for a sociology of the Judean and Jewish religion in the societal sequence of state, community and sects.37 Early Judean religion, just like those of the other areas of the ancient Near East, had an important role in the legitimization of the rulership of the state.38 This situation persisted into the seventh century BCE, whereupon the authors of Deuteronomy contradicted the royal ideology of the Assyrian hegemonial power by categorically dissolving the connection between religion and state.39 The so-called exilic period, and with it especially the deuteronomistic and priestly theologies of the Torah, necessarily ratied this dissolution. The Jewish religion of the Persian period was transformed into that of a community apart from the Persian state organization.40 When there was no longer any state which could be legitimized, any such function of religion was lost. The Hellenistic and Roman period was characterized by a dissolution of the Jewish community in Palestine and in the diaspora into different sects (haireseis), including those of the Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees (see Josephus, Ant. 13.5.9). The early Christian “church” was one of these sects. With this ideal, typical development in mind, how should we consider the quotation of Ps 8 in Heb 2? The democratization of royal ideologies of divine kingship and royalization of Hebrew anthropology in Ps 8 was an outcome of the dissociation of state and religion since the seventh century BCE. The transference of Ps 8 from the eld of anthropology to that of christology was by any means a drawback and revival of an ancient Near Eastern ideology of divine kingship. And yet, everything, according to Heb 2:8, was to be under Christ’s control: 36. Ernst Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen. Gesammelte Schriften I (3d ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1923). For the relevance of this approach for a modern sociology of religion, cf. Hans Joas, “Gesellschaft, Staat und Religion. Ihr Verhältnis in der Sicht der Weltreligionen,” in idem, Säkularisierung und die Weltreligionen (ed Klaus Wiegandt; Fischer Taschenbuch 17647; Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer, 2007), 9–43. 37. Eckart Otto, “Staat - Gemeinde - Sekte. Soziallehren des antiken Judentums,” ZA(B)R 12 (2006): 312–44. 38. Otto, Gottes Recht, 5–20, 94–195; idem, “The Judean Legitimation of Royal Rulers in Its Ancient Near Eastern Contexts,” in Human and Vos, eds., Psalms, 131–39. 39. Eckart Otto, Das Deuteronomium. Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (BZAW 284; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999 [repr. 2001]). 40. Cf. Lisbeth S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple–Palace Relations in the Persian Empire (Biblical and Judaic Studies 10; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 156–233. 1
OTTO Hermeneutics of Biblical Theology
15
For You have put everything in subjection under His feet. Now in putting everything in subjection to Him, He left nothing outside of His control. But at present we do not yet see all things subjected to Him.
That for a short time Christ should be subordinated to the angels (Heb 2:9) is a hint to Good Friday, which explains the “not yet” in Heb 2:8. But soon everything shall be subjected to Christ, including the state, so that there shall be no place for any divinization of any king or state in the world. That was exactly what Deuteronomy already intended to explain—namely, that only YHWH, and no human being or institution, could demand absolute loyalty. Acts 5:29 summarizes this attitude by the demand that we are to obey God more than man. Hebrews 2 gives reasons for this demand, claiming that everything will be subjected to Christ, meaning that the power of any state would be limited. Already, within a sociological perspective, we see that the quotation of Ps 8 in Heb 2 is not a misinterpretation, but rather a legitimate reception. Hebrews 2 refers to the implicit precondition for the anthropology of Ps 8—namely, the idea of God as creator and universal ruler of the world. Hebrews 2 transfers the idea of the subjection of nature to humanity in Ps 8 back to the divine realm without rendering human beings completely powerless. So, Ernst Käsemann was correct when he said that nowhere in the New Testament was Christ placed so near to man as in Heb 241 and that the shift from an anthropological to a christological meaning within the quotation of Ps 8 in Heb 2:6–7 is the best indicator of this. Just as in Ps 8, humanity will be free because all powers of the world are transcended by the Creator, so also in Heb 2 human beings become brothers and sisters, free from the power of death. Hebrews 2 is in accordance with the theological intentions of Ps 8, and the reception is legitimate. But what are the criteria to be used in the differentiation between a legitimate and illegitimate reception of the Old in the New Testament? The main problem with Brueggemann’s “postmodern” conception is the fact that it even excludes this question—because for him there are no criteria for evaluating different claims of the rhetoric of different texts.42 41. Ernst Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk. Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief (4th ed.; FRLANT 55; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), 77. 42. Diversity and plurality as insurmountable is a presupposition that Walter Brueggemann shares with postmodern authors such as Lyotard, Welsch, Baudrillard and Derrida. Theological scholarship fails itself if it a priori renounces looking for theological identity in the diversities; cf. Gregor Maria Hoff, Die prekäre Identität des Christlichen. Die Herausforderung postModernen Differenzdenkens für eine theologische Hermeneutik (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2001). 1
16
Psalms and Hebrews
If the contradiction of texts implies that each text claims a truth that is its only “truth,” there cannot be any mediation between the anthropology in Ps 8 and the christology in Heb 2. Indeed, I would like to suggest a counter-position to that of Walter Brueggemann, who at the moment represents the most sophisticated approach in Old Testament scholarship. The purpose of the description up to this point has been to equip ourselves with criteria that can be used to evaluate the reception of the Old Testament (LXX) in the New Testament as either a misinterpretation or as an adequate reception by answering the question whether the authors of the New Testament took up those intentions of the authors of the Old Testament texts which were central for them.43 This is exactly the case with Ps 8 and Heb 2. Already on a level of sociological description,44 functions of religion and societal institutions are correlated.45 A Theological Level to Describe the Process of Reception of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2 This leads us to a second level of description, the theological one in a proper sense. The traditional rubrics of biblical theology cannot contribute to an explanation of the reception of Ps 8 in Heb 2: Ps 8 is neither a 43. This means that a structuralistic exegesis, which renounces unhistorically the author’s intention in favour of interpreting texts as structures of signs, blocks any approach to a Biblical Theology as much as a theology, which simply presupposes God’s identity in the Old and New Testament; cf. Thomas Söding, Einheit, 155–231. Thomas Söding, arguing for a pre-Kantian ontology, speaks of the identity of God’s actions of salvation in both testaments as a “Postulat des Glaubens” (postulate of faith) alluding to Kant with an anti-Kantian intention. This way the problem of an enlightened modernity, including its “linguistic turn,” cannot be solved by superseding them. 44. This anthropology of Ps 8 and Gen 1:26–28 was one of the cradles for the idea of human rights defending the individual against the state; cf. Eckart Otto, “Human Rights: The Inuence of the Hebrew Bible,” JNSL 25, no. 1 (memorial volume for Hannes Olivier) (1999): 1–20. This sociological level of description has a meaning that goes far beyond a Biblical Theology; cf. Eckart Otto, “Die Applikation als Problem der politischen Hermeneutik,” ZTK 71 (1974): 145–81. 45. Even today Max Weber’s cutting-edge sociology of Ancient Judaism, that is, the Old Testament, remains important; cf. Max Weber, Die Wirtschaftsethik der Weltreligionen. Das antike Judentum. Schriften und Reden 1911–1920 (ed. Eckart Otto; Max Weber Gesamtausgabe I/21; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2005). For the interpretation, see Eckart Otto, Max Webers Studien des Antiken Judentums. Historische Grundlegung einer Theorie der Moderne (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2002). Hartmann Tyrell, Review of Max Weber, Das antike Judentum, Theologische Rundschau 72 (2007): 121–26, presents a number of topics in Max Weber’s sociology of Ancient Judaism that are relevant today for the eld of sociology, even if it is exegetically outmoded. 1
OTTO Hermeneutics of Biblical Theology
17
promise that has Heb 2 claiming its fullment, nor a law or failure, with Heb 2 standing as gospel or salvation. We may rather ask whether there are theological criteria for a decision, and whether the transference from anthropology to christology was in accordance with the theological intentions of the authors of Ps 8. The anthropology of Ps 8:2–4 is characterized by the dialectic of the triumphant God as the Creator of the world on the one side and the weakness of man on the other: Out of the mouth of babes and unweaned infants You have established strength because of Your foes, that You might silence the enemy and the avenger. When I view Your heavens, the work of Your ngers, the moon and the stars, which You have established: What is man, that You are mindful of him, and the son of man, that You care for him?
The motif of babes and infants, out of whose mouth God established strength against his foes, transformed Egyptian royal ideology into Hebrew anthropology. The newborn Egyptian crown prince, who was thought to be son of the sun-god, was empirically weak, but metaempirically gifted with divine strength. Psalm 8 democratized this motif in order to express an anthropological dialectic: although human beings are empirically weak and helpless against the power of evil, God’s foe, they gained strength by the Creator of the world, a strength which God put into their mouths in order to silence Evil. This meta-empirical divine strength makes humans not much lower than God. We also nd the same dialectic between God’s strength and the weakness of natural man in Ps 93 and many other hymns,46 but also in the book of Job.47 The Torah of the Pentateuch integrates the evil into anthropology. Genesis 2–3 as a post-priestly narrative explains the origin of evil by the idea of God’s free limitation of his omnipotence in favour of granting humans the freedom to decide between good and evil,48 which includes also the 46. Eckart Otto, “Myth and Hebrew Ethics in the Psalms,” in Psalms and Mythology (ed. Dirk J. Human; LHBOTS 462; London: T&T Clark International, 2007), 26–37. 47. Othmar Keel, Jahwes Entgegnung an Ijob. Eine Deutung von Ijob 38–41 vor dem Hintergrund der zeitgenössischen Bildkunst (FRLANT 121; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 51–163. 48. Eckart Otto, “Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: Eine nachpriesterschriftliche Lehrerzählung in ihrem religionshistorischen Kontext,” in“Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit”. Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit. Festschrift für Diethelm Michel (ed. Anja Diesel; BZAW 241; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996), 167–92; idem, Das Gesetz des Mose. Die Literatur- und Rechtsgeschichte der Mosebücher (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007), 14–27, 203–4; idem, “Die Urmenschen im Paradies. Vom Ursprung des Bösen und der Freiheit des Men1
18
Psalms and Hebrews
possibility to fail, because without this possibility there would be no freedom. The solution proposed in Ps 8 differs from this approach in Gen 2–3. Whereas the late authors of Gen 2–3, who are in a dialogue with the authors of Job and Ecclesiastes,49 argue with the dialectic inherent in any freedom of decision-making, Ps 8 bridges the gap between the almighty God and evil in human experience by means of a dialectical anthropology of the natural weakness of humanity, helpless in the hands of evil powers and chaos on the one side, and divine strength as God’s mandate on the other.50 Yet this was not the last theological step in the Old Testament intended to mediate between God’s omnipotence and human empirical experience of evil in the world. If we are looking for a “red ribbon” in the diversity of different theologies within the Old and the New Testament, we should probably conclude that it is the continuously progressing work at rationalizing the problem of theodicy, which already within the Old Testament took its decisive turn with God overcoming his own triumphant omnipotence by suffering from the evil in the world: When Israel was a child, I loved him and called him as my son out of Egypt. The more I called to them, the more they went away from me, sacricing to the Baalim and burning incense to graven images. Yet I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them up on my arms, but they did not accept that I loved them.
schen,” in Tora in der Hebräischen Bibel. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte und synchronen Logik diachroner Transformationen (ed. Reinhard Achenbach, Martin Arneth and Eckart Otto; Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 7; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007), 122–33. For the post-P origin of Gen 2–3, cf. now also Martin Arneth, “Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt…” Studien zur Entstehung der alttestamentlichen Urgeschichte (FRLANT 217; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 97–147. 49. Eckart Otto, “Woher weiß der Mensch um Gut und Böse? Philosophische Annäherungen der ägyptischen und biblischen Weisheit an ein Grundproblem der Ethik,” in Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament. Gestalt und Wirkung. Festschrift für Horst Seebaß (ed. Stefan Beyerle; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 207–31. 50. For an integration of this approach of Ps 8 into a Biblical Theology of creation, cf. Eckart Otto, “Schöpfung als Kategorie der Vermittlung von Gott und Welt in Biblischer Theologie. Die Theologie alttestamentlicher Schöpfungsüberlieferungen im Horizont der Christologie,” in“Wenn nicht jetzt, wann dann”. Festschrift für Hans-Joachim Kraus (ed. Hans-Georg Geyer; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), 53–67. 1
OTTO Hermeneutics of Biblical Theology
19
I drew them with cords of humanity, with bands of love; and I was to them as one who lifted the yoke over their cheeks, and I went down to them and gave them to eat. (Hos 11:1–4)51
This text unfolds a dialectic between God’s love and Israel’s mešûbâ (turning away). The more God cared for them, the more they turned away from him. The consequence of Israel’s mešûbâ will be God’s anger and Israel’s catastrophe: They shall return to Egypt and Assur shall be their king, because they refused to return to me. The sword dances in their towns and consumes their defences because of their own counsels. But my people keep to their mešûbâ. (Hos 11:5–7)
By an adversative exclamation (’êk)52 a turning point is marked.53 From now on, the authors let us look directly into God’s heart: How can I give you up, Ephraim! How can I surrender you and cast you off, Israel! How can I make you as Admah and treat you as Zeboim! My heart turns against me, my suffering with you (niÜûmâ)54 is inamed. (Hos 11:8)
The dialectic of the love and anger of God provokes a tension within God: his heart turns against him. There is a deep theological dimension in this text. God overcomes his own anger by suffering with those he has 51. For the text-critical problems of Hos 11:1–9, cf. Hans-Walther Wolff, Dodekapropheton 1. Hosea (2d ed.; BKAT XIV/1; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965), 247–48. 52. Graham Davies, Hosea (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 261. 53. There is no reason to separate Hos 11:8 literary-critically from the preceding verses and to interpret v. 8b as an interpolation, as former exegetes such as Julius Wellhausen and others suggested on the assumption that aspects of threat and promise in one literary unit were irreconcilable. Such a literary-critical division misses the theological argument of Hos 11:1–9. 54. The suggestion of BHS to read raÜamâ misses the intention of the text. For nÜm as “suffer emotional pain” and noÜam as “compassion” (Hos 13.14), cf. H. Simian-Yoffre, “nÜm,” in ThWAT 5: 366–84 (378, 383). None of the translations of niÜûmîm as “repentance,” “remorse,” or “compassion” ts fully with the connotation of identication in the lexeme nÜm; cf. ThWAT 5:370. Jörg Jeremias (Die Reue Gottes. Aspekte alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung [2d ed.; BiblischTheologische Studien 31; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997], 54) denes niÜûmîm as a “counter-power to God’s anger,” by which he means God’s suffering from the tension of love and wrath. This is not “compassion” but “suffering” with Israel, which will be destroyed. For the difference between compassion (Mitleid) and suffering with somebody (Mitleiden), which does not include the hierarchical connotation of compassion but that of identity with the suffering person, cf. Käthe Hamburger, Das Mitleid (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1985), 67. 1
20
Psalms and Hebrews
intended to destroy because of their mešûbâ. The consequence will be that God will not destroy his people. What Hos 11:8–9 demonstrates is the idea of a kind of a self-liberation of God which overcomes his wrath, so that he is no longer dependent on humankind’s actions. God gains his omnipotence as a suffering God by overcoming his triumphant attitude, punishing human iniquities. This paradox55 is a hermeneutical precondition for the theology of Ps 8. Only if God’s acting is not bound by his response to human action56 can he endow humanity with strength to overcome chaos and evil. In Hos 11 God experiences the dialectic of antecedent love and subsequent wrath. God overcomes this by suffering from the very tension of love and wrath within his heart, meaning that he can also liberate the people of Israel from the consequences of their evil and his own wrath: I shall not execute the erceness of my anger. I will not destroy Ephraim, for I am God and not man, the Holy one in the midst of you. (Hos 11:9)
Hosea 11:1–9 represents a highly speculative theology, one which looks into God’s own heart in order to mediate the idea of the almighty God with human experience of evil. The limit of the theology of Hos 11 is its speculative character. If it was written before 722/21 BCE, as most exegetes suppose, then it was historically falsied by the empirical experience of Israel’s catastrophe. If it was written after the destruction of Samaria, it was written against the empirical-historical experience. Yet
55. If one is looking for the pre-Christian origins of the paradox of a theologia crucis (theology of the cross), then it is here in the book of Hosea as a kind of pivotal point for any theology of the Old Testament. Already the Ugaritic Anatu– Ba!lu myth knew of a suffering of Ba!lu, who accompanies Motu, the god of death, into the underworld and suffers death. Notably, for Ba!lu’s “resurrection,” which overcomes death, his sister Anatu is required to ght Motu and overwhelm him. In the book of Hosea God is suffering, overcoming himself by overcoming his anger with man. In the New Testament christology God becomes suffering humanity, and overcomes death, thereby liberating humankind from the consequences of divine wrath. If one is looking for a “speculative Good Friday” (spekulativer Karfreitag) in an Hegelian sense, then one can detect it in this prophetic text, the idea of God overcoming his own negativity by suffering from it. 56. The limitation of God’s freedom by blessings and curses related to human fulllments of the Torah also limits the Deuteronomic and deuteronomistic theology in the Pentateuch and the books of Joshua to 2 Kings. For Hos 11 as an ethical paradigm, cf. Eckart Otto, “Die Geburt des moralischen Bewußtseins,” in Bibel und Christentum im Orient (ed. Eckart Otto and Siegbert Uhlig; Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 1; Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991), 63–87; idem, Theologische Ethik, 109–11, 265–66. 1
OTTO Hermeneutics of Biblical Theology
21
this is only the surface of the problem. The speculative theology of Hos 11 leads necessarily to the following question: Where can suffering human beings experience the self-liberation of God from his wrath? The prophetic literature gives the answer in the books of Jeremiah57 and Isaiah:58 in Israel’s and Zion’s suffering we become aware of God’s own suffering. We experience in the book of Jeremiah God’s suffering by the doings of his people, and in the book of Isaiah the vicarious character of the servant’s suffering for his people. By gaining insight into the suffering of God, we are able to interpret the books of Jeremiah and Isaiah in the theological horizon of the book of Hosea and vice versa. The authors of Ps 8 intended to bridge the gap between the almighty God and human experience of evil by means of a dialectical anthropology of the natural weakness and meta-empirically given strength of humankind. This, however, was no nal solution as long as God’s freedom was limited by humankind’s evil actions. Not only anthropology but also its underlying theology had to become dialectical. This was achieved by having God overcome his own triumphant attitude of wrath. It was asked earlier whether there exist any criteria that permit us to evaluate the reception of Ps 8 in Heb 2 and the transference of anthropological motifs to Christology. Is there any theological logic, something more than just a “productive misunderstanding”? We have already seen that from a sociological perspective which correlates the functions of religious ideas to institutions, this reception was consequent and not a misinterpretation. The same is true from a theological perspective: the Old Testament as well as the so-called inter-testamental literature outline the concept of divine majesty correlated to divine suffering by the idea of God overcoming his own wrath by suffering with those who should be destroyed by his anger. The paradox of divine omnipotence and the weakness of suffering can already be detected in the prophetic literature of the Old Testament. The same dialectic of majesty and weakness characterizes the anthropology of Ps 8. The theological presupposition of Christology is the idea that in Christ’s suffering God himself suffers, that Christ’s triumph and majesty in overcoming death is God’s triumph and majesty. The motif of Christ’s majesty in Heb 2, that everything will be subjected under his feet, is to be correlated to Heb 2:9–10: 57. Georg Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament, Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 604–27, and Jeremia. Der Stand der Diskussion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007), 123–30. 58. For the identication of the suffering servant in the book of Isaiah with Zion, cf. Ulrich Berges, Das Buch Jesaja. Komposition und Endgestalt (Herders Biblische Studien 16; Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 403–19. 1
22
Psalms and Hebrews But we are able to see Jesus, who was made little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, now crowned with glory and honour, that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man: For it became Him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons into glory, to make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.
We can see how intensively Heb 2 unfolds Old Testament theology.59 Thus, what is the criterion to be used in the differentiation between a legitimate and illegitimate reception of the Old in the New Testament? The answer: nothing other than the theological loyalty of the New Testament authors to the intentions of the authors of Old Testament texts and vice versa. Do the New Testament texts which adopt material from the Old Testament unfold the theologically dialectical logic of correlation between humans and God in the Old Testament? This is exactly what Heb 2 does when it adopts Ps 8. But if in Christ’s suffering God himself should suffer and Christ’s triumph and majesty should be God’s triumph and majesty, as the Old Testament claims, how can we unfold this identication of God and humanity without falling into the trap of patripassianism and docetism, if, as the New Testament says, God became human in Christ? The Reception of Psalm 2 and 110 (LXX 109) in Hebrews Psalm 2 and 110 (LXX 109) delivered the requisite ideational tool that enabled the authors of Hebrews to solve this question—namely, the idea of the Davidic king as God’s son. This motif of royal ideology in Jerusalem was incorporated into Ps 2 in pre-exilic times.60 In the Septuagint it was interpreted eschatologically61 and this interpretation was
59. Hans Hübner (Biblische Theologie, 25) speaks of Vetus Testamentum per receptionem amplicatum (Old Testament amplied by reception [in the New Testament]) as the modus of Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum (Old Testament adapted in the New Testament). But a shortcoming in Hans Hübner’s approach is his presupposition that the Old Testament only has relevance in a Christian context as far as it was adapted in the New Testament. This means that only parts of the Septuagint should be relevant, but not the Hebrew Bible. Such a shortcoming was already refused by Luther and Calvin. 60. Eckart Otto, “Politische Theologie in den Königspsalmen zwischen Ägypten und Assyrien. Die Herrscherlegitimation in den Psalmen 2 und 18 in ihren altorientalischen Kontexten,” in “Mein Sohn bist du” (Ps 2,7). Studien zu den Königspsalmen (ed. Eckart Otto and Erich Zenger; Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 192; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002), 33–65. 61. Schaper, Eschatology, 72–76. 1
OTTO Hermeneutics of Biblical Theology
23
adopted in the New Testament.62 The complex of quotations in Heb 1:5– 13 is framed by the reception of the two Royal Psalms, Pss 2 and 110 (LXX 109).63 The rst quotation of the Old Testament in Hebrews is God’s address to his son (Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14): For to which of the angels did (God) ever say: You are My Son, today I have begotten You? And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He will be to me an Son? (Heb 1:5)
Before God speaks to man, he is addressing his son. Christology in Hebrews means rst of all God’s communication with Christ. In Ps 2:7 the title of the Davidic king, “Son of God,” was connected with the enthronement, which differs from the Egyptian context, where the motif of divine sonship was used for the newborn crown prince.64 The Septuagint related the motif to the expected messiah, and Hebrews to the preexistent Christ as Son of God. The reception of Ps 110 (LXX 109) was the argumentative bridge between the eschatologically interpreted Ps 2 and the theology of a pre-existent Son of God in Hebrews. In Ps 2 and also in Ps 110 a number of motifs of Egyptian origin were adopted:65 for example, that of the king sitting enthroned at God’s right side, a motif that was part of the royal iconography of the Egyptian New Kingdom;66 and the motif of “dew,” that is, “perfume,”67 which should have impregnated the 62. Ferdinand Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel. Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum (3d ed.; FRLANT 83; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 280–333. 63. For the reception of Ps 110 (LXX 109) in the New Testament, cf. Martin Hengel, ‘“Setze dich zu meiner Rechten!’ Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110,1,” in Le Trône de Dieu (ed. Mark Philonenko; WUNT 69; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), 108–94, with further literature. 64. Helmut Brunner, Die Geburt des Gottkönigs. Studien zur Überlieferung eines altägyptischen Mythos (2d ed.; Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 10; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1986); Otto, “Königspsalmen,” 34–44. For Ps 2 as a cultic enthronement prophecy of the pre-exilic period, see also John W. Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms (BZAW 352; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 89–101; Frank Lothar Hoßfeldt and Erich Zenger, Die Psalmen I (Psalm 1–50) (Neue Echter Bibel.AT; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1993), 50, who consider the psalm to be post-exilic. 65. Manfred Görg, “Thronen zur Rechten Gottes,” Biblische Notizen 81 (1996): 72–81; Klaus Koch, “Der König als Sohn Gottes in Ägypten und Israel,” in Otto and Zenger, eds., “Mein Sohn bist du”, 15–27. 66. This motif has a possible Judean verication by the architecture of the temple and the royal palace in Jerusalem, where the Davidic king sat at the right hand of YHWH in the holy of holies of the temple; cf. Eckart Otto, Jerusalem. Geschichte und Archäologie (Beck’sche Reihe 2418; Munich: C. H. Beck, 2008), 52–54. 67. Rudolf Kilian, “Der ‘Tau’ in Ps 110,3—ein Mißverständnis?,” ZAW 102 (1990): 417–19. 1
24
Psalms and Hebrews
Egyptian queen,68 meaning that Ps 110:3 can be translated “out of the womb of Dawn, I fathered thee as Dew.”69 Last but not least is the motif of a royal priesthood, which is unique in the Old Testament. While this motif has an Egyptian background, in Ps 110 it is expressed in a Judean fashion by means of the Melchizedek motif (Gen 14:14–28).70 Klaus Koch71 and John W. Hilber72 argue for a pre-exilic dating of Ps 110, but there are better reasons to correlate this psalm to the late post-exilic ideology of the high-priest.73 Thus, the Hasmonean period would appear to be the best possible date for this psalm.74 Yet this does not mean that the motifs of an Egyptian background were not rooted in the pre-exilic royal ideology of the Davidic kings in Jerusalem.75 In Ps 2 one can observe that there was a temporal difference between the age of motifs of Egyptian origin going back to the early Davidic monarchy and the composition of the psalm in the late pre-exilic 68. Brunner, Geburt, 47, 225. 69. Jarl Fossum, ‘“Son of God’ in the OT,” ABD 6:128; Koch, “Sohn Gottes,” 19; cf. the latter work for a text-critical reconstruction of Ps 110:3 (MT) and Ps 109:3 (LXX). 70. For the function of the Melchizedek motif in the narration of Genesis, cf. Otto, Gesetz des Mose, 28–30. 71. Koch (“Sohn Gottes,” 22–27) argues with the different receptions of the Melchizedek motif, for example by Jubilees, Philo, and the Genesis Apocryphon, on the one side, and the Egyptian background of the priestly-king motif, on the other. 72. Hilber (Prophecy, 76–88) argues that the reference to “my lord” in Ps 110:1 speaks for an existing king. 73. Cf. James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004), 112–393, and Reinhard Achenbach, “König, Priester und Prophet. Zur Transformation der Konzepte der Herrscherlegitimation in Jesaja 61,” in Achenbach, Arneth and Otto, Tora, 196–245. 74. Herbert Donner, “Der verläßliche Prophet. Betrachtungen zu 1Makk 14,41ff und zu Psalm 110,” in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel. Festschrift für Siegfried Herrmann (ed. Rüdiger Liwak and Siegfried Wagner; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991), 89–98, and also John W. Bowker, “Psalm CX, ” VT 17 (1967): 31–41. 75. A pre-exilic dating of all the Royal Psalms is as oversimplied as a postexilic one. For the pre-exilic date of Ps 72, cf. Martin Arneth, “Sonne der Gerechtigkeit”. Studien zur Solarisierung der Jahwe-Religion im Lichte von Psalm 72 (BZABR 1; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000); for Ps 89, cf. Hans-Ulrich Steymans, “ ‘Deinen Thron habe ich unter den großen Himmeln festgemacht’. Die formgeschichtliche Nähe von Ps 89,4–5. 20–38 zu Texten vom neuassyrischen Hof,” in Otto and Zenger, eds., Königspsalmen, 184–251; for Ps 18, cf. Klaus-Peter Adam, Der königliche Held. Die Entsprechung von kämpfendem Gott und kämpfendem König in Psalm 18 (WMANT 91; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001). 1
OTTO Hermeneutics of Biblical Theology
25
period.76 Psalm 110 demonstrates that motifs of a pre-exilic royal ideology even survived in the post-exilic Ptolemaic era. God is calling on the king to sit on a throne at his right side, while77 God is putting his foes under the king’s feet, stretching out the staff of the king’s power, so that the king shall rule over his foes on the grounds that out of the womb of Dawn he was fathered by God as Dew. With the motif of dawn (mišÜar) the authors allude to the motif-complex of YHWH as Sun-god. The king was from the very beginning a divine person like the Egyptian crown prince (Ps 110:1–3). The Septuagint already interpreted Ps 110:3 as a statement of the pre-existence of an eschatological king,78 and in this way amplied the intention of the Hebrew psalm. The authors of the Hebrew psalm had the Hasmonean kings in mind, but they were already using motifs which transcended any empirical kingship. The Greek authors of the Septuagint in the rst century BCE took these motifs and correlated a primeval dimension with an eschatological one. The pre-existing king would be the eschatological messianic ruler of the world. The rst horizon for the authors of Hebrews was to interpret Ps 109 (LXX) christologically, this time amplifying the interpretation of the Septuagint. Again there is no reason to speak of a “productive misinterpretation” by the Christian reception of this psalm, but rather of a coherent unfolding of the inherent meaning of the Hebrew text by the authors of Septuagint and Hebrews. We have already seen that it was a logical necessity for New Testament theologians to clarify the relationship between God and his Son, in order not to fall into the trap of patripassianism and docetism on the one side and “ebionitism” on the other. The reception of Ps 110 (LXX 109) in Hebrews could clarify the relationship between Father and Son (Heb 1:13), as well as Christ’s soteriological function as a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:9).79 Furthermore, it could introduce revelation as a continuation of inner-divine communication. Conclusion Taking the reception of Ps 8, Ps 2 and 110 (LXX 109) in Hebrews together, we can see that it was guided by the theological intention of the authors of Hebrews to demonstrate that there is a divine association of 76. Otto, Königspsalmen, 36–51. 77. For the meaning of !ad, cf. Görg, “Thronen,” 75–76. 78. Schaper, Eschatology, 101–7; Karrer, Hebräe, 139. 79. For George Wesley Buchanan (To the Hebrews [AB 36; New York: Doubleday, 1972], xix–xxi), Hebrews was “a homiletical midrash based on Ps 110,” which at any rate underlines the central meaning of this psalm for the author of Hebrews. 1
26
Psalms and Hebrews
Father and Son and a brotherly association of Son and humanity.80 In the end, there is no contradiction between the history of religion and biblical theology; the history of religion reveals the theological substance which binds the Old and New Testament together.
80. Hübner, Biblische Theologie, 29–30. 1
BUT IS IT TRUE? PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES OF TRUTH AND THE INTERPRETATION OF PSALMS IN THE BOOK OF HEBREWS* Jaco W. Gericke
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:10–11 [emphasis added])
Introduction In his book Truth: A History and Guide for the Perplexed, Felipe Fernández Armesto introduces his subject with the following clips of childlike faith—or rather, the lack thereof: Most western parents feel guilty about Santa Claus. When the time comes to face the question whether Santa really exists, they feel like slayers of children’s innocence or exploiters of their credulity, or both. In cultures without Santa, other mythical gift bearers generate similar family crises. One mother I know cheerfully admitted that the whole story was hokum and forfeited her children’s trust for the rest of her life. A father of my acquaintance tried to stress the poetic truth of the tale and faced an embarrassing interrogation about his hocus-pocus with the Santa suits, Christmas stockings and half-eaten mince pies. Another said, “It’s true about Santa the way it is true in the book that Long John Silver was a pirate.” “So, it’s not true,” his little boy replied. An academic couple, after discussing it thoroughly between themselves, decided to tell their children, “It’s true that Santa brings you your presents in the same way we speak of the wind hurrying or the sun smiling.” The little boy and girl * I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Dirk Human of the Department of Old Testament Studies at the University of Pretoria for inviting me to participate in the ProPsalm seminar of 2006 and for the opportunity to contribute to this publication. This study represents a revised edition of the paper delivered there and was written during a post-doctoral fellowship at the North-West University (Vaal Triangle Campus). 1
28
Psalms and Hebrews who concluded that the sun and wind exist and that Santa does not, never forgave them for this evasion. A schoolmaster who taught my own children and had a very pious little girl tried saying that the Santa story was a parable: “You don’t suppose,” he said, “that the things Jesus told in the parables actually happened, do you?” The child ceased to be pious. 1
On a daily basis we all pass judgments on whether the ideas, beliefs and claims we encounter are true or not. In so doing we tend to take the meaning of the word “truth” for granted—we know what it is. Or do we? For example, just try to come up with a denition for the concept. You will nd that explaining what truth is—as opposed to giving examples of which ideas you consider to be true—might not be so straightforward. In other words, it is far simpler to provide a list of allegedly true propositions (i.e. to give an extensional denition of “truth”) than to specify the individually necessary and jointly sufcient conditions for classifying any belief as true in the rst place (i.e. to give an intensional denition of “truth”).2 If one happens to be a philosopher of the analytic tradition3 engaging in conceptual analysis,4 one might attempt to deal with the meaning of 1. Felipe Fernández Armesto, Truth: A History and Guide for the Perplexed (new ed.; London, Bantam, 1999), ix–x. 2. The term “intensional” as employed in the present study is not the same as the phenomenological notion of “intentionality”; here, it represents a mode of meaning. In the context of the concept of “truth,” intensions will specify what something has to be like to be true (i.e. what makes truth truthful). If we cannot do this, doubts may arise as to whether we understand “truth” at all. As one popular explanation— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehension_(logic)—notes, in logic, the comprehension of an object pertains to familiarity with the totality of its intensions, that is, an understanding of the attributes, characters, marks, properties, or qualities, that the object possesses. This is the correct technical term for the whole collection of intensions of an object, but it is common in less technical usage to see “intension” used for both composite and primitive ideas. 3. The school of analytic philosophy has dominated academic philosophy in various regions, most notably Great Britain and the United States, since the early twentieth century. It originated around the turn of the twentieth century as G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell broke away from what was then the dominant school in the British universities, Absolute Idealism. Many would also include Gottlob Frege as a founder of analytic philosophy in the late nineteenth century. When Moore and Russell articulated their alternative to Idealism, they used a linguistic idiom, frequently basing their arguments on the “meanings” of terms and propositions. Additionally, Russell believed that the grammar of natural language often is philosophically misleading, and that the way to dispel the illusion is to re-express propositions in the ideal formal language of symbolic logic, thereby revealing their true logical form. For more on this school, see A. Biletzki and A. Matar, eds., The Story of Analytic Philosophy: Plot and Heroes (London: Routledge, 1998). 1
GERICKE But is it True?
29
the concept of “truth” by seeking to provide an intensional denition of the concept according to the classically structured format (an essentialist approach): For any x, x is true if and only if a, b, c…z
Alternatively, a less essentialist approach would bracket the concern with what truth ultimately is and instead attempt to dene the concept by showing what people mean when they say of something that it is true (an anti-essentialist approach). In this way the philosophically prudent answer to the question—What is truth?5—is probably, “It depends on what you mean by ‘truth’.”6 Not surprisingly, the concept of “truth” is currently one of the central topics in philosophy.7 It is discussed in metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language, logic, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, philosophy of law, philosophy of mind, and elsewhere. A major question in philosophical debates on the subject concerns the nature of truth (what is it?). This question can be divided into many sub-questions, concerning the sorts of things that can be classied as being true or false. Is truth a property of sentences (which are linguistic entities in some language or other), or is truth a property of propositions (non-linguistic, abstract and timeless entities)? Are there different types of truth? How about different degrees of truth? Is there a metaphysical problem of truth at all, and if there is, what kind of theory might address it? Can we ever know truth? Can our knowledge of truth be veried? Does truth change or are only interpretations thereof vulnerable to contingency? What popular criteria for determining truth are justied? Do different languages and cultures all understand the same thing under the concept? All of these are all standard interests in the philosophical discussion of truth.8 4. For an introduction, see S. Laurence and E. Margolis, eds., Concepts: Core Readings (Cambridge, Mass.; MIT, 1999). 5. In the words of the character of Pontius Pilate in the John 18:38. 6. According to James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1999), 57, most biblical scholars are practical down-to-earth folk who have no time for the philosopher’s “It depends on what you mean by…” questions. 7. M. Glanzberg, “Truth,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition) (ed. Edward N. Zalta), available online at http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/win2008/entries/truth/. I have included a number of links to electronic resources in this study for the convenience of those readers wishing to access the relevant data on the internet. 8. A useful and user-friendly philosophical introduction to the topic of truth in philosophy can be found on the internet at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, see http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm. 1
30
Psalms and Hebrews
Biblical Studies and the Question of Truth Actuality All of the above philosophical questions about the nature of truth are very interesting (if you are philosophically inclined, that is). However, since this is a study written for the 2006 ProPsalm seminar on the use of Psalms (Old Testament) in the Letter to the Hebrews (New Testament), the anticipated reader might well wonder what philosophical perspectives on truth have to do with anything. Well, most scholarly research on the relation between the Testaments in general, and on the interpretation of the Old Testament in the New Testament in particular, tend to be purely historical, literary and/or theological in orientation. In most discussions, the meaning of the concept of “truth” is taken for granted. The truth of the text is either considered a given (fundamentalists, conservative scholars) or qualied, reinterpreted and generally not assumed to be a topic for serious discussion. In the latter instance, truth is not up for discussion since it is considered to pertain to private convictions (mainstream scholarship, critical scholars), or obviously not applicable (non-theistic and other radical viewpoints).9 To be sure, most biblical scholars will no doubt have some view on whether or not the text is true (and in what sense of the word), which is precisely why in this study I shall try to demonstrate that providing a nal answer to the question of whether the text–truth relation in Psalms–Hebrews intertextuality is isomorphic is not nearly as conducive to further research as complicating the question itself. Objectives In the present study a variety of philosophical theories of truth will be discussed, and it will be shown what it involves to subscribe to each particular theory in the context of the question of whether the interpretation of the Psalms in Hebrews is the truth. However, readers should not hold their breath for an answer to the question of truth. As far as it is possible, this essay will not itself assume the truth (in any sense) or falsity (in any sense) of either the biblical text, of any specic interpretation by exegetes, or of any particular philosophical theory of truth. By leaving aside all three of these contentious matters I hope only to show 9. See Philip R. Davies, Whose Bible is it Anyway? (JSOTSup 204; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1995), 21. A refreshing anomaly in the system that “goes against the grain” as the author sees it is David J. A. Clines’s Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 205; Gender, Culture, Theory 1; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1995), 9–25. 1
GERICKE But is it True?
31
what it might involve to entertain or adopt a particular set of philosophical assumptions about the nature of truth, and what doing so implies for the way in which we approach the question of truth with reference to Psalm interpretation in Hebrews. The Textual Basis of the Research Problem At this point a cursive overview of the textual data prompting the concern with the meaning of truth with reference to Psalm interpretation in Hebrews might prove illuminating. In this regard, two elements in the biblical discourse can be identied as justifying the particular formulation of the research problem opted for at the start: a. the fuzzy nature of the concept of “truth” in the Psalter and in Hebrews itself; b. the claims the author of Hebrews made regarding the meaning of certain Psalms. To be sure, there is always the danger of imposing pseudo-problems from philosophy onto the textual discourse, and it is therefore only right to commence the discussion with an overview of the textual data concerning the concept of truth in its own historical and literary context. So, before we come to theories of truth proper, let us look at both of the above-mentioned textual elements in turn. The Concept of “Truth” in the Psalms In the Psalms (as elsewhere in the Old Testament), the Hebrew word E> is the most familiar term translated as “truth.”10 Etymologically, the 10. According to the popular internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, the English word truth is from Old English tríewþ, tréowþ, trýwþ, Middle English trewþe, cognate to Old High German triuwida, Old Norse tryggð. Like troth, it is a -th nominalization of the adjective true (Old English tréowe). The English word true is from Old English (West Saxon) (ge)tríewe, tréowe, cognate to Old Saxon (gi)trûui, Old High German (ga)triuwu (Modern German treu “faithful”), Old Norse tryggr, Gothic triggws, all from a Proto-Germanic *trewwj- “having good faith.” Old Norse trú holds the semantic eld “faith, word of honour; religious faith, belief” (archaic English troth “loyalty, honesty, good faith,” compare Ásatrú). All Germanic languages besides English have introduced a terminological distinction between truth “delity” and truth “factuality.” To express “factuality,” North Germanic opted for nouns derived from sanna “to assert, afrm,” while continental West Germanic (German and Dutch) opted for continuations of wâra “faith, trust, pact” (cognate to Slavic vra “[religious] faith,” but inuenced by Latin verus). Romance languages use terms following the Latin veritas, while the Greek aletheia and Slavic have separate etymological origins. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth. 1
32
Psalms and Hebrews
word has been thought of as representing a contraction from *> , a primitive root with the associative meaning of “properly, to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; guratively to render (or be) rm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once; to go to the right hand:—hence, assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, steadfast, sure, surely, trusty.”11 The vagueness and polymorphic nature of the concept E> in the Psalms, however, can be sufciently illustrated with reference to its 37 occurrences in that corpus. In the Psalter, the term E> is encountered for the rst time in Ps 25:10. In this text it would appear to denote some sort of property, not of propositions but of “the ways of YHWH.” The same metaphor seems to be operative in the very next psalm, where E> is assumed to be something one can “walk in” (Ps 26:3). Another psalm states that YHWH is in possession of E> in a manner that can be communicated, though only by the living (Ps 30:9). The next psalm asserts that YHWH is a “god of E> ” in the context of a confession made in thankfulness for redemption (Ps 31:5). Another text (Ps 33:4) further complicates the conceptual background for the modern reader when it asserts that YHWH’s works (are done?) in E> (i.e. “truth” as an adverb). The latter claim occurs in parallelism with the assertion that the “word” of 9H9J is right, although what kind of parallelism we are dealing with here (synonymous, synthetic, antithetic) is not exactly clear. In Ps 40:10 the psalmist claims not to have concealed YHWH’s E> from the congregation, though nothing is said here about the sense or reference of the concept. In 40:11 the speaker goes on to ask of YHWH that his (i.e. the deity’s) E> should “preserve” him (i.e. the psalmist), without telling us more about what E> in this case is supposed to be. Many readers might assume it to be the truth of statements made by or about the deity, but, as will become clear, things are not so simple. The next psalm to mention the term translated as “truth” is juxtaposed by the psalmist with the concept of “light” in a request that E> also be “sent out” to “lead” him and “bring” him to the divine abode (Ps 43:3). The metaphor of “the way”12 seems to be present, although technically in 11. James Strong, The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996). 12. It used to be popular to oppose what was called “Hebrew” vs. “Greek” ways of thinking. Particularly the Biblical Theology Movement of the mid-twentieth century did much to emphasize what it believed to be fundamental differences between Hebraic and Hellenistic mindset. It was frequently asserted that Hebrew thinking was dynamic, functional, personal, metaphorical, active, historical, practical, and so 1
GERICKE But is it True?
33
this instance E> is not itself seen as the way, but rather as something sent on it as guide for the devotee. In Ps 45:4 E> is construed as allowing the king to ride prosperously in his majesty (again a rather vague and obscure metaphorical application). Another psalm depicts E> as an object of YHWH’s desire and as located in the “inward parts” of the human subject whom the deity will grant the knowledge of wisdom (Ps 51:6). Then there is Ps 54:5, in which the psalmist expresses the hope that YHWH will to “cut of” his enemies in his (i.e. YHWH’s) E> . A use of the concept of “truth” similar to one noted earlier (cf. Ps 43) is attested in Ps 57:3, where E> is again depicted as something which YHWH sends from heaven to aid the psalmist—although here it is juxtaposed with the concept of “mercy” rather than “light”—the rst of many such combinations with “mercy,” which always precedes “truth.” An identical pairing of mercy and E> is also attested in v. 10 of the same psalm, where in parallelism both are said to be so extensive as to reach unto the skies. Psalm 60:4 states that those who fear YHWH will be given a banner to display “because of the E> .” Again, the sense and reference are somewhat vague. In Ps 61:7 there are two familiar associations when we encounter the concept of E> juxtaposed with mercy (as in Ps 57) and acting as a preservative (as in Ps 40). The next psalm again shows the juxtaposing of mercy and E> , with the psalmist appealing to both of these qualities in a request for being heard. However, in this text it is curious to see that while mercy is ascribed to YHWH, E> is associated with his salvation (Ps 69:13). In Ps 71:22 E> is again something possessed by YHWH and an object of the psalmist’s praise, alongside YHWH himself. Then, in its next occurrence, in Ps 85:10, we once again encounter the combination of mercy and E> , both of which on, with Greek thinking being static, substantive, impersonal, literal, passive, universal and theoretical. These oppositions are fundamentally awed, as was shown by James Barr on several occasions, including in his “Athens or Jerusalem? The Question of Distinctiveness,” in Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testaments (London: SCM, 1966), 34–64. I agree with Barr and consider the popular opposition to be the result of caricaturizing, stereotyping, sweeping generalization, essentialism and a host of other fallacies. There never was such a thing as “Greek” thinking in the sense of a unied mode of thought and the philosophers’ conceptual world cannot be transferred to the general religious populace. Moreover, even the philosophers disagreed among themselves and so too the ways in which different biblical authors and redactors conceived of reality and expressed their ideas about it. Also, with regard to the concept of “truth,” my intention with the above exposition is not to oppose Hebrew and Greek philosophical thinking or to claim that the one is better than the other or that we should adopt a biblical view on the matter. As the saying goes, “There ain’t no such animal.” 1
34
Psalms and Hebrews
are said to be conjoined—even as righteousness and peace are (according to the parallelism). In the next verse (Ps 85:11) E> is depicted as sprouting out of the earth in a parallelism also featuring the depiction of righteousness looking down from heaven. In the next psalm (Ps 86:11), the E> of YHWH is identied with the way of YHWH (compare this to the earlier instance where there was no such identication, as truth is said to guide along the way, rather than itself being the way). In v. 15 the concept features once more when the properties of YHWH are extolled, among them the abundance of “mercy and E> .” In Ps 89:14 mercy and E> again appear in unison and are juxtaposed in parallelism with justice and judgment, while being personied and hypostasized as part of his entourage preceding YHWH. A little later in the psalm, YHWH is asked concerning the whereabouts of his lovingkindness that he promised David “in” his (i.e. YHWH’s) E> . Then we nd in Ps 91 that YHWH’s E> is connected to his promises and metaphorically constructed as a shield and girdle, while in Ps 96:13 E> is said to be something with which YHWH will judge the world. In Ps 98:3 mercy and truth are yet again combined and here E> is something that YHWH has remembered vis-à-vis the house of Israel. The same duo features in Pss 100:5 and in 108:4, with the former depicting E> as something YHWH has and which endures, and the latter again using a spatial metaphor by representing truth as reaching the clouds (identical to the image in Ps 57:10). In Ps 111:8, what is done in E> (and uprightness) is said to stand fast forever, while in Ps 115:1 E> (again with mercy) belongs to YHWH and is given as a reason for glorifying him. In Ps 117:2 (with mercy once more) YHWH’s E> is yet again noted as enduring. In the next psalm the way of YHWH is said to be a god of E> (v. 30) and YHWH is asked not to remove E> from the psalmist’s mouth (v. 43). Later on, the law and commandments of YHWH are said to be E> (Ps 119:142 and 151 respectively). In Ps 132:11 YHWH swears to David “in E> ,” and in 138:2 the deity is again praised for the same quality. In Ps 145:18 there is a reference to the nearness of YHWH to those who call on him “in E> ,” and in Ps 146:6 E> is something the deity keeps forever. It is interesting to note that in the Psalms E> is never discussed, explained or dened. This should not come as a surprise since the texts are not a collection of philosophical essays and aphorisms. The essential meaning of the concept E> as used in the Psalter is, however, quite elusive for anyone hoping to elucidate its meaning via philosophical (i.e. conceptual) analysis. The data are simply too fuzzy to allow the analyst to construct an intensional denition of E> by way of stipulating 1
GERICKE But is it True?
35
individually necessary and jointly sufcient conditions for its application. A more appropriate assessment of its meaning might instead involve the provisioning of a polythetic denition that acknowledges the pluralism in linguistic, literary, historical, social and theological contexts in the Psalter and denes the term along the lines of Wittgenstein’s “family resemblances” approach where meaning is identied with use. However, even such a exible perspective is bound to be vague given the essentially metaphorical nature of the religious language in which the concept is encountered in the Psalter. Yet what should be readily apparent to the modern reader is the difference between our own use of the concept of “truth”—mainly as a property of propositions, beliefs and knowledge-systems—and the Psalter’s conceptions which go beyond cognitive associations by extending the scope of application to include the properties, functions and relations of persons and actions. In the recognition of this the question of what we mean when we speak of truth (or its absence) in the context of Psalm interpretation suddenly seems not so pedantic or straightforward. Our own conceptions of what truth is might not completely overlap the meaning assumed in the biblical texts themselves. The Concept of Truth in Hebrews and the Research Problem The same vagueness regarding the concept of “truth” is found in the book of Hebrews itself. The most familiar New Testament word for truth—B MIRFJB13—occurs only once in the book (in derivative form) and in Heb 10:26, For if we sin deliberately after that we have received the knowledge of the truth(B MIRFJBK), there remains no more sacrice for sins. 13. According to Thomas Cole, “Archaic Truth,” Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica NS 13 (1983): 7–28, the most familiar Greek word for “Truth” is B MIRFJB (Aletheia). It was translated in Latin by Cicero as Veritas, yet both the etymology and the translation are problematic. The two main theories about the original meaning of Aletheia are the traditional theory “correctness of speech or belief” and that advanced by Martin Heidegger in his inuential restatement of the view that to a-lêthes is, originally and essentially, to mê lanthanon—that is, the “unhidden” or “unforgotten.” If Heidegger and his followers are correct, alêtheia must be a quality inherent in objects perceived or information received: a certain self-evidence, abiding clarity or memorableness. Against this view (though also, by implication, against those who reject altogether the correctness or relevance of the derivation from the root lath), Bruno Snell has recently suggested that the lêthê excluded by a-lêtheia is something found in persons rather than things: forgetfulness rather than hiddenness or being forgotten. A-lethes is that which is retained in the memory without any of the gaps to which such lêthê would give rise. 1
Psalms and Hebrews
36
Here too there is no denition, explanation or discussion by the author of what he meant by the concept. In translations we encounter the word simply as “truth,” which means that even if the reference (denotation, extension) of the term can be determined by careful exegesis (i.e., with regard to what the author was calling true), the sense (connotation, intension) of the word is still not claried (i.e. what the author meant when he called the specic things “true”).14 What is clear, however, is that in this text “the truth” is not identied with the deity as such or with some cosmic standard of justied belief, but rather appears to be associated with the contents of knowledge pertaining to the sacrice of Christ, its replacement of the old covenant and its warning of the judgment to come. While Heb 10:36 features the only explicit occurrence of the term (“truth”) in the book, it is of course presupposed and implicit elsewhere in as much as the author is purporting to be telling the truth which he believes his audience should take cognizance of. He makes numerous truth-claims and most certainly believed that he was communicating a true state of affairs to his readers, whatever it was that the concept of truth was understood to involve. This is the case especially in the more or less forty instances in theological assertions and arguments in the book where the author quotes (or alludes to), interprets and applies a text from the Psalter as part of his extended homily. Hebrews 1:3 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:13 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:12
Psalms 110:1? 2:7 (97:7) 104:4 45:6 45:7 102:25 102:26 102:27 110:1 8:4 8:5 8:6 22:22
Hebrews 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:15 " 3:18 4:3 4:5 4:7 " " 5:5
Psalms 95:7 95:8 95:9 95:10 95:11 95:7 95:8 95:11? 95:11 95:11 95:7 95:8 95:11? 2:7
Hebrews 5:6 7:17 7:21 8:1 10:5 10:6 10:7 " 10:12 10:13 12:2 13:6
Psalms 110:4 110:4 110:4 110:1? 40:6 40:6 40:7 40:8 110:1? 110:1? 110:1? 118:6
14. For more on these distinctions in their philosophical sense, see http://www. iep.utm.edu/f/frege.htm. 1
GERICKE But is it True?
37
The problem with which we are interested in this study concerns not the validity of the arguments but their truth-value,15 in as much as no respectable biblical scholar nowadays reads the Psalms in the way the author of Hebrews does.In many of the above-listed texts, the author of Hebrews commits what epistemologists and logicians call the fallacy of “contextomy.” “Contextomy” is a logical fallacy and refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as “quoting out of context.” The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context (as all quotes are) per se, but rather the quoter’s decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become “context” by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words. The fallacy of quoting out of context is moreover committed only when a contextomy is offered as evidence in an argument. Such fallacious quoting can involve arguments from authority that often quote the authority as a premise. However, it is possible to quote even legitimate authorities out of context so as to misrepresent the expert’s opinion, which is a form of misleading appeal to authority.16 Reading in and between the lines of biblical 15. In logic, a valid argument is one whose premises lead to the conclusion without there being a fallacy committed along the way. This is not the same as a true argument. An argument can be valid in terms of structure but false with regard to any of the premises or the conclusion. 16. Limitations of space do not permit a detailed analysis of each of these texts. Even if it was possible to perform such a study, my interest does not lie in a summary and repetition of the ndings of research already extant that somehow relates to my own concern. That such data exist is evident from the ndings of a relatively recent assessment, on the various ways in which the author handles the Old Testament. According to George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research,” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2003): 271–94, the past two decades have witnessed an acceleration of research on the book generally, and within the context of the heightened attention, certain trends in exploration of Hebrews’ uses of the Old Testament have emerged. After current discussions on direct quotations, allusions, uses of biblical phrases, echoes, and general references are considered, as are the author’s uses of introductory formulae, four trends that have surfaced in the literature of recent years are discernable. The rst trend concerns a movement away from focus on the question of a specic textual form behind Hebrews and a movement to consideration of the author’s own minor adjustments in presentation of the text for stylistic and theological purposes. The second trend in research concerns approaches that read the structure of Hebrews as framed by expositions of key Old Testament texts. The third trend involves explorations into specic exegetical methods used by the author of Hebrews, and the fourth attempts at discerning the author’s hermeneutical program. These trends 1
38
Psalms and Hebrews
scholars’ assessment of the problem, it would appear as though one or more of the following explanations for the discrepancies between Hebrews and the Psalms are taken for granted as trivializing the matter altogether: 1. The Old Testament–New Testament wording differs because the author used the LXX as opposed to the MT (or he had access to an unknown Hebrew Vorlage) on which our own translation of the Psalms is based. 2. While we might nd the interpretation problematic, a historical perspective on the author’s methodology shows that he often used the so-called Pesher form of exegesis in Christological format, something which in terms of reading strategy would not have struck the implicit readers as hermeneutically illegitimate. 3. Sometimes the text from Hebrews differs verbatim from the Psalter’s own text, but the meaning conveyed is basically the same. 4. The author of Hebrews may on one or more occasions have quoted from memory, so that one can expect minor verbal discrepancies in the data. 5. The author of Hebrews allegedly never meant merely to provide a historical and descriptive commentary on a text in the Psalter but was in fact in the process of constructing his own theology based on a justied reinterpretation of the Psalter’s text in light of his own understanding of the Christ-event. 6. As religious text the meaning of a verse in the Psalter is not exhausted by a historical and purely descriptive reading, and in reception-history the notion of multiple sense, indeterminate reference, double fullment, etc. is considered warranted. While all of these replies do explain why the text of Hebrews differs from the text of the Psalter in terms of content and meaning, it makes little difference to the fact that what the author of Hebrews in his construction of theological arguments claims a given text from the Psalms actually means is still at times demonstrably not something the psalmist himself might have agreed with. In addition, even if the fallacy of contextomy can be eliminated by the suggestion that it is generated by the
demonstrate the central place in research that Hebrews’ use of the Old Testament has enjoyed. Yet, while all of the positions assume the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews as in some sense problematic from a modern perspective, none of them opt for a philosophical approach aimed at clarifying the notion of truth presupposed by the modern exegete that gives rise to the problems in the rst place. 1
GERICKE But is it True?
39
intentional fallacy,17 there is still the fact that the author of Hebrews in his use of a proof-text approach was (even if legitimately) engaging in “quote mining.” In doing so, his claims are only apparently valid as long as one ignores the details in the rest of the particular psalm he is quoting from or alluding to. The question now is whether he was telling the truth—or rather, what we mean when we afrm or deny this. Theories of Truth18 Introduction Theories of truth may be described according to several dimensions of description that affect the character of the predicate “true.”19 The truth predicates that are used in different theories may be classied by the number of things that have to be mentioned in order to assess the truth of a sign, counting the sign itself as the rst thing. The kinds of truth predicates may then be subdivided according to any number of more specic characters that various theorists recognize as important: 1. A monadic truth predicate is one that applies to its main subject—typically a concrete representation or its abstract content— independently of reference to anything else. In this case one can 17. The “Intentional Fallacy” in Literary Criticism, addresses the assumption that the meaning intended by the author of a literary work is of primary importance. By characterizing this assumption as a “fallacy,” a critic suggests that the author’s intention is not important. The term is an important principle of New Criticism and was rst used by W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley, “The Intentional Fallacy,” Sewanee Review 54 (1946): 468–88 (revised and republished in The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry [New York: University of Kentucky Press, 1954], 3–18). 18. For a general introduction, see J. L. Austin, “Truth,” reprinted in Philosophical Papers (ed. J. O. Urmson and G. J. Warnock; 3d ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 117–33; S. Blackburn and K. Simmons, eds., Truth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); M. David, “Theories of Truth,” in Handbook of Epistemology (ed. I. Niiniluoto, M. Sintonen and J. Wolenski; Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2004), 331–414; R. L. Kirkham, Theories of Truth: A Critical Introduction (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1992); W. Künne, Conceptions of Truth (Oxford: Clarendon, 2003); M. P. Lynch, The Nature of Truth: From the Classic to the Contemporary (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 2001); R. Schantz, ed., What is Truth? (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002); F. F. Schmitt, Truth: A Primer (Boulder, Co.: Westview, 1995); S. Soames, Understanding Truth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); D. Davidson, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984); idem, “The Structure and Content of Truth,” Journal of Philosophy 87 (1990): 279–328. 19. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth. 1
40
Psalms and Hebrews
say that a truth-bearer is true in and of itself. Many biblical scholars might opt for such an approach if they suggest that we should evaluate the truth-claims of Hebrews on its own terms and not from any evaluative point of view from outside, whether that of the psalmist or the reader asking the question. 2. A dyadic truth predicate is one that applies to its main subject only in reference to something else, a second subject. Most commonly, the auxiliary subject is either an object, an interpreter, or a language to which the representation bears some relation. In our own inquiry, the truth predicate obtains this format if we compare what the author of Hebrews claims with what the text of the psalm he is referring meant in its own context and then judge his arguments accordingly. 3. A triadic truth predicate is one that applies to its main subject only in reference to a second and a third subject. Here one has to specify both the object of the sign, and either its interpreter or another sign called the interpretant before one can say that the sign is true of its object to its interpreting agent or sign. If one opts for this perspective on the truth predicate in the question of whether Hebrews “is true,” then we not only have recourse to the texts of Hebrews and the Psalms, but ask whether what is said is the truth about the world from our own perspective. A consideration of these distinctions is useful when we discuss the various theories of truth. The same distinctions also complicate the application of the particular philosophical perspective, since our answer to the question regarding the meaning of truth in biblical truth-claims is not only dependent on a particular theory of truth, but also on a particular interpretation of the scope of the truth-predicate. In addition, there is the question of whether we can speak of only one type of truth applicable to all forms of discourse. Many biblical scholars in particular might argue that one cannot assess the truth of a religious text in the same way one would the truth of a scientic claim or a historical chronicle.20 If this is 20. Philosophers themselves wonder whether one might distinguish “types” of truth. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth, metaphysical subjectivism holds that the truth or falsity of all propositions depends, at least partly, on what we believe. In contrast, metaphysical objectivism holds that truths are independent of our beliefs. Except for propositions that are actually about our beliefs or sensations, what is true or false is independent of what we think is true or false. Moreover, relative truths are statements or propositions that are true only relative to some standard, convention, or point-of-view, such as that of one’s own culture. Many would agree that the truth or falsity of some statements is relative: Relativism is the doctrine that 1
GERICKE But is it True?
41
accepted, then a further clarication is warranted on the part of those evaluating the biblical data, otherwise the judgment might involve category mistakes as well as a number of fallacies of assumption and representation being committed. Another preliminary issue concerns determining the kinds of things one can call true or false in the rst place.21 Up till now we have been asking what we mean if we wonder whether Hebrews’ reading of the Psalms provide us with the truth—the question is whether the concept belong to this context at all. On the one hand, the answer seems to be yes, given that entities such as propositions, beliefs, arguments, and so on are relatively uncontroversial candidates, as well as the fact that they all feature in the biblical texts under consideration. However, can the application of modern criteria for evaluating truth-claims be quite so simple, particularly in view of the nature of the biblical conceptions of truth discussed earlier and given the difference between the hermeneutical assumptions underlying Hebrews’ reading of the Psalter and our own?
all truths within a particular domain (say, morality or aesthetics) are of this form, and entails that what is true varies across cultures and eras. For example, moral relativism is the view that a moral statement can be true in one time and place but false in another. This is different from the uncontroversial claim that people in different cultures and eras believe different things about morality. Relative truths can be contrasted with absolute truths. The existence of absolute truths is somewhat controversial, but is strongly asserted by universalism. Absolutism in a particular domain of thought is the view that all statements in that domain are either true in all times and places or false in all times and places: none is true for some cultures or eras while false for other cultures or eras. 21. According to http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm, although we do speak of true friends and false identities, philosophers believe these are derivative uses of “true” and “false.” More generally, philosophers want to know what sorts of things are true and what sorts of things are false. This same question is expressed by asking: What sorts of things have (or bear) truth-values? The term “truth-value” has been coined by logicians as a generic term for “truth or falsehood.” To ask for the truth-value of P, is to ask whether P is true or whether P is false. “Value” in “truthvalue” does not mean “valuable.” It is being used in a similar fashion to “numerical value” as when we say that the value of “x” in “x + 3 = 7” is 4. To ask “What is the truth-value of the statement that Montreal is north of Pittsburgh?” is to ask whether the statement that Montreal is north of Pittsburgh is true or whether it is false. (The truth-value of that specic statement is true.) There are many candidates for the sorts of things that can bear truth-values: statements, sentence types and tokens, propositions, theories, facts, assertions, utterances, beliefs, claims, opinions, doctrines, ideas, and so on. 1
42
Psalms and Hebrews
Finally, it should be remembered that in the context of philosophy, it is not even agreed that there is such a thing as truth to begin with. With regard to the ontology of the concept, philosopher Simon Blackburn discerns four distinct views currently on offer:22 First there is realism, the position that yes, indeed, there is such thing as truth, and yes, we can say something—in fact, a lot—about it. Typically, scientists tend to be realists, and realists are generally optimistic about science. The problem with at least some naïve versions of realism (so-called real realism) is that there is no coherent account of it. A second category that assumes the existence of ‘truth’ is what Blackburn labels “constructivism.” Constructivists would disagree that “truth” means the objective representation of an independent reality, but also disagree with claims that there is no such thing as truth in any sense of the word. Here theories of truth are considered functional, in that they might give us models that serve as useful ctions to navigate the world. The third perspective is a little less optimistic and is called “quietism.” Here lies deconstructionism, whose fundamental tenet is that nobody can provide a theory of truth because there is no neutral viewpoint one can adopt to stand outside personal or local truths (the above-mentioned lethal objection to real realism). Finally there is “eliminativism,” the rather radical idea that one simply should not think in terms of truth at all, because the concept is meaningless. Ultimately, our concern is not the ontology of truth, yet readers would do well to keep the plurality of opinion on this matter in mind since all judgments on the truth of Psalm interpretation in Hebrews must presuppose some or other ontology for which it will have to account in some way. With these preliminary thoughts behind us, we turn to a discussion of the theories themselves. The overview to follow is not exhaustive and does not deal with every theory of truth ever conceived. Moreover, its introductory nature means the presentation will not distinguish all the different versions of the particular view, even though virtually every theory is manifested by its proponents not as a unied and homogenous perspective, but comes to us as a cluster of views, the precise details of which vary in different times and in different contexts. Limitations on space mean that I must leave aside the more formal semantic and logic theories—such as axiomatic theories of truth, revisionary theories of truth, and identity theories of truth, and so on. I have also decided not to discuss the debate concerning the classication and naming of the various theories since many operate under more than one name and are located under different categories by different philosophers. But enough 22. S. Blackburn, Truth: A Guide (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). 1
GERICKE But is it True?
43
said about practicalities, it is now time to concern ourselves with what this study is all about in the rst place. In this regard, it is appropriate to distinguish two kinds of truth-theories, namely, substantive theories and deationist theories. These different views about truth will be discussed under these headings for the sake of clarity. Substantive theories. In this category we nd theories whose task is to specify the substantive characteristics possessed by all and only truths. The aim of these approaches is therefore to say what all truth statements share as being the essential, necessary and sufcient property for truthclaims. Correspondence theories.23 The correspondence theory is the “default” theory of truth. It is the one most people think is obvious. According to the correspondence theory, a claim is true if it corresponds to what is so (the “facts” or “reality”) and false if it does not correspond to what is so. An example of applying this theory to the Hebrews–Psalms relation (hereafter Hebrews and Psalms will be abbreviated to H and P respectively) would be to say the proposition x (where x is any interpretation) in H about a (where a is the quoted or alluded verse) in P is true if and only if in the reference of x in H corresponds to the reference of a in P. From a philosophical perspective, of course, the correspondence theory of truth is not without problems, and neither is its application to the H–P relation. The rst problem pertains to the naïve hermeneutical realism of the theory. Let us consider the idea of the meaning of x or a in H and P respectively. Before we decide whether x and a correspond in terms of reference, how do we know our interpretation of x (xi) corresponds to x as intended by the author of H (xH)? Moreover, how do we know our interpretation of a (ai) corresponds to a as intended by the author of P (aP)? After all, we can never compare x with xH or ai with aP—that is, we can never compare our interpretation of the text (the 23. M. David, “Don’t Forget About the Correspondence Theory of Truth,” in Lewisian Themes: The Philosophy of David K. Lewis (ed. F. Jackson and G. Priest; Oxford: Clarendon, 2004), 331–414; D. Davidson, “True to the Facts,” Journal of Philosophy 66 (1969): 748–64; G. Forbes, “Truth, Correspondence and Redundancy,” in Fact, Science and Morality: Essays on A. J. Ayer’s Language, Truth & Logic (ed. G. Macdonald and C. Wright; Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), 27–54; R. Fumerton, Realism and the Correspondence Theory of Truth (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littleeld, 2002); D. J. O’Connor, The Correspondence Theory of Truth (London: Hutchinson, 1975); G. Vision, Veritas: The Correspondence Theory and Its Critics (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 2004). For informative internet resources, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/. 1
44
Psalms and Hebrews
text as it appears) with the text’s own meaning (the text in itself).24 For, as soon as we attempt to make such a comparison, what is seen as the text itself is once more available to us only as an interpretation of the text.25 A second problem then arises concerning the question of what has to correspond for us to be able to answer the question of truth afrmatively. Is the correspondence to be demonstrated limited to verbal or semantic isomorphisms between x and a in H and P respectively? Or should a in P and x in H themselves also correspond to actual reality (some extratextual state of affairs, whatever that is). For even if x = a, both might have no correspondence to any extra-textual state of affairs, meaning that even if x in H tells the truth about a in P, either x in H or a in P (or both) might not have any extra-textual world in which they are instantiated. This would mean that x in H may be true with reference to a in P, yet still false with reference to what is actually the case in the extra-textual world about which H and P are presumably making claims. But the problem is greater—for the rst problem discussed above again arises in as much as the supposed extra-textual state of affairs that we have any consciousness of would again be little more than our interpretation of it. So, one only ends up comparing interpretations of texts with interpretations of other texts and extra-textual realities, meaning at best that a 24. This is in effect the hermeneutical version of Kant’s critique of metaphysics and the transcendental pretensions. For more on this and the noumenon/phenomenon distinction, see M. Grier, “Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition) (ed. Edward N. Zalta), http://plato. stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/kant-metaphysics/. 25. The same problem concerns the constraints of context, be this intra-, inter- or extra-textual context. We have no access to any of these contexts per se, only to our interpretations and constructions of these contexts. Reading a text in context therefore not only involves access solely to an interpretation of the text rather than the text itself, it also involves access to that text only via a constructed context rather than a context supposedly given. This does not mean that there is no meaning, that all interpretations are equally true or false or that the reality itself is constructed. It only means that, whatever the meaning, interpretation and reality of the text is—we will never know it or verify our claims about it other than by way of interpretation and construction, the correspondence of which to the actual state of affairs (which itself needs to be dened in terms of what we mean by this) cannot be veried absolutely. These considerations suggest that those assuming a correspondence view of truth face the problem that interpretation is endless and that all contextual constraints are self-imposed constructs. This means that it will be impossible to demonstrate that in attempting to determine the correspondence between texts (or the lack thereof), one might not be able to prove that what is shown to correspond (or not) is in fact the texts themselves. 1
GERICKE But is it True?
45
correspondence of interpretations might be demonstrated without ever being able to show that the interpretations themselves correspond to what is being interpreted in the rst place.26 Coherence theories.27 According to the stereotypical version of coherence theories of truth, a statement is true if it is logically consistent with other beliefs that are held (known) to be true. And since a belief is assumed to be false if it is inconsistent with (contradicts) other beliefs that are believed to be true,28 we are advised to doubt claims that are inconsistent with the rest of our presumably true beliefs. In general, coherence theory therefore sees truth as coherence between some specied sets of sentences, propositions or beliefs—truth is said to require a proper t of elements within the whole belief system. 26. On the other hand, it might be argued that the reason why the correspondence theory seems correct on prima facie evaluation is that it is (but to what, then, does it correspond?). This means that the above remarks showing we only have our interpretation of things and never the things themselves does not mean there is no truth about the text or that the true interpretation is not what corresponds to the text per se. In other words, what we learn is not that there is no truth or that truth is not correspondence. Rather, our lack of access to the things themselves merely shows our own inability to know and verify truth claims absolutely. That means the critique of the correspondence theory, with its assumption of the distinction yet isomorphism between x and the interpretation of x as truth-condition, is ultimately a devastating blow not to correspondence theory, but to our epistemological capabilities. Hence the post-modern dictum that there is only interpretation or appearances and no facts and reality is correct only in terms of what we have access to that can be veried. It is wrong, however, to dismiss reality and facts simply because we cannot know or prove our interpretation absolutely. Something is being interpreted and something appears in some way. Just because we can never show our representations to correspond to an objective state of affairs does not mean that there is no such state of affairs (there must be since something is being represented). It simply shows that we can never prove the correspondence of the representation and the state of affairs. If this is the case, then the problem lies with epistemological optimism, not with the correspondence theory itself. 27. N. Rescher, The Coherence Theory of Truth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973); B. Russell, “On the Nature of Truth,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 7 (1907): 228–49; P. Thagard, “Coherence, Truth and the Development of Scientic Knowledge,” Philosophy of Science 74 (2007): 26–47; R. C. S. Walker, The Coherence Theory of Truth: Realism, Anti-realism, Idealism (London: Routledge, 1989), and “The Coherence Theory of Truth: Realism, Anti-realism, Idealism,” Synthese 103 (1997): 279–302; J. O. Young, Global Anti-realism (Aldershot: Avebury, 1995), and idem, “A Defence of the Coherence Theory of Truth,” Journal of Philosophical Research 26 (2001): 89–101. 28. A. R. White, “Coherence Theory of Truth,” in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 2 (New York: Macmillan, 1969), 130–31. 1
46
Psalms and Hebrews
According to the stereotypical version of this theory, then, x in H is true if and only if it logically coheres with other propositions in the belief system. Of course, one problem emerging from such a formulation concerns the system itself—what is it and what are its boundaries? Is the belief system we are talking about the set of beliefs in the Letter to the Hebrews, the set of beliefs in the mind of the author, the set of beliefs in the mind of the reader, the set of beliefs in the specic Psalm quoted, of what? All of these might be contested. And yet, unless we can specic the belief-set, how are we to determine the truth of the text or to assess truth claims about it? A second problem with a coherency view is that a belief can be consistent with all our other personal or popularly accepted beliefs and yet have no independent supporting evidence.29 For example, many metaphysical beliefs are consistent with all imaginable states of affairs (e.g. “the universe came into existence ve minutes ago complete with historical records and memories”). The problem for a coherence theory of truth, then, is not only to identify the belief set in question, but also the fact that such specication and the resulting possession of a coherent system simply means the absence of inconsistencies, not necessarily of falsities. If it is true that a system can be coherent and false, coherency cannot be a standard criterion for ascertaining actual truthfulness. Pragmatic theories.30 Pragmatic theories of truth are those accounts, denitions, and perspectives on the concept truth typied by the philosophies of pragmatism and pragmaticism. They can be said to involve a combination of correspondence and coherency theories yet differ radically with regard to what the representation–reality–relation is all about. Basically, according to the pragmatic theory, a statement is true if it allows you to interact effectively and efciently with the reality you are dealing with. The less true a belief is, the less it facilitates such interaction. A belief is false if it facilitates no interaction. If more than one belief makes allowance for interaction with the world then both are “true” (i.e. both “work”). In the context of Hebrews’ interpretation of the Psalms, proponents of this theory might consider the New Testament text to be truth if it “worked.” 29. Cf. the section on critique at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/. 30. For primary literature, see C. S. Peirce, “What Pragmatism Is,” The Monist 15 (1905): 161–81; idem, “Basis of Pragmaticism” (1906), rst published in Collected Papers, CP 1:573–74 and 5:549–54. For a more recent popular defence of the theory, see R. Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979). For a general introduction to the theory, its ideas and history, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth. 1
GERICKE But is it True?
47
The rst problem is similar to the one discussed with reference to the coherence and correspondence theories. In asking whether H’s interpretation (x) of a in P is true, what are we in fact asking and what is supposed to work for whom in relation to what else? H’s beliefs in x about a in P for his own religious purposes? H’s beliefs in x about a in P for the author of a in P? H’s beliefs in x about a in P for us? Our own beliefs about a in P for us? Our own beliefs about x in H for us? And what if H’s reading x of a in P does work for H but not for P or us (or vice versa)? Can x in H be both true and false at the same time? Another problem arises even if we limit pragmatics to the author of Hebrews himself. An example here would be the author of H’s belief x that the text a in P is referring to Jesus. According to this theory, H’s claim in x that P in a says x is true if it makes H’s life-world (Umwelt) more predictable and thus easier to live in. Of course, the problem is that sometimes false beliefs “work,” yet are discovered not to be true even though it might be convenient to believe them. H might believe something about Christ and enlist words from a in P for scriptural support— and even if the reading works for H and just so happens also to be the meaning intended by P, the mere argument that because a is useful for H it must be identical to a in P is still a fallacy. In this case the argument would be true but invalid. Deationary theories.31 This is the second cluster or group of truth theories vis-à-vis the substantive one discussed thus far. Deationary theories can be said to hold in common that the predicate “true” is an expressive convenience, not the name of a property requiring deep analysis. Once we have identied the truth predicate’s formal features and utility, deationists argue, we have said all there is to be said about truth. The various deationary theories tend to be mostly concerned with 31. B. Armour-Garb, “Deationism and the Meaningless Strategy,” Analysis 61, no. 4 (2001): 280–89; B. Armour-Garb and J. C. Beall, eds., Deationary Truth (Chicago and La Salle: Open Court, 2005), B. Armour-Garb and J. C. Beall, eds., Deationism and Paradox (Oxford: Clarendon, 2006); R. Cartwright, “A Neglected Theory of Truth,” in Philosophical Essays (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1987); H. Field, “The Deationary Conception of Truth,” in MacDonald and Wright, eds., Fact, Science and Morality, 55–117; idem, “Deationist Views of Meaning and Content,” Mind 103, no. 411 (1994): 249–84; idem, “Deating the Conservativeness Argument,” Journal of Philosophy 96 (1999): 533–40; A. Gupta, “A Critique of Deationism,” Philosophical Topics 21 (1993): 57–81; M. McGrath, Between Deationism and Correspondence (New York: Garland, 2001); M. Williams, “Meaning and Deationary Truth,” Journal of Philosophy 96 (1999): 545–64. For a good introduction in an electronic resource, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ truth-deationary/. 1
48
Psalms and Hebrews
technical semantic and formal logical issues, meaning that its claims may seem unnecessary pedantic to some. Moreover, they come in many varieties, most of which overlap to a considerable extent, meaning that the differences between the various forms of deationism are often more a matter of nuance than of substance: 1. According to the redundancy theory of truth, or the disquotational theory of truth,32 asserting that a statement x in H is true is completely equivalent to asserting the statement itself. According to this view, “truth” is a mere word that is conventional to use in certain contexts of discourse, but not a word pointing to anything in reality. The use of such words as fact and truth was nothing but a roundabout way of asserting a proposition so that treating these words as separate problems in isolation from judgment was merely a “linguistic muddle,” though there remains some debate as to the correct interpretation of this position. Hence, this particular version of deationism is commonly referred to as the redundancy theory. Most predicates attribute properties to their subjects, but the redundancy theory denies that the predicate is true does so. Instead, it treats the predicate is true as empty, adding nothing to an assertion except to convert its meaning to its use. That is, the predicate “is true” in “H says x” merely asserts the proposition contained in the sentential clause (H says x) to which it is applied, but does not ascribe any additional property to that proposition or sentence. A variant of redundancy theory is the disquotational theory which uses a modied form of Tarski’s schema:33 To say that “ ‘H’ is true” is simply to assert H says x. 2. The Performative Theory is a deationary theory that is not a redundancy theory. The Performative Theory of Truth argues that ascribing truth to a proposition x in H is not really characterizing the proposition itself, nor is it saying something redundant. Rather, it is telling us something about the reader’s intentions. The reader—through his or her agreeing with it, endorsing it, praising it, accepting it, or perhaps conceding it—is licensing our adoption of (the belief in) the proposition. Instead of saying, “What H says in x is true,” one could substitute “I 32. H. Field, “Disquotational Truth and Factually Defective Discourse,” Philosophical Review 103 (1994): 405–52. 33. A. Tarski, “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4 (1944); idem, “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages,” in Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics (New York: Clarendon, 1956). 1
GERICKE But is it True?
49
embrace the claim H makes in x.” The key idea is that saying of some proposition, x in H, that it is true is to say in a disguised fashion “I commend x to you,” or “I endorse x,” or something of the sort. 3. The Prosentential Theory of Truth34 suggests that the grammatical predicate “is true” does not function semantically or logically as a predicate. All uses of “is true” are prosentential uses, that is, they are substitutes afrming that something was said. When someone asserts “What H says in x is true,” the person is asking the hearer to consider the sentence “H says x,” while saying that “x is true” is simply afrmation of and substitution for the sentence “H said x.” 4. Then there is the view known as the Minimalist Theory,35 which takes the primary truth-bearing entities to be propositions, rather than sentences. According to the minimalist view, then, truth is indeed a property of propositions (or sentences, as the case may be), but it is so minimal and anomalous a property that it cannot be said to provide us with any useful information about or insight into the nature of truth. It is fundamentally nothing more than a sort of meta-linguistic property. Another way of formulating the minimalist thesis is to assert that the conjunction of all of the instances of the following schema, “The proposition that H(x) is true if and only if x,” provides an implicit denition of the property of truth. Each such instance is an axiom of the theory and there are an innite number of such instances (one for every actual or possible proposition in the universe). Our concept of truth consists of nothing more than a disposition to assent to all of the instances of the above schema when we encounter them. Our concern to this point has been only with what the deationary theory is. In the remainder of this section I will consider ve of the many possible objections36 that might be forthcoming were we to adopt a deationist perspective in response to our initial question on the truth of Hebrews in its interpretation of the Psalter 34. S. Grover, A Prosentential Theory of Truth (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). 35. P. Horwich, Truth (2d ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1998). 36. This particular list represents an adaptation of D. Stoljar and Nic Damnjanovic, “The Deationary Theory of Truth,” in Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). See http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/ entries/truth-deationary/. 1
50
Psalms and Hebrews
1. Above we saw that deationism can be presented in either a sententialist or a propositionalist version. Some philosophers have suggested, however, that the choice between these two versions constitutes a dilemma for deationism. The objection is that if deationism about the truth-status of x in H about a in P is construed in accordance with propositionalism, then it is trivial, while if it is construed in accordance with sententialism it is false. 2. It is often objected that deationism has particular trouble meeting adequacy conditions. One way to bring out the problem here is by focusing on a particular articulation of the correspondence intuition, an articulation favoured by deationists themselves. According to this way of spelling it out, the intuition that a certain sentence or proposition x in H “corresponds to the facts” about a in P is the intuition that the sentence or proposition is true because of a certain way the world is; that is, the truth of the proposition is explained by some contingent fact which is usually external to the proposition itself. 3. Philosophy of language has isolated a class of propositions that are supposed to “fail” when their truth-value is considered. According to some moral philosophers, for example, moral, interpretative and religious propositions—such as the claim that x in H is right in interpreting a in P—are neither true nor false. This view nds a gap in the class of propositions between those that are true and those that are false. The deationary theory of truth is inconsistent with there being a gap in the class of propositions, and this has been taken by many to be an objection to the theory. 4. It is commonly said that the beliefs and associations of H and aim at truth. The idea here, of course, is not that H’s beliefs and assertions are always true in a statistical sense, or even that they are mostly true. The idea is rather that truth is a norm of assertion. This fact about assertion and truth has often been seen to suggest that deationism must be false. However, the felt contradiction between normativity and deationism is difcult to specify. 5. The nal objection begins by drawing attention to a little-known doctrine about truth that G. E. Moore held at the beginning of the century (masterfully formulated in his so-called Open Question Argument with reference to the impossibility of dening the primitive and simple concepts such as “Good” without begging the question). By analogy, no matter what denition one might put forward for “Truth” with reference to H’s view expressed in x about the meaning of a in P, it is always possible to ask, “But is that true?” 1
GERICKE But is it True?
51
Conclusion If anything was accomplished in this study, hopefully it involved demonstrating that asking whether the interpretation of Psalms in Hebrews is “true” from a philosophical perspective is far more complicated than common-sense realist populist notions of truth seem to imply. Thus we saw that analytic philosophers might be justied in answering the question of whether what Hebrews did with (or to) the Psalter is true with the counter-question of what the person asking understands by—or means by—the concept of truth. No doubt the biblical authors from both Psalms and Hebrews were convinced of the truth of their own writings and no doubt most scholars have made up their minds with regard to their convictions on the matter. And yet, if there is one thing that might be worth considering in evaluative assessments of psalm interpretation in Hebrews, it would be whether, when we think of the data as true or false, we have given enough thought to the nature of truth. There is no need, however, for biblical scholars to strive to provide answers that have evaded philosophers over the centuries; rather, what they should learn from philosophical investigations is that sometimes in the interpretation of texts the most thought provoking ideas come not from providing nal answers but from asking ultimate questions.
1
A GOD ABOUNDING IN STEADFAST LOVE: PSALMS AND HEBREWS Alphonso Groenewald
Introduction The document known as the Epistle to the Hebrews is one of the most elegant and sophisticated—perhaps even the most enigmatic—texts of rst-century Christianity. Its author is unknown.1 The circumstances of its composition remain shrouded in a cloud of mystery.2 Its argumentation is subtle, its language rened, and its imagery rich and evocative. It is an outstanding example of the art of persuasion. The text is an elaborate early Christian homily which was probably composed to encourage a community to remain faithful to its commitments.3 In order to achieve this, the book sketches an elaborate portrait of Christ as the true High Priest. It furthermore focuses on the ultimate paradigm of commitment to God. Christ’s willing acceptance of the will of God earned him a place at God’s right hand. This illustrated to his followers what they had to do in order to become part of the promised covenant.4 1. Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 1–6. Cf. also Frederick F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), xxxv–xlii. 2. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 6ff. In this regard Kiwoong Son (Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18–24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle [Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Milton Keynes: Paternoster], 3) infers as follows: “The epistle to the Hebrews is enigmatic like the mysterious gure Melchizedek whose origin and genealogy are completely unknown… Not only the historical facts of the epistle but also some of its theological issues are highly controversial.” 3. Jeremy Punt, “Hebrews, Thought-Patterns and Context: Aspects of the Background of Hebrews,” Neot 31 (1997): 119–58. 4. Harold W. Attridge, “Giving Voice to Jesus: Use of the Psalms in the New Testament,” in Psalms in Community: Jewish and Christian Textual, Liturgical, and Artistic Tradition (ed. H. W. Attridge and M. E. Fassler; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 101–12. 1
GROENEWALD A God Abounding in Steadfast Love
53
The Christology of the text of Hebrews develops largely through exposition of scripture.5 The scripture this book interprets is certainly a Greek form of the Old Testament.6 In this regard Guthrie7 makes the following important remark: “Of all the topics in which scholarship has made strides on Hebrew research during the past quarter century, there is, perhaps, none more important than that book’s uses of the Old Testament.” The book of Hebrews is replete with quotations, allusions, echoes and general references from the Old Testament. Hebrews packs more of the Old Testament into its complex discourse than any other New Testament writing. Perhaps the one exception is Revelations, which handles the Jewish scriptures quite differently. It can simply be stated that the way in which Hebrews uses the Old Testament forms the book’s nucleus. In the Old Testament we nd the basis of authority, tools for rhetoric and exhortation, materials for building a structural framework, a wellspring for theology and, more specically, both a professed anticipation and a validation of the book’s Christology.8 In spite of what has hitherto been said, it seems that an exact inventory of Old Testament references in Hebrews has eluded any form of consensus, due to the author’s mix of direct quotations, allusions to specic passages, uses of biblical phrases and general references to Old Testament historical events and persons.9 What furthermore complicates this matter is the bewildering use of terminology regarding the appropriation of the Old Testament by the New Testament in the secondary literature. In terms of the book’s employment of different parts of the scriptures, the author of Hebrews depends most heavily on the Pentateuch and the 5. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 23. Cf. also Richard T. France, “The Writer of Hebrews as a Biblical Expositor,” TynBul 47 (1996): 245–76. 6. In this regard Attridge (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 23) infers as follows: “Although a Greek text of the Old Testament is certainly the source of Hebrews’ citations, the wording of these citations in many cases does not conform in every detail to any extant witnesses to the Septuagint. The fact has occasionally led to unwarranted speculation that our author used also, or primarily, a Hebrew text. That rst-century texts of the Greek Old Testament should show minor variations from witnesses to the Septuagint from the fourth century is hardly surprising. It is also clear that our author felt free to alter the words of scripture, and some of the differences between Hebrews’ citations and witnesses to the Septuagint may be due to tendentious handling of the text.” See also George Howard, “Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations,” NovT 10 (1968): 208–16. 7. George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research,” CBR 1 (2003): 271–94. 8. Ibid., 272. 9. Stephen Motyer, “The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-free Zone?,” TynBul 50 (1999): 3–22 (7). 1
54
Psalms and Hebrews
Psalms.10 The former (Pentateuch), for the most part, offers him material for reection on redemptive history, while the Psalms provide for his christological material. The book of Hebrews resonates with the Psalms.11 The great debt of the book of Hebrews to the Old Testament is not simply a matter of general background and copious quotation, but it also extends to fundamental Old Testament ways of thinking which are constantly presupposed and which underlie all passages in the book.12 The present study will argue that the concept of 5DI (Üesed, “faithfulness, kindness, grace, steadfast love, solidarity, etc.”) is one of those.13 The book of Hebrews is not unique in the way it pays debt to this Old Testament concept, but is a particularly striking example of its application as it was intrinsic to its whole outlook on the Christian faith.14 According to the Hebrew Scriptures, God revealed himself to his people at Sinai. He made known his nature to them. In the subsequent section, I will deal with the Psalms, and specically with a few of the references made in the Psalter to this Sinai revelation. This exposition will be followed by a short overview of this specic text in the Pentateuch. I will then conclude this study by indicating a possible inuence these texts had on the book of Hebrews. A God Revealed at Sinai Israel’s denition as well as understanding of God were put to words in liturgical formulas which were formulated in a very condensed and concise manner.15 According to Zobel,16 we encounter the oldest of these 10. Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament,” 274. 11. Harold W. Attridge, “The Psalms in Hebrews,” in The Psalms in the New Testament (ed. S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 197–212. 12. Geoffrey W. Grogan, “The Old Testament Concept of Solidarity in Hebrews,” TynBul 49 (1998): 159–73. Cf. also Punt (“Hebrews, Thought-Patterns and Context,” 144–45): “Hebrews gives clear evidence of its interpretation of the meaning of Christ for its particular day and age, and environment. In the attempt to articulate this, Hebrews gives testimony of utilising a number of traditions, wittingly and unwittingly.” 13. France (“The Writer of Hebrews,” 246) postulates as follows: “What is more distinctive of Hebrews is the way its whole argumentation is focused around a succession of Old Testament themes and gures…” Cf. also Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 23. 14. Grogan, “The Old Testament Concept,” 173. 15. Hans-Jürgen Zobel, “esed,” TDOT 5:57. 16. Ibid. 1
GROENEWALD A God Abounding in Steadfast Love
55
formulas in Exod 34, which is a review of the Decalogue. This confession of faith about Yahweh, probably a very ancient one, had been connected with Israel’s oldest perceptions of Yahweh and his relationship to those he claimed to be his people.17 This confession may have been rened, and even expanded, by the addition of supplementary phrases in the use of it in both narrative summary and liturgy; but its beginning may be assumed to be quite old, at least as old as the early development of the use of the name “Yahweh” for confessional purposes. The Yahweh predication in v. 6 reads as follows: Yahweh is )HIC = E> H 5DI3CH )JA (C *H?IH (“El merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness”). Here, as Yahweh reveals himself, his name and his character to Moses, he states among his attributes that he is E> H 5DI3CH (“abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness”).18 Yahweh’s self-revelation (Exod 34:6–7) is set in the aftermath of the episode of the golden calf (Exod 32) and precedes the renewal of the covenant.19 The expression occurs in a particularly solemn context, coming from the mouth of Yahweh himself in the course of the theophany, and the prexed 3C emphasizes both the solemnity of the occasion and the abundance of the E> H 5DI that Yahweh is lavishing on his wayward people.20
17. John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), 454. 18. Cf. the following remark by Cornelis Houtman, Exodus 20–40 (HCOT; Kampen: Kok, 1996), 3:685: “Door de opsomming van min of meer synonieme termen komt het karakter van JHWH zeer duidelijk uit de verf: zijn doen en laten wordt gekenmerkt door buitengewone toewijding, inzet en liefde.” Cf. also Erich Zenger, Das Buch Exodus (Geistliche Schriftlesung; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1982), 244ff. 19. Cf. in this regard Ruth Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn. Die Gottesprädikationen in Exodus 34,6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch (HBS 33; Freiburg: Herder, 2002), 89–90: “Zwischen den (nicht ausdrücklich im Text so genannten) Polen von Bundesbruch und Bundeserneuerung entfaltet sich das dramatische Geschehen. Eingebunden sind darin Elemente komplexer theologischer Reexion zu Fragen der Gegenwart und Erfahrbahrkeit Gottes. Vorrangiges Thema der Kapitel ist das Ringen um den weiteren Bestand und die Gestalt der Beziehung zwischen JHWH und Israel nach der existenzbedrohenden Krise, die die Episode mit dem goldenen Kalb auslöste. Durch die Krise klären sich die Identitäten aller Beteiligten und ihrer Beziehung… Der erneuerte Bund gründet in Gottes schöpferischer Barmherzigkeit und Vergebung (Ex 34,10), deren erstes Zeichen das strahlende Mosegesicht ist.” 20. Gordon R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 157; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1993), 247–48. 1
56
Psalms and Hebrews
The confession that follows the double calling of Yahweh’s name is clearly reected in eight Old Testament passages.21 Three of them are in the Psalms, namely Pss 86:15, 103:8 and 145:8, with one each in Num 14:18; Joel 2:13; Nah 1:3; Neh 9:17 and Jon 4:2. A word for word repetition of this formula occurs in Ps 86:15, as well as in Ps 103:8 (though without = and E> ).22 This formula furthermore occurs—though with a minor change in the word order and with the omission of one of the constituent parts—in Ps 145:8. The focus will therefore only be placed on the three above-mentioned psalms in which this formula occurs. Psalm 86:15 The specic prole of Ps 86 can be dened as follows: a detailed analysis of the text of Ps 86 with regard to its intertextuality reveals that this psalm is an artistic relecture of already existing texts.23 The skilful intertextuality of the text presupposes an intensive familiarity with the tradition, or with the texts incorporated, and literary-poetic competence, so that the psalm may well have originated in the milieu of scribal scholarship (“Schriftgelehrsamkeit”).24 The creativity of the author of Ps 86 is demonstrated in the fact that, on the one hand, he has combined conventionalized Psalmic language in such a way that Ps 86 appears as a summary of the “Davidic” Psalms; especially the partial compositions of Pss 40–41 and 69–71(72), which conclude the two “Davidic Psalters,” Pss 3–41 and 51–71(72), and on the other hand, by adopting the Sinai theology of Exod 33–34, he gives the psalm an overall horizon that then acquires further dimensions of meaning in the context of the Psalter.25 Psalm 86, which in terms of genre criticism can be classied as a petition, is constantly shaped as a “thou”-address to God. In God the supplicant seeks the saving and consoling nearness—referring to God’s self-revelation at Sinai. To that extent one can assert that this psalm is at 21. Durham, Exodus, 453. Cf. also Christoph Dohmen, Exodus 19–40 (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2004), 354; Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus (Interpretation; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1991), 302; Houtman, Exodus 20–40, 685; and Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn, 1. 22. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150: A Commentary (trans. Hilton C Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 292, and Zobel, “Üesed,” 5:57. Cf. also Gunild Brunert, Psalm 102 im Kontext des Vierten Psalmenbuches (SBB 30; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996), 142. 23. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalmen 51–100 (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 536. 24. Ibid., 539. 25. Ibid., 537. 1
GROENEWALD A God Abounding in Steadfast Love
57
the same time a prayer clothed in Sinai theology, as well as a realized theology of prayer.26 This means that the psalm asks for rescue from hostile powers so that in and through that rescue the “nature” of Yahweh, formulated in the predicates, that is the mystery of his “name,” will be revealed. I will focus specically on v. 15 since a word-for-word repetition of the Exodus formula occurs here. This verse reads as follows: “But you are my Lord, you are a merciful and gracious God (El), slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (*H?IH )HIC= J?5 9E H E> H 5DI3CH )JA (C ). In this verse the petitioner appeals precisely to this specic “divine prole” of the God of Sinai, and to the nature of Yahweh thus revealed. Important is the fact that he reminds his God, with a quotation from Exod 34:6, of his godhead, proclaimed by himself and experienced by Israel in the narrative of its origins. Israel was rescued from its misery in Egypt, and was not rejected by its God in spite of its rebellion in the wilderness and its breaking of the covenant of Sinai, but was accepted forever as Yahweh’s own people, due to these very characteristics which v. 15 recalls by citation. Yahweh is “merciful”: he recognizes suffering as suffering and allows himself to be moved by it. “Gracious”: as one powerful and of high position, he bends down protectively, shows mercy, and cares for those in misery. “Slow to anger”: he is patient and generous. And “abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness”: his love is not only inexhaustible, but reliable and indestructible. In the text of Ps 86 the petitioner now asks for himself as an individual a demonstration of this godhead of Yahweh, revealed in the history of the people of Israel—and in such a way that his enemies may see that God is on his side, and that they are thereby publicly “shamed,” that is, exposed and disempowered. It can be concluded by stating that Ps 86 is rich theology composed in the form of a prayer. Psalm 103:8 27 Psalm 103 is the rst in a group of psalms of praise, namely Pss 103– 107.28 This psalm can be classied as a hymn praising Yahweh’s kingship, which was revealed at Sinai.29 Yahweh is worthy of a total response of grateful worship for the totality of his blessings. All the blessings and 26. Ibid., 538. 27. This verse reads as follows: “Yahweh is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love” (5DI3CH )JA (C 9H9J *H?IH )HIC). This without = and E> . 28. Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150 (WBC 21; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983), 21. 29. Erich Zenger, Die Nacht wird leuchten wie der Tag. Psalmenauslegungen (Freiburg: Herder, 1997), 417. 1
58
Psalms and Hebrews
benets listed in this text are in accordance with the age-old divine revelation. They are a creed come true. Yahweh had always been the answer to his people’s needs. Hymnic motifs are thus heard which glorify Yahweh’s wonderful rule in the history of his chosen people in a most comprehensive way.30 The content of his “transcendent name” (v. 1) had once and for all been revealed in the propositional statement of Exod 34:6. Moses, in response to his plea (Exod 33:13), had received as Israel’s representative a denition of the divine name in terms of Yahweh’s gracious attitude towards his covenant people.31 This text of Ps 103 constantly has as interplay the text of the Sinai account (Exod 19–34), which is here indicated as a “new covenant,” that is, a “covenant of constant renewal.” We also have this perspective in the nal text of Exod 19–34 on a canonical level.32 What is this loyal love, this 5DI? How does Ps 103 dene it? The psalmist expounds its signicance in the course of vv. 9–18.33 Verses 9– 12 outline how the charitableness of God toward his own predominates and eventually bids him to give up the charges he might have pressed against them. God thus forgives the iniquities of his own completely. Verses 13–18 aptly dene this divine 5DI in terms of God’s pardoning love. These statements about the goodness and forgiveness of Yahweh reach their culmination in the image chosen in v. 13, where the tertium comparationis is the merciful love of a father.34 It is the nature of the father of the covenant to welcome back his errant son (cf. Exod 4:22; Jer 31:20; Hos 11:1, 3, 4). Psalm 145:835 With regards to its form, Ps 145 is an acrostic poem in which each bicolon begins with the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet.36 This poetic technique does not only ease the memorization of the text, but indeed 30. Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 290. 31. Cf. in this regard Dohmen, Exodus 19–49, 359: “Den Kerngedanken dieser Kapitel (Exod 33–34) bringt Ps 103 in eine Gebetsform und zitiert Exod 34,6 sogar. Mann kann diesen Psalm als ins Gebet gefasste Zinaitheologie beschreiben, wobei der Schwerpunkt deutlich auf das Motiv der göttlichen Barmherzigkeit und Vergebungsbereitschaft gelegt wird.” 32. Zenger, Die Nacht wird leuchten, 417. 33. Allen, Psalms 101–150, 22. 34. Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 292. 35. This verse reads as follows: 5DI=58H )JA (C 9H9J )HICH *H?I (“Yahweh is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love”). 36. Allen, Psalms 101–150, 294. 1
GROENEWALD A God Abounding in Steadfast Love
59
fulls a theological programme.37 It gives expression to the fact that the kingship of God will be praised from “A to Z,” that is to say in abundance in space and time. It can be said that Ps 145 is a solo hymn of exuberant praise to appreciate Yahweh’s kingship.38 In terms of standard genres, it can be classied as a hymn. The motifs of Yahweh’s majesty and grace alternate with repeated calls for praise. The poet willingly regards himself as a link in this living chain of worship of Yahweh the king, great and mighty, who is good to all. Like every monarch worthy of the name, he cares for the subjects in his realm. The creedal statement cited in v. 8 (cf. Exod 34:6), a favourite text of post-exilic Judeans, is used to summarize his constant goodness. His love, goodness and might are made known in the fact that he— who was revealed as the merciful God of Sinai—is willing to forgive. 39 Furthermore, he is the Creator God who is willing to uphold all who are falling and he raises up all who are bowed down (145:14). The fact that =< (“all, totality”) occurs 16 times in the text indicates the totality of God’s reign.40 In the subsequent section the focus will be on the text of Exod 34:6, which served as the pre-text for the preceding above-mentioned psalms. Exodus 34:6 Exodus 34 should be read against the background of the Sinai narrative, which is narrated in Exod 19–34. It seems to be integrally related to chs. 19–24, and indeed to the entire Sinai tradition.41 On the nal
37. Erich Zenger, Dein Angesicht suche ich. Neue Psalmenauslegungen (Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 171. 38. Allen, Psalms 101–150, 297. 39. Zenger, Dein Angesicht suche ich, 170. 40. Zenger (ibid., 172) infers as follows in this regard: “Der Psalm will eine Theologie des Gottesreichs entfalten—und dies in der diesem Thema einzig angemessenen Form des hymnischen Lobpreises ‘auf ewig und immer.’ Mit diesem Psalm will der Beter (im Sinne der Psalterredaktion ist es ‘David’: vgl. V.1a) sich einerseits einfügen in den Lobpreis des Weltkönigtums JHWHs, der (wie der Psalm dann erläutert) immer schon durch die Werke des Schöpfer- und Geschichtsgottes erklingt—allein dadurch daß und wie sie sind (Perspektive: ‘das Werk lobt seinen Meister’). Andererseits will sich der Psalmsänger zum Stimmführer der Lobgesänge machen, in der er ‘alles Fleisch’ (vgl. V.21) mitreißen will und die nie verstummen sollen, weil auch das zu feiernde Königswirken JHWHs nie zu Ende geht.” 41. In this regard Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 281, infers as follows: “Nach dem gewaltigen zweiten Block (Ex 25–31) im zweiten Teil des Exodusbuches (Exod 19– 40), der insgesamt eine Gottesrede darstellt, wird mit Ex 32–34 (bzw. mit Exod 31,18) die Erzählung von Ex 24 fortgesetzt. Wie schon im Zusammenhang mit dem 1
60
Psalms and Hebrews
text’s canonical level, the perspective of these chapters can be summarized with the term “new covenant,” which implies a “covenant of constant renewal.”42 We discern the following three phases in these chapters: (1) covenant agreement on the basis of the Decalogue and the so-called Covenant Code (Exod 19–24); (2) breaking of the covenant as a result of the worship of the golden calf (Exod 32); (3) and renewal of the covenant (Exod 33–34). Chapter 34 is thus built into the pattern of sin and forgiveness by joining it to chs. 32 and 33. It is thus transformed into a renewal of the broken covenant and forms the climax of the narrative which began in ch. 32 with the story of the golden calf.43 Chapter 32 relates the breaking of the covenant, while ch. 34 recounts its restoration. Chapter 33 bridges the two parts of the narrative with an account of Moses’ intercession, which nally achieved the healing of the breach.44 It seems clear that a blending of earlier traditions dealing with separate themes had here been accomplished deliberately and in a masterly style. Exodus 34 is one of the most difcult chapters to analyse and opinions differ widely on its interpretation.45 The burning issue—which will however not be addressed in the present study, as it falls outside of the immediate focus—turns out to be the issue of the relation of the Decalogue in Exod 20 with the laws of ch. 34.46 Furthermore, the present narrative gives evidence of tensions in the details of the story. Once again, this is not the focus of the present study. In ch. 34 Moses is commanded to cut two tablets of stone that were like the rst ones, which he had broken.47 The explicit mentioning of the rst tablets ties ch. 34 closely to the golden calf incident. But, whereas the rst time God himself provided the tablets, this time Moses is ordered to bring with him the tablets on which God is to write. It is emphasised that God himself would write on the tablets, and he would write the same words that were on the former tablets. This promise was the concrete
Tafelmotiv…gesehen, verbindet den ersten Block der Sinaitheophanie (Ex 19–24) und den dritten (Exod 32–34) ein durchlaufender Erzählfaden. Gleichzeitig stehen sich beide Teile gegenüber, was schon die ersten, dann zerbrochener Tafeln und die daraufhin erneuerten, zweiten Tafeln verdeutlichen.” Cf. also Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn, 85. 42. Zenger, Die Nacht wird leuchten, 417. 43. Durham, Exodus, 451. 44. Brevard S. Childs, Exodus (3d ed.; OTL; London: SCM, 1979), 611. 45. Ibid., 604. 46. Ibid., 605. 47. Ibid., 611; Durham, Exodus, 451. 1
GROENEWALD A God Abounding in Steadfast Love
61
sign that Israel had been forgiven and the relationship had been restored on the part of God.48 The description of the preparation and execution of the instructions followed by the theophany is reminiscent of elements in ch. 19 both in its specic vocabulary and general description. In the morning Moses alone was to climb Mt. Sinai and present himself before God, who revealed himself in his name with a theophany (34:5). In the present structure of the received text the actual theophany is portrayed as a fullment of Moses’ request in the previous chapter to know God’s ways (33:12–13) and to see his glory (33:17ff): “Moses said to the Lord…‘Now if I have found favour in your sight, show me your ways, so that I may know you and nd favour in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people’… The Lord said to Moses, ‘I will do the very thing that you have asked; for you have found favour in my sight, and I know you by name’. Moses said, ‘Show me your glory, I pray’ ” (vv. 12–13, 17–18 NRSV).49 Yahweh then announces that he will make a covenant on the basis of his words (chs. 19–23), which he does. Moses writes down the words of the covenant (vv. 27b–28a). Whereas in chs. 19–23 Moses acts as covenant mediator who seals the covenant between God and the people in a ritual of ratication, in ch. 34 God alone makes his covenant with Moses without any covenant ceremony.50 Moreover, it is indicative that the chapter concludes with the tradition of Moses’ ongoing function of communicating God’s will to the people (34:29–34; cf. 33:7ff.). The effect of placing the theophany within the context of the restoration of the covenant shifts the focus of the special revelation from the realm of an individual experience of Moses to a ratication of God’s covenant relation with Israel through his mediator. The God who now makes himself known through this name as the God of mercy, steadfast love and judgment makes good his claim by forgiving his sinful people. 48. Cf. Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 352: “Der mehrfache ausdrückliche Rückbezug auf die früheren Tafeln bestätigen, was aus dem angekündigten Vorüberzug Gottes zu erahnen ist, nämlich die Vergebungsbereitschaft Gottes und die daraus resultierende Ermöglichung der Gottesgemeinschaft. Im Unterschied zu den ersten Tafeln, die Mose in Ex 24,12 angekündigt und in Exod 31,18 übergeben wurden, kommt es Mose bei den neuen Tafeln jetzt zu, die Steine für die Beschriftung vorzubereiten.” 49. In this regard Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 354, infers as follows: “Man kann die V6–7 von hierher durchaus als Gottes Antwort auf die Bitte Mose nach dem ‘Wissen’ um Gottes Weg (Exod 33,13) und das ‘Sehen’ der Herrlichkeit Gottes (Ex 33,18) betrachten, wobei dann der ‘Vorüberzug’ auf letzteres zu beziehen ist und die ‘Gnadenformel’ auf ersteres.” 50. Childs, Exodus, 607. 1
62
Psalms and Hebrews
This God—Yahweh—is a God merciful and gracious, abounding in steadfast love; his will to forgive is therefore incomprehensible for the human mind.51 The frequent use in other parts of the Old Testament of the formula in v. 6, by which the nature of God is portrayed, is an eloquent testimony to the centrality of this understanding of God’s person.52 It seems that the biblical tradition understood the formulation as a reection of a considerable history of Israel’s relation with its God. A God Abounding in Steadfast Love An Old Testament Perspective A rich and profound theological framework is prevalent behind the mere surface of these words—they namely indicate a specic image and understanding of God. Any text mentioning Yahweh’s 5DI (“God’s steadfast love/kindness/grace”) is an appeal to his gracious character and exceptional commitment to his people according to his self-revelation.53 In the Old Testament, when used in religious language, it denotes an attitude of God which arises out of his relationship with his people. God’s 5DI thus rests on the covenant (EJC3) by which he has freely bound himself to his people. 5DI may be dened as follows: it is not merely an attitude or an emotion; it is an emotion that leads to an activity benecial to the recipient. The relative status of the participants is never a feature of the Üesed act, which may be described as a benecent action performed, in the context of a deep and enduring commitment between two persons or parties, by one who is able to render assistance to the needy party, who in the circumstances is unable to help him- or herself.54
That is to say, God’s 5DI is the providential exercise of his power on behalf of the needy people with whom he has established a special relationship. 51. Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 356. 52. Cf. the following remark by Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 354: “Die nun folgende ‘Namensoffenbarung’ enthält keine Wesensbeschreibung Gottes, wie man sie im Horizont der Theophanie vielleicht erwartet. Vielmehr ist das, was man zwar durchaus wie eine theologisch reektierte Credo-Formulierung betrachten kann, eingentlich eine ‘Gottesbeschreibung,’ die in ihrem ersten Teil…aus einer Beziehung heraus oder auf eine solche hin formuliert ist.” 53. Rudolf K. Bultmann, “FMFPK etc.,” TDNT 2:477–87. Cf. also Ingvar Fløysvik, When God Becomes My Enemy: The Theology of the Complaint Psalms (Saint Louis, Miss.: Concordia Academic, 1997), 166. 54. Clark, The Word Hesed, 267. 1
GROENEWALD A God Abounding in Steadfast Love
63
5DI is an indication of the permanence of divine kindness.55 It indicates Yahweh’s benevolence in favour of Israel and the individual worshipper. The history of Yahweh’s people—past, present and future— and the life of the individual Israelite—in fact, of the whole world—is the stage on which Yahweh’s kindness is demonstrated. He has decided in favour of Israel; he has promised life, care, alleviation of distress, and preservation—indeed, he has lled the whole earth with his kindness. He has thus granted fellowship to his people, to all humankind, to the whole world. And this act, like the promise and assurance of future help and fellowship, is characterized by permanence, constancy and reliability. This is the message that Israel and the individual Israelite hear through Yahweh’s word. A Septuagint Perspective Normally the Septuagint uses FMFPK for 5DI—this is also the case in our text of Exod 34:6. The Septuagint translators have rendered the Hebrew 5DI3C with QPMVFMFPK (“very compassionate”). In religious usage 5DI always means his faithful and merciful help, and this understanding is also expressed in the use of FMFPK in the Septuagint.56 Because of Yahweh’s superiority as the partner in the covenant who remains faithful, his FMFPK was understood for the most part as a gracious gift. He promised it when the covenant was being made, and he constantly renewed it. Hence Israel could request FMFPK from him, including the mercy of forgiveness, when it had broken the covenant (e.g. Exod 34:9; Num 14:19; Jer 3:2). When God acts like this and also when man acts similarly, the emphasis is not on the basic attitude, but on its manifestation in deeds. A New Testament Perspective In the New Testament FMFPK is often used for the divinely required attitude of humans towards humans.57 However, more important for our specic discussion, is the New Testament’s understanding of God’s FMFPK, which is often thought of in the original Old Testament sense of “faithfulness,” that is, the gracious faithfulness of God—thus, in the same way as 5DI. Mention of God’s FMFPK is most often expressed in reference to the Christ event. It marks that intervention of divine mercy into the reality of human misery, which took place in the person of Jesus of Nazareth who in his work of freeing and healing demonstrated his 55. Zobel, “Üesed,” 5:62. 56. Bultmann, “FMFPK,” 2:479, and Hans-Helmut Esser, “FMFPK,” Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 2:594. 57. Bultmann, “FMFPK,” 2:482.
1
64
Psalms and Hebrews
authority.58 Jesus answered the cry for help: “Have mercy on me” (Mark 10:47, 48). In the prologue to his Gospel, Luke announced its main theme in the two great psalms of praise (Luke 1:46–55, 68–79), namely, that the covenant loyalty of God, as promised in the Old Testament and shown in action in the history of Israel, would reach its climax in the gracious self-humiliation of God, the humble (“poor”), in the event of Christ. Conclusion It seems that the book of Hebrews uses the Old Testament (specically texts from the Pentateuch and from the Psalms) in many and diverse ways.59 These texts are used as a structuring element for the discourse as a whole, articulating its major segments and serving as an essential component to substantiate its innovative Christology. It has thus been used as evidence for various contentions which the homilist wants to make about the person and work of Christ and the kind of response required by his followers. Most intriguing is the fact that these texts are used to give a voice to Jesus. Ironically, in the book of Hebrews the one who delivers the nal word of God to the world speaks only in the words of scripture—that is the Hebrew Bible—and principally in the words of the Psalms. As has already been stated before, the great debt which the book of Hebrews pays to the Old Testament is not simply a matter of general background and copious quotation, but the way in which it also extends to fundamental Old Testament ways of thinking, which are constantly presupposed and which underlie all passages in the book. In the book of Hebrews we thus often detect references, whether direct or even indirect, to the Old Testament as an authoritative text or texts. The Old Testament texts which give voice to the aims and aspirations of Jesus Christ, by whom God has now spoken his nal word (Heb 1:1), had always been alive and active throughout Israel’s history. Any part of the Old Testament may thus in principle be understood as speaking about Christ, or as spoken to or by him. Whenever the author portrays the character of Jesus, the concept of God, as made known to us in Exod 34:6 (and as quoted in Pss 86:15; 103:8; 145:8) plays an important role in his theologizing about Jesus. Already at the beginning of the book the author portrays Jesus as a reection of the glory of God and—very importantly—the exact imprint 58. Esser, “FMFPK,” 2:595. 59. Attridge, “The Psalms in Hebrews,” 212. 1
GROENEWALD A God Abounding in Steadfast Love
65
of God’s very being (Heb 1:3). The Old Testament texts which were discussed in the present study say something to us about Israel’s understanding of Yahweh’s very being. Hebrews, in its portrayal of Christ as a type of High Priest, uses the concept FMFPK (5DI) to show the solidarity of Christ, who is greater than any High Priest, with his brethren (2:17).60 This is the guarantee of Christ’s merciful and boundless signicance for the rst-century esh-and-blood believers struggling to overcome the stranglehold of past traditions and adjust to volatility in their fastchanging world. According to 4:16,61 this fact gives the despairing church condence to draw near to the throne of grace in order to nd mercy (FMFPK)—as the new Israel.62 They witness to the climax of God’s covenant relationship with his people—rst Israel, now the church. This statement reects the homilist’s experience—what he has seen through the eyes of faith. He wraps his experience in Old Testament terms, offering a new christological reading of the Old Testament based on the fundamental conviction about the ultimate signicance of Christ as the one abounding in steadfast love (FMFPK). To conclude: the ultimate meaning of Scripture is therefore dened in terms of its own privileged position in the unfolding drama of history. Whatever these Old Testament texts might have meant at an earlier time, the author of Hebrews portrays to his readers that the book’s ultimate and proper meaning is concerned with the church’s participation in God’s FMFPK (5DI), both at present amid certain troubles and temptations, and in future in the world to come for those who remain faithful. Throughout this text our homilist is at great pains to observe how the Word of God in the scriptures (i.e. the First Testament) can address the reality of his audience. He is helped along the way by imaginative exegesis to nd fresh meaning in the old texts in order to invite his audience to imitate the “initiator and perfector” of their faith—that is, the true High Priest Jesus Christ.
60. Heb 2:17 reads as follows: “Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful (FMFI NXO) and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrice of atonement for the sins of the people” (NRSV). 61. Heb 4:16 reads as follows: “Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy (FMFPK) and nd grace to help in time of need” (NRSV). 62. Esser, “FMFPK,” 2:598; cf. also Peter Enns, “The Interpretation of Psalm 95 in Hebrews 3:1–4:13,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; JSNTSup 148; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1997), 352–63 (358). 1
This page intentionally left blank
Part II
SPECIFIC ILLUSTRATIONS
This page intentionally left blank
REFLECTIONS ON CREATION AND HUMANKIND IN PSALM 8, THE SEPTUAGINT AND HEBREWS Gerda de Villiers
Introduction Below follows my own fairly literal translation of Ps 8 from the Hebrew in Biblical Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Some problems regarding such a translation will be referred to later in this study in the section dealing with the Septuagint (LXX). The relevant words and phrases are italicized. For now, Ps 8 reads: 1 2
To the choirmaster, on the Gittith—a psalm of David. YHWH our God, how mighty your Name in all earth, You who set your splendour on the heavens. 3 From the mouth of babies and infants You founded strength, because of your foes; to put an end to enemy and avengers. 4 If I look at your heavens, the works of your ngers, moon and stars that You established— 5 What is man, that you remember him? Son of man, that you visit him? 6 You have diminished him slightly from G/god(s) and with honour and glory you crowned him; 7 You let him rule over the works of your hands all you put under his feet; 8 sheep and oxen all of them, also the beasts of the eld, 9 bird of the heavens and sh of the sea, crossing the paths of the sea… 10 YHWH our God, how mighty your Name in all earth.
Psalm 8 is an exceptionally simple yet moving hymn. Most scholars agree that it could indeed be labelled as a “hymn of praise.”1 The psalmist is 1. See, for example, Richard J. Clifford, Psalms 1–72 (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 67; H. C. Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms (Welwyn: Evangelical, 1977), 100; Arthur Weiser, The Psalms: Old Testament Library (trans. Herbert 1
70
Psalms and Hebrews
overcome by a feeling of awe and wonder when he2 witnesses the starry skies and realizes its vastness. This spectacular view, however, gives rise to profound reection on creation: where did everything come from, and what is humankind doing here? A Brief Outline of the Contents of Psalm 8 Leaving aside the superscription,3 the opening lines of the psalm (v. 2) start with an exclamation, praising the Name of YHWH, “our” God on earth. Although “our” God almost certainly pertains to the God of Israel, the point of focus of the psalm is not Israel, but humankind in general.4 Consequently, the psalmist afrms the establishment of YHWH’s majesty in the heavens. Clearly he is Lord of the universe. Verse 3 sketches an unlikely scene: helpless and dependent youngsters who silence hostile foes and enemies.5 Then the psalmist becomes intensely aware of his existence within the cosmos (vv. 4–9). He looks up at the galaxy and realizes that it is the work of YHWH (v. 4). Verses 7–9 afrm YHWH as Creator by directly alluding to Gen 1:26–28.6 In the centre of creation stands humankind, a being like all others on earth, namely, created by the Creator, but it7 is at the same time different. YHWH diminished humankind from being divine (v. 6),8 yet bestowed it with honour and glory and gave it the privilege of ruling over the very creation of its Creator (v. 7). Still marvelling at the honour and special position of humankind, the psalm closes with the same words used at the beginning: a praise of the Name of YHWH (v. 10). At rst glance this psalm makes readers catch their breath, because of its simplicity, but also because of its skilful and artistic composition. The Hartwell; 5th ed.; London: SCM, 1979), 140; Claus Westermann, The Psalms (trans. Ralph D. Gehrke; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980), 93. 2. Most probably the psalmist was male. 3. The discussion follows the verses as delimited by BHS. The purpose of this essay excludes a discussion of the date and Davidic authorship of Ps 8. 4. Clifford, Psalms 1–72, 68. 5. For a discussion of who these may be, cf. ibid., 68–69. 6. See also Weiser, The Psalms, 144. 7. I use “it” as neutral designation to avoid clumsy “he/she” constructions. When using “it,” I intend both genders. 8. The Hebrew of the MT simply reads lohîm. Translators have rendered this word according to many different interpretations, as can be seen from a survey of a selection of modern language Bible translations. A discussion of the various readings would be a lengthy endeavour, and falls outside the scope of the present study. 1
DE VILLIERS Reections on Creation and Humankind
71
most striking feature is of course the inclusio—the psalm opens and closes with the same phrase (vv. 2 and 10). Furthermore, it plays with merisms: earth and heaven (v. 2), moon and stars (v. 4); it employs binary opposites: helpless infants vs. powerful enemies (v. 3), humankind vs. the divine (vv. 5 and 6). And it makes liberal use of parallelisms—notably, the reference to “man” and “son of man” in v. 5, which will be discussed later (part 2) in this article. Above all it taps upon those existential questions that bother all human beings at some developmental stage or another: Who am I? Where do I come from? What am I doing here? I Psalm 8 in Dialogue With… Psalm 8, a beautifully moving psalm, may have more to it than meets the eye. In its simplicity it positions itself directly against two of Israel’s powerful neighbours: Mesopotamia and Egypt. The Ancient Near East The relationship between Ps 8 and Gen 1:26–28 has been pointed out by various scholars.9 This relationship concerns views on creation and the position of humankind within it. However, it is important to note that the so-called creation myths of the ancient Near East were not attempts to explain the origins of the world.10 The most notable example is the Babylonian Enuma elish, probably the best known ancient creation myth, which is in fact the holy writ of the cult of Marduk,11 an exposition of how Marduk, a relative late-comer to the Babylonian pantheon, happened to become the supreme god, ruler of heaven and earth, subjecting gods and humans under his authority.12
9. See, for example, Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Die Psalmen 1. Psalm 1–50 (Würzburg: Echter 1993), 77; cf. also Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59 (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 180. 10. Jean Bottéro, Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia (trans. Teresa Lavender Fagan; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 83. 11. Andrew R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 39. 12. For a brief but informative summary of the plot, see Henrietta McCall, Mesopotamian Myths (5th ed.; London: British Museum Press, 2001) 52–59. For a more elaborate discussion of the “epic,” see Thorkild Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (London: Yale University Press, 1976), 167–91. 1
72
Psalms and Hebrews
Which concepts regarding creation, human beings and the divine do this “epic” reveal?13 Tiamat, the chaos monster who is a personication of the destructive force of the salt water, sets the scene. Together with Apsu, her freshwater partner, generates a series of gods who start off as primeval beings, but who, as they procreate, seem to display an evolutionary development towards intelligent reasoning. Unfortunately, these children of divine offspring create such a noise that their father Apsu, with the connivance of his son Mummu (the mist), undertakes to destroy them. However, Ea, the wise one among the gods, intercepts the plan, puts Apsu to sleep and shuts Mummu out. Soon enough Apsu is killed. In the meantime, Ea and his spouse Damkina beget a son, Marduk, who is ten times, fty times more of a god than the others. Anu, Marduk’s grandfather, is besotted with this youngster. He spoils him by giving him rather noisy toys: winds and the dust carried forth by the south-storm. Of course, some of the other deities become irritated, if not downright jealous about this favouritism. As such, they convince Tiamat to side with them against Marduk’s line, perhaps also by persuading her to avenge the death of her husband. She obliges. First, she creates a band of fearsome monsters, before then taking a second husband, Kingu, who leads them. When Ea, Anshar and other members of the younger generation become aware of Tiamat’s movements, they are alarmed. Furthermore, it appears that no one, neither Ea nor Anu, is able to match the violence and anger of Tiamat. Eventually Marduk is elected to meet Tiamat in battle. Accepting the position, he sets one condition, namely, that he should reign as champion of the gods after the battle is won. Eventually Marduk and Tiamat engage in one-on-one combat. Marduk forces Tiamat to swallow an imhullu-wind, following which he pierces her distended belly and slays her eeing army, including Kingu. He splits her body in two: from the one half he makes a roof for the heaven, from the other half he fashions the earth with the subterranean waters below. Here he also builds the Esharra-temple, the foundation of the cult centres for Anu, Ellil and Ea. Tiamat’s eyes are pierced to let ow forth the Tigris and Euphrates. From Kingu’s blood, humankind is created to work hard so that the gods may rest. The “epic” closes with the last assignment to the gods: the erection of the Esagilla, Marduk’s personal shrine and 13. It should also be noted that “epic” is a modern literary term applied to almost all ancient narrative poetry; see Piet H. Roodt and Henning J. Pieterse, “Epos,” in Literêre Terme en Teorieë (ed. Theuns T. Cloete; Pretoria: Haum Literêr, 1992), 102–5 (these South African authors insist on their nom de plume). 1
DE VILLIERS Reections on Creation and Humankind
73
ziggurat. Here Marduk holds a banquet where he is unanimously worshipped as king of the gods. On the instruction of Anshar, the gods name Marduk with fty honoric names, expressing his characteristic powers or deeds. How does this account relate to biblical concepts of creation? Earlier scholars14 noted the linguistic afnity between Tiamat and tehm—the Hebrew word for “deep” or “primeval ood.” Nowhere, however, can a direct borrowing be assumed. Rather, the biblical Gen 1 stands in stark contrast to the Babylonian account. In fact, it demythologizes the myth completely. In the rst place, there is only one God— no others. Furthermore, there is no mention of any battle or struggle. God simply speaks—and so it happens. He controls all events. The ocean, which was often considered in traditional ancient Near Eastern worldview to be a chaos monster—Tiamat being a widely known example—is simply a natural phenomenon that abides by God’s command (Gen 1:6). Other such phenomena, including the sun, the moon and the stars, considered by the other nations to be manifestations of deities, are in the Genesis account depicted as created by God (vv. 14–17). Most important is the creation of humankind and the reasons for its creation (vv. 26–28). According to the Enuma elish, humankind was fashioned from the blood of Kingu. And yet, the idea that people were fashioned from a substance from the earth, like clay, was apparently more common.15 Furthermore, creation was mostly the result of some kind of oppression16 and for the purpose of relieving the labour of the gods.17 Above all, the gods were not the friends or companions of their human subjects.18 Genesis 1 takes up the motif of the fashioning of humankind from a substance from the earth, but the motivation is radically different. God creates humankind by his own free decision. He does not wish to subject the humans, nor to oppress them. Furthermore, humankind is created in 14. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (trans. John H. Marks; 4th ed.; London: SCM, 1979), 50. 15. David Damrosch, Narrative Covenant: Transformations of Genre in the Growth of Biblical Literature (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 112. The Gilgamesh Epic also recounts the coming into being of Enkidu who is created by a piece of clay, moulded and then thrown on the steppe by the creator-goddess, Aruru. See, for example, Andrew R. George, The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1999), 5. Cf. also George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 545. 16. Jeffrey H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), 194–95. 17. Just as in Enuma elish. 18. Bottéro, Religion, 37. 1
74
Psalms and Hebrews
God’s image, not to be his slaves, but actually to rule over his creation (Gen 1:26–27). Turning the creation imagery of the ancient Near East upside down, Gen 1 unfolds a unique account of how the God of Israel operates in a sovereign, controlled, almost regal manner, with benign intensions towards the human beings that he created, even commanding them to take the responsibility to rule over his handiwork. Drawing upon the creation tradition and directly alluding to Gen 1:26–28, Ps 8 also challenges the concepts of creation that existed in contemporary Babylonia and Assyria. The psalm agrees with Genesis and its view of creation and humankind. The Genesis narrative is integrated and recounted with fewer words. The psalmist chooses poetic style to express the rm conviction that YHWH is the sole Creator who has no competitors, and who assigns a special and privileged position to his created subject, humankind. This position is almost equal—but not quite—to his own. Egypt Assyria and Babylonia, however, were not the only theological discourse partners. Psalm 8 also challenges Egyptian concepts. According to Egyptian belief, the king was a substitute for the creator god and his duty was—among other things—to keep the chaos powers in check and to uphold the cosmic order.19 Whereas it had been possible to single out Enuma elish (see above) as a template for Mesopotamian concepts on creation and humankind, Egypt offers no such obvious account. Egypt, in fact, provides several creation possibilities. The many different Egyptian religious centres each had their own creator deities and creation myths. For example, Heliopolis and Hermopolis regarded the sun as the creator deity; at Memphis it was Ptah who created everything, simply by speaking a word (not unlike God in Gen 1!); Thebes revered Amun as creator; at Elephantine Khnumm fashioned human beings from clay on his potter’s wheel.20 However, these myths and concepts were never understood in a literal sense, even in ancient times. These myths were attempts to express something that was mysterious, impossible to dene or understand, something that was divine by its very nature. Central to Egyptian religious thought, stands the concept of ma at.21 Ma at is often depicted as a sitting woman with outstretched wings and an ostrich feather on her head, sometimes only as a woman with a 19. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 1, 77. See also Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 184. 20. Vincent A. Tobin, Theological Principles of Egyptian Religion (New York: Lang, 1989), 59. 21. Ibid., 77. 1
DE VILLIERS Reections on Creation and Humankind
75
feather, or even more abstract, she is simply presented by her symbol, the ostrich feather. Often, and wrongly so, ma at is regarded as a goddess. And yet, according to Egyptian belief, she was more than a goddess: ma at was a concept, representing order, truth and justice. Indirectly, ma at can also be connected to creation: ma at represents that which is everlasting, unchanging and present since the very time of creation.22 The principle of ma at permeates the whole universe—heaven and earth. Thus, ma at is necessary for cosmic stability. However, with regard to the pharaoh, he was considered to be more than a human ruler. He was also regarded as the living instrument for the realization of ma at23 in mundane matters. Ma at seems to have been threatened continuously by isfet—that is, disorder, lie and injustice.24 With regard to human affairs, the state and politics, it was the duty of the pharaoh to maintain ma at and abolish isfet. Consequently, the pharaoh bore the title “good god” (nr nfr), a title which signies that he was also seen to possess the power and goodness of a creator god. As ma at seems to have been founded at the very moment of creation, it was reasoned that the position and capabilities of the pharaoh were established at the same time.25 Unlike Enuma elish, Egyptian creation myths recount no battle or struggle—struggle occurs only later in the myths, notably in relation to Isis, Osiris, Seth and Horus. In brief, one of these myths recounts how evil Seth slays his brother Osiris and scatters his body over all Egypt. Isis, sister/wife of Osiris, manages to retrieve all of the parts, except for his penis. Having magical skills, she creates a penis from gold and impregnates herself by the seed of her deceased husband. Osiris revives as lord of the underworld26 and Horus, the child of this miraculous conception, is re-incarnated whenever a new pharaoh ascends the throne. Every pharaoh is considered to be the living incarnation of the god Horus, a direct divine descendent from Atum-Ra, the creator-god and founder of kingship. Thus, within the person of the pharaoh many lines coalesced. His positions and powers were established at the time of creation. He was of 22. Klaas A. D. Smelik, “Ma at,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. Bob Becking, Karel van der Toorn and Pieter W van der Horst; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 534–35 (534). 23. Tobin, Theological Principles, 81, 90. 24. Smelik, “Ma at,” 534. 25. See Tobin, Theological Principles, 90–92, for an exposition of the divine genealogy of the Pharaoh. 26. Cf. Robert K. Ritner, Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 137. 1
76
Psalms and Hebrews
divine origin, every crown-prince being considered to be the living incarnation of Horus. At the death of an old king, the succession of the new ruler was interpreted as a new act of creation, thereby afrming the eternal and stable order of ma at. Psalm 8 rebels against this royal theology. YHWH is the sole Creator and nothing threatens him or the work of his hands. Furthermore, no human baby, not even a king, is invested with special divine powers— not even the newborn Egyptian crown-prince. The strength established in the mouths of babies and infants attests to the greatness and the grace of YHWH alone. Psalm 8 rmly positions humankind as human and YHWH as divine. Consequently, the Egyptian royal ideology is turned upside down. II The Septuagint—and Problems of Translation Towards the close of the rst millennium B.C.E. many Jews who were living in Alexandria were no longer able to speak or understand their mother-tongue which was at that stage Aramaic. As a result, it became necessary to translate their holy scripture into Greek.27 According to Jewish tradition,28 Ptolemy Philadelphus (285–245 B.C.E.) commissioned a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible for his library in Alexandria; however, it is more probable that the rst translation only comprised the Pentateuch.29 This tradition appears in the Letter of Aristeas, according to which the Pentateuch was translated in Alexandria by seventy-two expert Jewish translators from Jerusalem. After working independently for seventy days, when the task was completed, the individual translations were found to be identical. As a result of this remarkable agreement, the Greek translation was considered authoritative. The work was called the “Septuagint,” which is Greek for “seventy,” with the commonly used “LXX” deriving from the Roman numeral form of this gure. This traditional viewpoint, however, has not remained unchallenged. The origin and development of the LXX has a long and complex history.30 Furthermore, some scholars are of the opinion that the Septuagint has its 27. Johan Cook, “Septuaginta,” in Christelike Kernensiklopedie (ed. Fritz Gaum, Allan Boesak and Willie Botha; Wellington: Lux Verbi, 2008), 984. 28. Izak Spangenberg, “The Literature of the Hellenistic Period,” in Ancient Israelite Literature in Context (ed. Willem Boshoff, Eben Schefer and Izak Spangenberg; Pretoria: Protea, 2000), 199–236 (220). 29. See Cook, “Septuaginta,” 984. 30. Ibid. 1
DE VILLIERS Reections on Creation and Humankind
77
origins in a Palestinian, not an Alexandrian, context.31 This assumption is based on some interpretative methods and theological innovations which were typical of contemporary Judaism. The terminology and hermeneutics of the Greek Psalter seem to reect an undeniable Palestinian “air.” Especially prominent is the so-called gezera shavah, a Rabbinic exegetical or midrashic principle,32 which is appropriated quite commonly in the LXX translation of the Psalms. Being used extensively by Palestinian Jewish scribes, this may point toward the Ps 8’s Palestinian origins.33 However, whether the origins of Ps 8 are Alexandrian or Palestinian, in this regard it is important to note that the Greek version Psalter was not merely a translation: the Septuagint book of Psalms also appears to be “a document of the religious, intellectual and political life of Hellenistic Judaism.”34 It was, like all translations, also an interpretation. Psalm 8 in the Septuagint As anyone who has attempted to translate a text from one language into another would know, the most difcult task is to nd a word that has exactly the same meaning in both languages. Even if the translator is completely bi-lingual, this is more or less impossible. Poetry, with its liberal appropriation of synonyms, homonyms, implicit semantic elds, and so forth, cannot be translated. Psalm 8 attests multiple problems of translation. In the present study, however, only two verses will be discussed—vv. 5 and 6. Above, I have translated Ps 8:5 as follows: What is man, that you remember him? Son of man, that you visit him?
Verse 5 in Hebrew uses the poetic literary device known as synonymous parallelism;35 that is, words that are similar in meaning are used in a parallel construction, mainly to emphasize one idea—in this psalm, what 31. Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995), 41–42. 32. David Wenkel, “Gezerah shawah as Analogy in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Biblical Theology Bulletin (2007): 62–68 (62). 33. Schaper, Eschatology, 41, 64, 99. 34. Ibid., 19. 35. Cf. Jan Fokkelman, Dichtkunst in de bijbel. Een handleiding bij literair lezen (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2000), 81–109, for a detailed discussion on different forms of parallelisms. George H. Guthrie and Russell D. Quinn, “A Discourse Analysis of the Use of Psalm 8:4–6 in Hebrews 2:5–9,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49 (2006): 235–46 (236), also discuss this literary device and offer an interpretation of Ps 8 accordingly. The weakness of humankind and God’s incomprehensible care for it are foregrounded. 1
78
Psalms and Hebrews
humankind represents in the eyes of YHWH. Instead of repeating the same words, the poet says the same thing in a different manner. This is done not only to elaborate his point, but obviously also for artistic literary purposes. The LXX translators rendered the Hebrew verbs into Greek quite successfully, though “man” caused some trouble. The Hebrew poet chose two different words to refer to the human being—the more poetic nôš and the more common dm. The Greek translator, in contrast, seems to have just one word—anthrpos. This rendering reduced the beauty of the poem. In due course, it also became interpreted as a “messianic” psalm.36 The words “son of man” are the same words that are used in Dan 7:13 to describe the appearance of a messianic gure, imagery which may have inuenced the interpretation of this psalm.37 However, this was probably not done intentionally, as the primary aim of the initial translators was to achieve a high degree of consistency and harmonization.38 The different Hebrew terms—dm, îš, nôš and even gibôr—are almost without exception translated with anthrpos. And yet, the translators were not consistent. In my translation above, I read v. 6a as follows: You have diminished him slightly from G/god(s)
For some reason or another, the Greek translator chose angelos as a suitable equivalent for lohîm. And yet, elsewhere in the LXX angelos seems to be the standard translation of the Hebrew term malk, a term simply indicating “messenger,” which, in the Old Testament, could be either human or super-human.39 The translation of lohîm in v. 6 with angelos may have been due to a later Jewish tradition that regarded a comparison between humans and God theologically offensive.40 Towards the end of the rst millennium B.C.E., a particular doctrine on angelology was developing. While the Hebrew Bible refers to superhuman malkîm, they are certainly not the angelos of the New Testament. At most they were simply “messengers” from God sent by him to convey a divine message to humankind or to assist humans in one way or 36. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 76. 37. This has also been noted by other commentators, notably Kraus, Psalms 1– 59, 180. 38. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 32–33. 39. Jan Willem Van Henten, “Angel II,” in Becking, van der Toorn and van der Horst, eds., Dictionary of Deities and Demons, 50–53 (50). 40. Gnaumuthu S. Wilson, “A Descriptive Analysis of Creation Concepts and Themes in the Book of Psalms” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 1966 [obtained via UMI Dissertation Services]), 127. 1
DE VILLIERS Reections on Creation and Humankind
79
another, including, for example, to accompany them on travels (Gen 24:40), warn them (Num 22), engage in battle on their behalf (2 Kgs 19:35), explain visions (Zech 1:9, 14; Dan 7:16) and so forth.41 Furthermore, often they could not be distinguished from humans, and they took on human form and acted like earthly human beings (e.g. Gen 18:2–8). However, the Old Testament seems to reveal a tension between an earlier and later dispensation about the way in which God communicated with his human subjects.42 A distance is noticeable. There seems to be a movement from a free and comfortable exchange to a more remote encounter which was necessarily mediated by subordinate emissaries of the divine. Especially from the third century onwards and throughout the inter-testament period, the malkîm of the Old Testament seem to develop in the angelos of the New Testament.43 During the beginning of the second century B.C.E., at the time of Hasmonean rule, the Judeans in Palestine experienced existential suffering.44 During this time, many of the apocalyptic works appearing in the Old Testament apocrypha were composed.45 The “angels” were still the “messengers” of God, though now they were recognizable, clearly different from humans. They became portrayed as exalted beings with supernatural status and a marvellous appearance, often awe-inspiring, even frightening (e.g. Matt 28:3).46 III Psalm 8:5–6 and Hebrews 2:5–9 The author of the epistle to the Hebrews lived in a world where the eschatological fever ran high and the apocalypse was expected imminently.47 Times were turbulent and the environment was threatening to the adherents of the Christian faith. The threat may have been manifold: in a community where the believers in Christ were stigmatized and 41. Angelika Berlejung, “Engel (E.),” in Handbuch theologischer Grundbegriffe zum Alten und Neuen Testament (ed. Christian Frevel and Angelika Berlejung; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006), 151–53 (152). Cf. Samuel A. Meier, “Angel I,” in Becking, van der Toorn and van der Horst, eds., Dictionary of Deities and Demons, 45–50 (47). 42. Meier, “Angel I,” 47. 43. Van Henten, “Angel II,” 51. 44. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 29. 45. David A. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Cambridge, Mass.: Eerdmans, 2000), 94. 46. Meier, “Angel I,” 49. 47. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 27. 1
80
Psalms and Hebrews
sometimes persecuted by the Roman authorities, the old pagan religions were certainly an attractive alternative. Furthermore, converts from Judaism also felt the pressure to return to their initial faith.48 Thus, the author had to convince those who by that time were considering backsliding into their old ways that faith in Christ was worthwhile and that perseverance to the very end was to be rewarding.49 The belief in angels and their mediatory role between God and humans had increased signicantly by the time of Hebrews’ composition. Angels were now more than mere messengers—they were considered to be very close to the presence of God, more so than human beings, and they were seen to mediate the Torah between God and the people.50 Furthermore, a rather intricate cosmology developed. Heaven and hell had become realities. There was a rm belief in an afterlife in which the deceased lived on according to his or her faith in a Saviour—ideas which are unknown in the Hebrew Bible.51 In this context of uncertainty, with its developed angelology and belief in future judgment according to moral behaviour and endurance of faith, what had happened in the meantime to Ps 8? When the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews quoted from the Old Testament, he did not have a Hebrew text at his disposal—he almost certainly used the LXX.52 By this time Ps 8 had acquired a messianic, even Christological interpretation,53 somewhat obscuring the anthropological one. Verses 5–7 (LXX) of this psalm are quoted in Heb 2:6–8a. However, the author quotes the psalm in his own unique way. Notably, he does not follow the LXX version literally. He does not allude directly to the psalm, but introduces its contents with a rather vague reference to its occurrence. Then he omits the lines “you have set him over the works of your hands.”54 This in itself does not seem to be signicant: he expects 48. Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 13. 49. Cf. also Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 1–2. 50. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 93–94. 51. For a detailed discussion, see Angelika Berljung, “Weltbild/Kosmologie,” in Frevel and Berlejung, eds., Handbuch theologischer Grundbegriffe, 71–72. 52. Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 37. 53. Several passages in the New Testament quote Ps 8 and do so from the LXX version (Matt 21:16; 1 Cor 15:2; Eph 1:20–22; Heb 2:5–9), giving it an undeniable Christological interpretation; cf. Guthrie and Quinn, “A Discourse Analysis,” 237. 54. Harold W. Attridge, “The Psalms in Hebrews,” in The Psalms in the New Testament (ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten Menken; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 201; cf. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 108. 1
DE VILLIERS Reections on Creation and Humankind
81
his readers to know the origins of the quotation.55 Thereafter he intentionally steers this psalm towards a specic interpretation. This is by no means a “wrong” interpretation—on the contrary, the author of the epistle knows exactly what he wants to convey and therefore he chooses his quotations from the Old Testament with care. What started as a vague introduction becomes quite clear from Heb 2:9 onwards. The whole argument builds up towards the superiority of Jesus, of the Son. The diminishing of “man” from either lohîm of the Masoretic text, or angelos of the LXX, is interpreted in a temporary manner and related to a certain stage in the history of the Son imagery.56 Jesus is the one who takes on a lower status than the angels, and the main intention is to save humankind. Human beings are still important because they have to be saved by the Son. Thus, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, unlike the poet of Ps 8, does not reect on the exalted status of humankind in general.57 He wishes to convince his readers that Christ’s humiliation and death, and even the fact that his enemies are apparently not yet “put under his feet,” do make sense in the bigger picture. The readers must keep in mind that humiliation was only temporary—there is another glorious reality which is not yet revealed, but is already present. Just like his contemporaries, the author of Hebrews sees the cosmos as consisting of different realms, notably the visible realm of the heavens and the earth. Accordingly, he can appropriate Ps 8 and agree with the Hebrew poet that all visible phenomena are created by God. However, the author of the epistle also visualizes an unseen realm—heaven, which is God’s abode. Although invisible, this realm is present and real. Already in Heb 1:10–12, the author told his audience that the visible creation, although it is God’s work, is temporary and will be destroyed, probably soon. A new dispensation is soon to come, a dispensation in which even the angels will play a subordinate role (Heb 2:5). The new creation is more fully described in Heb 12:22–24. This is God’s abode, the heavenly Jerusalem where he resides as judge with the Son and Mediator, together with many angels waiting for those who persevere in faith to join them. The author of Hebrews had eschatological expectations and anticipates another world58 beyond this one, with its dismal circumstances. This 55. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 71. 56. Attridge, “The Psalms in Hebrews,” 204. 57. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 71–72; Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 143–44. 58. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 427–28. 1
82
Psalms and Hebrews
world, this creation with all its virtues and vices, is but temporary. He wants to make his readers aware of another world. Eventually everything will be consumed in a new creation—a wonderful reward for those who persevere in faith. The new creation pertains to that which is eternal by nature and closely linked to the exaltation and supremacy of Christ. The promise of the new creation and all its rewards, should hopefully encourage the believers and prevent them from backsliding. Conclusion The Epistle to the Hebrews sketches a totally different picture of creation and of humankind than Ps 8. God is still concerned about humankind, but not about its privileged position within his creation. God’s concern is primarily salvic. Not humankind in general, but the Son in particular is lowered for a short while, with the sole purpose of redemption. God is still honoured as the One who created and maintains the universe, but he is no longer the sole agent: from the very beginning he has had the Son as his partner (Heb 1:2–3). Furthermore, the visible creation is passing and not to be marvelled at. That which is to be revealed sometime, possibly in the near future, is far better. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews pleads to the believers to open up their minds to this glorious reality, which is already present, yet hidden. The rewards of the unseen creation will encourage the true believers to live a pious life and endure suffering until the very end. The climax will be reached when the new creation becomes is fully realized and visible to all, when it is revealed that everything that exists is subject to the Son. Within this new creation only human beings who persist in their faith in the Redeeming Son will partake of eternal glory.
1
THE SON, THE ANGELS AND THE ODD: PSALM 8 IN HEBREWS 1 AND 2 Sebastian Fuhrmann
Introduction The importance of Ps 8, at least for Heb 2, has always been recognized by interpreters. The present study merely claims to add and rearrange some pieces of the interpretation of Hebrews. Interpretation, in this case, is viewed as an explanation of what the author intended his addressees to understand. Interpreters, thus, should attempt to portray this process of understanding, ultimately reconstructing the text, in the manner in which the addressees were most likely to construct for themselves. This reconstruction of the meaning of the text resulting from the process of reading or listening to the text aims at laying bare the knowledge that should be assumed for the intended addressees. In this study I refer to two areas of knowledge, namely, semantics and Traditionsgeschichte. First, a brief overview of the outline of Heb 1 and 2 and the resulting questions will be given, followed by a survey surrounding the tradition of interpreting Ps 8 and 109 (LXX) together and in relationship to each other (as they occur in Heb 1 and 2), in the New Testament, concluding with some observations about the introduction of, and the reference to, Ps 8 in Heb 2. Some Remarks on the Outline of Heb 1:1–14 In Heb 1:4 the effect of Christ’s sessio ad dexteram patri is specied as being made so much better than the angels, and having by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.1
Hebrews 1:5–14, then, is concerned with furnishing a proof from Scripture to illustrate and conrm the statement of Heb 1:4. What was the nature of the authorial intention, which forms the basis of this emphasis of the superiority of Christ over the angels? Some earlier commentators 1. Unless otherwise stated, English Scripture references are taken from the NKJV. 1
84
Psalms and Hebrews
have argued that there is a polemic against the admiration of angels.2 This explanation, however, was considered as somewhat insufcient; for this polemic is nowhere to be found anywhere in the text, not even in the admonishing sections.3 Recent proposals that have suggested that in Heb 1:5–14 one nds a description of a “heavenly act of enthronement”4 or an echo of the motif of the “rivalry between men and angels”5 do not seem to t the context satisfactorily. Beginning with the observation that there is a Christ-Hymn in Heb 1:1–3 (one can ignore whether the author of the epistle used or created this), it is astonishing to note the accent set by the author in the reception of the hymn in 1:4: only one motif is developed from the hymn, namely, the exaltation of Christ and his sessio ad dexteram. The description of this sessio furthermore is limited to the supremacy of the Son over the angels. There are other hymnic declarations of supremacy in the New Testament, for example in Phil 2:10; Col 15; 1 Pet 3:22 and Eph 1:20–21. The last-mentioned is particularly interesting, because in these verses, similarly to Hebrews, Ps 109:1 (LXX) is quoted and then interpreted as referring to the dominion of Christ as being …far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.6
Regarding this observation, the reduction of Christ’s dominion to his supremacy over the angels in Hebrews is noticeable, while it refers to a whole row of powers elsewhere. Why then, this reduction? I propose an answer: the hymns connected with a sessio ad dexteram and Christ’s dominion over the powers were known beforehand to the 2. Cf., for instance, Günther Bornkamm, “Das Bekenntnis im Hebräerbrief,” in Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum (BevTh 28; Munich: Kaiser, 1959), 188–203 (198); John Joseph Gunther, St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings (NovTSup 35; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 173–79. 3. See the arguments of Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer I (EKK 17/1; Neukirchen– Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Zurich: Benziger, 1990), 67, and, more recently, Georg Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie (WUNT 2/212; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2006), 134–35. 4. This proposal was made by Ernst Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief (3d ed.; FRLANT 55; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 60, and taken up by Grässer, An die Hebräer, 1:67–68. 5. Cf. Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 134–35. 6. Sequences of “powers” are also found in passages with a non-hymnic character, including Rom 8:38–39 (with angels mentioned); Eph 6:12, Col 1:16 and 2:10. 1
FUHRMANN The Son, the Angels and the Odd
85
rst readers/hearers of Hebrews. When one takes into account the dissemination of this motif in early Christian literature by various authors, as in Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians and 1 Peter, this appears to be a certainty. The author in Heb 1:4–14 exclusively refers to Christ’s dominion over the angels, which on the other hand also appear in Ps 8:6, quoted in Heb 2:7. The author is therefore obviously interested in explaining the relationship between Jesus and the angels as it is announced in Ps 8, but in this psalm not Christ’s exaltation over the angels, but his humiliation to a status lower than the angels seems to be the central issue, at least for a Christian interpreter of the rst century. The Tradition of Interpretation of Psalms 8:7 and 109:1 (LXX) as Shown in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians in Comparison with Hebrews As is often shown by scholars,7 in Hebrews 1–2 the author refers to a tradition of interpreting both Ps 8:7 and 109 (LXX) together.8 Certain verses of Ps 8 and Ps 109 (LXX) are cited in both 1 Cor 15 and Eph 1–2, as well as in Hebrews: Ps 109:1 (LXX) in Heb 1:13 (literally), 1 Cor 15:25 and Eph 1:20–21; Ps 8:7 in Heb 2:8 (literally), 1 Cor 15:27 and Eph 1:22. Comparing these quotations from Psalms and their contexts in 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and Hebrews, certain common motifs are to be found: 1. All texts deal with the disempowerment of an enemy, who is either identied with death itself (so 1 Cor 15:26) or connected to it (Eph 2:1–2; Heb 2:14–15). 7. For instance, Gert J. Steyn, “Some Observations About the ‘Vorlage’ of Ps 8:5–7 in Heb 2:6–8,” Verbum et Ecclesia 24 (2003): 493–514 (499), with reference to the commentaries of Weiss and Grässer. 8. At this point the author is more interested in the interpretation of both psalms together rather than individually. For the reception of Ps 8, cf. in addition to Steyn, “Observations,” also Wenceslaus M. Urassa, Psalm 8 and Its Christological ReInterpretations in the New Testament Context: An Inter-contextual Study in Biblical Hermeneutics (EHST 577; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1998), passim. For the reception of Ps 110, cf. David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973); Michael Tilly, “Psalm 110 zwischen hebräischer Bibel und Neuem Testament,” in Heiligkeit und Herrschaft: Intertextuelle Studien zu Heiligkeitsvorstellungen und zu Psalm 110 (ed. D. Sänger; BThS 55; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 146–70, and Martin Hengel, “Psalm 110 und die Erhöhung des Auferstandenen zur Rechten Gottes,” in Anfänge der Christologie (ed. C. Breytenbach and H. Paulsen; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 43–73. 1
86
Psalms and Hebrews
2. The foundation for Christ’s acting towards salvation is, in all texts, expressed as laid in a unity between Christ and those to be saved (1 Cor 15:21–22; Eph 2:5; Heb 2:11, 14–15). It is not very likely that these motifs were used accidentally with and/or independently developed from the Psalms in each case. The chances are, rather, that there was a tradition of interpretation of these Psalms verses in the abovementioned two directions of argumentation. One is concerned with the explanation of the forthcoming or the already established dominion of Christ over the earthly and heavenly authorities and God’s enemies,9 as mentioned above, while the other is concerned with salvation, participation and unity. The focus will now fall on explaining and providing an interpretation of the motif last mentioned as it occurs in 1 Cor 15 and Eph 1–2; and then in Heb 2. The Motif of Participation, Community and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 15 Similar to Heb 2:11, 14a, 17a, Paul in 1 Cor 1510 uses the idea that it is because of their belonging to Christ that believers can be saved. According to 1 Corinthians, salvation is the deliverance from the captivity of death, which can only be performed by a man (Christ), because the captivity is understood as a fate caused by man (Adam). The resurrection of Christ is the starting point of the realization of God’s promise to subordinate everything to Christ and to appoint him as dominator. The resurrection of everybody (QBOUFK, 1 Cor 15:22), respectively of the Christians (PJ UPV_ 9SJTUPV_, 15:23), is expected to take place at the return of the Lord, but is already founded in his resurrection.11 The reason for the resurrection of the dead lies in the imminent victory of Jesus over death as the last enemy (1 Cor 15:24–25 and especially 15:26). The defeat of death is therefore directly connected to the Psalms citations in 1 Cor 15:25 (Ps 109:1 [LXX]) and 1 Cor 15:27 (Ps 8:7).12 Death will be defeated like any other power (here the QBOUB of Ps 8:7 takes effect); the dominion of Christ endures, until God (cf. 15:25)13 has placed every 9. Cf., e.g., Steyn, “Observations,” 497. 10. In this chapter Paul deals with the problem of the resurrection of the dead. See Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther: 1Kor 15,1–16,24 (EKK 7/4; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002), 111ff., for a discussion of Paul’s opponents in Corinth and their denial of the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:12–19). 11. Cf. Schrage, Brief, 188: Jesus’ resurrection is interpreted as “Anbruch und Unterpfand” (“initiation and pledge”) of God’s eschatological salvic action. 12. Cf. especially Hay, “Glory,” 123ff. 13. Cf. Winfried Verburg, Endzeit und Entschlafene: Syntaktisch-sigmatische, semantische und pragmatische Analyse von 1 Kor 15 (FZB 78; Würzburg: Echter, 1
FUHRMANN The Son, the Angels and the Odd
87
power under his feet. Thus, the nal victory over the death is postponed by Paul until the future,14 an idea supported by the BYSJ taken from Ps 109:1 (LXX). Nota bene: the far more cursory manner in which Paul explains the concept of death as resulting through (EJB) man in 1 Cor 15:21, compared to Rom 5:12ff., is further evidence that these ideas, or the premises necessary to arrive at these conclusions, were already known to the Corinthians; hence the interpretation of Ps 8 and 109 as well. The Motif of Participation and Salvation in Ephesians 1–2 The argumentation in Ephesians provides further evidence that there was a tradition of interpreting both of these psalms together. In Eph 1:20– 2:10 the quotations of Ps 8:7 and 109:1 are part of a hymnic end of a prayer,15 which is concerned with the effect (1:20a, FOFSHFJ_O) of God in Christ. God acted in Christ by raising him from the dead (1:20a), appointing him ad dexteram (1:20b = Ps 109:1 [LXX]), and handing him all dominion (1:21a). Christ dominates a whole string of authorities, and receives a new name (1:21a; cf. Heb 1:3). The idea of the Christians’ participation in Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:21–22; Heb 2:11, 14) is to be found in Eph 1:22b, directly following the quotation taken from Ps 8:7. The author of Ephesians interprets that idea within the framework of Christ being the head of the Church, which is, according to Eph 1:23, his body. The author thus derives the salvic effect, for the Church, from the idea of participation in the dominion of Christ (cf. 1:20, FHFJSBK BVUPO…LBJ= LBRJTBK; 2:1, LBJ= VNB_K), insofar as the salvation for the Christian community in 2:5–6 is described analogously to 1:20 as a process of “making alive together” (TV[PXQPJFJ_O), “being raised up together” (TVOFHFJSFJO) and requiring them “to sit together” (TVOLBRJ[FJO).16 Based on their participation in Christ—initialized at baptism—the Christians were seen to escape the inuence of the “prince of the power of the air” (2:2b).17 The motif of disempowerment is thus to be found here as well as the idea of the participation in or the unity with Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15). 1996), 39–41; and Charles E. Hill, “Paul’s Understanding of Christ’s Kingdom in I Corinthians 15:20–28,” New Testament 30 (1988): 297–320 (300). 14. Cf. Verburg, Endzeit, 37. 15. Cf., e.g., Rudolf Schnackenburg, Der Brief an die Epheser (EKK 10; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 69. 16. Eph 2:5 most likely refers to baptism since it alludes to the idea of dying together, raising together and partaking in this through baptism (cf. Rom 6:1–11; Gal 3:27; Col 2:12f.). See Petr Pokorný, Der Brief des Paulus an die Epheser (THKNT 10/2; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1992), 102, 104–5. 17. According to Pokorný (ibid., 86), 2:2b is a reference to the “devil” (EJBCPMPK in Eph 4:27 and 6:11), whose dominion is over the area separating people and God. 1
88
Psalms and Hebrews
Because of the baptism that enables one to be in Christ, the “becoming alive together” with Christ has already become a certain reality as it is manifested in the church, therefore relativizing the eschatological reservation found in 1 Corinthians.18 Hebrews Compared to 1 Corinthians and Ephesians With regard to the theme “disempowerment of an enemy,” Hebrews makes a stand between 1 Corinthians and Ephesians: Hebrews accentuates the already realized disempowerment of the “prince of the power of the air” (as in Ephesians), namely, the EJBCPMPK (Heb 2:14), but also emphasises the “eschatological reservation” as in 1 Corinthians. The expression of the idea of the Christians’ participation in Christ has a stronger relationship in both Hebrews and 1 Corinthians, insofar as it is Christ who established the unity through his incarnation. In Ephesians, Christ and Christians are connected by baptism, and the unity with the exalted Christ implies a raising up and an enthroning together. These parallels, regarding the mention of Pss 110 and 8 in Hebrews, conrm that the basis of reconstructing the process of understanding and the consequent construction of a coherent meaning could be viewed by presuming the same tradition of interpretation for both Pss 8 and 109 (LXX) collectively, which was used in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians, as well as in Hebrews.19 The adoption of the motif “participation in Christ” in Hebrews deserves special attention. The author of Hebrews, unlike Paul, obviously used neither the scheme of an Adam–Christ typology,20 nor the motif of being resurrected together (like in Ephesians) in order to explicate his idea of unity. His interpretation uses the typos of the high priest and the people of the covenant, qualied as his cult-congregation. Some Observations About the Reception and Interpretation of Psalm 8 in Hebrews Having claried the preconditions of the use of Ps 8 in Hebrews, thereby having shown that it is the reception not of that psalm alone but a tradition of the combined interpretation of Pss 8 and 109 (LXX) as well, it 18. Cf. Ferdinand Hahn, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 1, Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2002), 363–64. 19. For traditional elements in 1 Cor 15:20–28, cf. Schrage, Brief, 157 n. 704. 20. Cf., e.g., Daniel G. Powers, Salvation Through Participation: An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’ Corporate Unity with Christ in Early Christian Soteriology (CBETH 29; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 152–56. 1
FUHRMANN The Son, the Angels and the Odd
89
is now easier to understand how the author of Hebrews re-interpreted Ps 8 in the introductory verses of his writing. The Introduction of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2:6 Hebrews 1:4–14 is an explication or conrmation of the statement that was formulated in Heb 1:3c. The sequence of citations21 is framed by a reference to Ps 109:1 (LXX), which in Heb 1:3 is encountered as an allusion (FLBRJTFO FO EFDJB_)] and in Heb 1:13 as a quotation. Thus Ps 109:1 and the motif of the sessio ad dexteram is clearly emphasized. After the admonitions in Heb 2:1–4 the theme is picked up again in Heb 2:5, thematically connected through the motif of the position of the angels related to that of the Son within the hierarchical order. Hence Heb 2:5 can be viewed as a conclusion of the argument in Heb 1:4–14: For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come.
This Scripture-based conclusion is now confronted in Heb 2:6–8 with the quotation of Ps 8:5–7. Therefore an introductory formula is employed, which is unique to this passage: EJFNBSUVSBUP EF QPV UJK MFHXO. Contrary to the common translations, which mostly read “one testied,” it is quite likely that it should be translated with: “But there is somewhere someone contradicting and saying…” Another possibility could be to read the half verse as a rhetorical question, in the sense of: “But is there perhaps one contradicting and saying…?”22 This choice of translation results from certain observations of the meaning of EJBNBSUVSFJ_O in this passive-like respectively deponent form23 to be found in Heb 2:6: The deponens EJBNBSUVSFTRBJ denotes not only, as the stem “NBSU-” suggests, “to bear witness” or “asseverate,” but rather, as LSJ (s.v.) shows, “to protest solemnly” and “to beg earnestly.” In pagan juridical language the term EJBNBSUVSJB even became a terminus technicus for the description of an objection concerning the permissibility of a legal action based on the statement of witnesses.24 The term occurs only here in Hebrews; in biblical writings it is quite often used—besides those cases
21. Cf. Friedrich Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger (BU 4; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1968), 35–40, and Radu Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews (WUNT 2/160; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2003), passim. 22. Then one has to change the punctuation of Nestle-Aland (27th ed.) and QPV_ has to be translated as “perhaps,” not as “somewhere.” 23. I am indebted to my teacher Cilliers Breytenbach, who made this observation during a seminar on Hebrews in Berlin. 24. Cf. Ernst Leisi, Der Zeuge im attischen Recht (Frauenfeld: Huber 1907), 28– 30, with references to Isaeus 6.62; Demosthenes, Pro Phorm. 50–52 et al. 1
90
Psalms and Hebrews
where is has the common meaning “to bear witness”—in the sense of “to warn somebody.”25 When EJBNBSUVSBUP is understood in the sense of as “to protest,” the adversative meaning of EF in Heb 2:6 is much better explained than when it is rendered with “to bear witness.” Such an understanding of the phrase elucidates the author’s intention in his citation of the angel passages: at rst the exaltation and the sessio ad dexteram patri are veried by a proof of Scripture. Afterwards and as a result of this procedure the author substantiates not only the humility itself, but also the necessity of Christ’s humility (in his earthly days) with evidence from Scripture. The author succeeds in advancing his argument by quoting Ps 8:6 in Heb 2:7. Here, one sees for the rst time, after a brief mention in Heb 1:3, that Christ’s existence and effect on earth are in focus. The Reference to the Angels of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2:14–16 Twice the author of the epistle refers to the angels of Ps 8 after quoting it in Heb 2:7, the rst time being in 2:9 and the seconds in 2:16. While in 2:9 a phrase is quoted—CSBYV UJ QBS’ BHHFMMPVK [IMMBUUXNFOPO]—in 2:16 the angels are mentioned in an argumentative manner: PV HB=S EIQPV BHHFMMXO FQJMBNCBOFUBJ BMMB= TQFSNBUPK "CSBB=N FQJMBNCBOFUBJ. Returning to the overview of the tradition used in 1 Cor 15 and Eph 1–2, the equivalent of the “dark powers” in these letters is found in Hebrews as the “devil,” EJBCPMPK. Second, we recall the idea of Christ’s unity with those who belong to him in all three texts connected to both Pss 8 and 109 (LXX). In Hebrews, this idea of unity is very closely connected to the idea of salvation, as shown by 2:14ff. The disempowerment (Heb 2:14, LBUBSHFJ_O)26 of the EJBCPMPK and the deliverance (2:15, BQBMMBTTFJO)27 of those who were captured in slavery 25. Cf. Deut 8:19; 2 Chr 24:19; Neh 9:26; 13:21; Ps 80:9 (LXX); 1 Tim 5:21. For examples from pagan literature, see Demosthenes, Or. 42.28; Polybios, Hist. 1.33.5; Aeschines, De Falsa Legatione 89.9. In Polybios, Hist. 3.110.4 and Plutarch, Cimon 16.8 EJBNSUVSFTRBJ is used with the meaning of “ask to hinder,” at the last example even parallel to LXMVFJO. 26. “To annul/to disempower,” one of the possible denotations of LBUBSHFJ_O LUM (the other is “to annihilate”), ts better within the context (cf. Wolfgang Feneberg, “ ‘Vernichten’ oder ‘entmachten’? Bemerkungen zu dem paulinischen Vorzugswort LBUBSHFX,” Kirche und Israel 1 [1991]: 53–60 [54]) and goes with the intention of the Psalms quotations (cf. Verburg, Endzeit, 148). 27. The verbum can be used in at least two ways (cf. Friedrich Büchsel, “BQBMBTTX LUM,” TWNT 1:252–60 [253]): (1) to deliver one out of a connement (with a genitive), (2) in the juridical sense of deliverance because of an acquittal (cf. the examples of Demosthenes listed by LSJ, s.v., where BQBMMBTTFJO is always used parallel with BGJFOBJ). For Heb 2:15, the last mentioned meaning does not t, 1
FUHRMANN The Son, the Angels and the Odd
91
because of their fear of death constitute the salvic effect of Christ’s death according to Heb 2. The syntactic construction in Heb 2:14b–15 suggests an understanding of both the nal clauses as parallels (especially because of the parallel constructed subjunctive-aorist forms), referring to the causal EJB-construction. Therefore, disempowerment and deliverance are both identied as consequences of the death of Jesus. In Heb 2:15b GPCX] RBOBUPV is the dative-object of FOPYPK28 and EPVMFJBK the genitive-object of BQBMMBTTFJO.29 Therefore this verse can be paraphrased in the following way: “Christ rescued these—so many were their whole life subdued to the fear of death—from slavery.”30 What this means is that the BQBMMBTTFJO designates a deliverance from slavery based on the LBUBSHFJ_O of the EJBCPMPK. For the way ahead, in order to facilitate an understanding of the reconstruction further, it is important to record, that “fear of death” according to Hebrews has no active role in enslaving and is thus not personalized either. Hebrews 2:14b–15 states the salvation effected by Christ. In 2:14a and 2:16, however, the necessity of the humiliation of Christ in enabling this salvation is treated. While Heb 2:14aB is thematically concerned with the EPVMFJB, Heb 2:16 refers to the disempowerment, the LBUBSHFJ_O of the EJBCPMPK. Because of the absolute (QBSBQMITJXK) and unique partaking (aorist: NFUFTYFO) of the Son in esh and blood (Heb 2:14a),31 it is because EPVMFJB has never been a punishment in a juridical sense, in contrast to forced labour, cf. Nikolaus Forgó, “Poena,” DNP 9:1187–88, with literature. The metaphor of forced labour because of the fear of death does not help interpretation. 28. The adjective FOPYPK (cf. LSJ s.v.: generally “held in, bound by,” and as legal term meaning “liable to, subject to”) generally requires a dative-object describing a matter one is obliged to or detained by (e.g. OPNPK, HSBGI, BSB etc.). If it is used with a genitive, as for instance sometimes in the Bible, then the genitive indicates the matter one is convicted of (the crime; cf. 2 Macc 13:6; Mark 3:29), or, related to this, the sentence (cf. Gen 26:11; Mark 14:64 par. Matt 26:66). Furthermore, the genitive with FOPYPK is used for the good someone strives to achieve (cf. 1 Cor 11:27; Jas 2:10). None of these genitive-conjunctions makes EPVMFJB a probable object of FOPYPK in Heb 2:15. 29. The verb always requires a genitivus separationis, except in a juridical context, meaning “acquit”/“pardon” or when simply referring to “remove, eliminate,” cf. LSJ, s.v. 30. As James Moffatt (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [ICC 45; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924 (repr. 1957)], 28, 35) also pleads. On Moffatt’s reading, see Patrick Gray, Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of Superstition (SBL Academia Biblica 16; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 114. 31. The QBJEJB, i.e. men, took part in it per denitionem and are still partaking in it (perfect form). 1
92
Psalms and Hebrews
possible for the Son, Christ, to disempower the devil and to deliver the children from slavery (Heb 2:14b, 15). Hebrews 2:16 thereby motivates why the incarnation, namely, the incarnation as being a “little lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, 9: CSBYV UJ QBS BHHFMMPVK) was necessary. It is because “the EJBCPMPK, as it is well known, does not attack the angels, but he attacks the seed of Abraham” (Heb 2:16). Thus the verb FQJMBNCBOFTRBJ in 2:16 cannot32 refer to the “Son” as the subject because of its denotation: “hold oneself on by, lay hold of; 2. attack…especially with words; 3. make a seizure of, arrest; lay hands on in assertion of a claim; 4. lay hold of, get, obtain.”33 Also in the LXX and in the New Testament FQJMBNCBOFTRBJ with the genitive nearly always designates a violent act, mostly in the sense of “take hold of someone or something using hands,”34 frequently with hostile intention.35 In a gurative sense it is used when one takes hold of a very valuable object.36 The meaning that a person is “taken care of”37 by a higher authority is only to be found once.38 More often the adversative aspect is emphasized, that 32. Cf. the translations and commentaries for that verse in, for example, William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8 (WBC 47A; Dallas: Word, 1991), 51, 63, “he [Jesus] takes hold to help,” or Grässer, An die Hebräer, 1:149–50. See also Martin Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebräer. Vol. 1, Kapitel 1,1–5,10 (ÖTK 20/1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus; Würzburg: Echter, 2002), 158, 180. 33. Cf. LSJ, s.v. The translation listed refers to FQJMBNCBOX in connection with a genitive object. For this translation, see also Karl G. Dolfe, “Hebrews 2,16 Under the Magnifying Glass,” ZNW 84 (1993): 289–94, and Michael E. Gudorf, “Through a Classical Lens: Hebrews 2:16,” JBL 119 (2000): 105–8. But Gerhard Delling, “MBNCBOX LUM,” TWNT 4:5–15 (9), for instance, paraphrases: “ ‘to draw someone to oneself to help’ and thus to take him up into the fellowship of one’s own destiny”; cf. also BDAG, s.v., where Sir 4:11 and Scholia to Aischylos Persae 742 (here: TVOFQJMBNCBOFJO) are cited as examples. 34. Cf. Exod 4:4; Deut 9:17; Judg 16:3; 19:25; 1 Kgs 1:50; (6:6); 11:30; 2 Kgs 2:12; 4:27; Job 8:15; Ps 34:2; Zech 8:23; Isa 27:4; Ezek 29:7; Bel. 1:36; Tob. 6:3; 11:11; Matt 14:31; Mark 8:23; Acts 17:19. Only once, in Jer 38:32, is God an FQJMBCPNFOPK, because this verse is concerned with the hands of God in an anthropomorphic sense. In later Jewish writings, see T. Gad. 6; T. Sim. 8; Philo, Leg. 2.88; Somn. 2.69. 35. Deut 25:11; Judg 12:6; (Aquila) 19:29; 20:6 (FLSBUITFO); 2 Sam 13:11; Job 38:13; Sus 1:40; Luke 20:20, 26; 23:26; Acts 21:30, 33. 36. Cf. Prov 4:13; Bar 4:2 and 1 Tim 6:12, 19. 37. That is the intention in most translations and commentaries; for example, the NKJV: “For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.” The KJV translates “he took not on him the nature of angels.” 38. Namely Sir 4:11, BDAG s.v.; here only FQJMBNCBOFTRBJ in a positive sense has a personal object, and the subject is “wisdom.” In the Hebrew text there one nds 5J EH (Hiphil of 5J ), which means more “admonish”; cf. KBL, s.v. Thus, it is 1
FUHRMANN The Son, the Angels and the Odd
93
something evil takes hold of a person.39 In pagan Greek literature it is used the same manner.40 Because of the denotation of the verbum nitum the readers/hearers are in the process of reception referred to the next possible subject. The connotation of aggression in FQJMBNCBOFTRBJ makes EJBCPMPK the only possible subject, because “fear of death” should not be personied in this context, as shown above.41 Interpreters who read “take care of someone” in Heb 2:16, applying this to “Jesus” as the subject, assume an allusion to Isa 41:8,42 or propose a reverberation of the comparison of Christ with the angels.43 And yet, in the same way the semantic result does, the syntax supports my interpretation. First, the adverb and New Testament hapax legomenon EIQPV44 indicates an appeal to the knowledge of the readers:45 “as we know the devil does not attack angels…” in Heb 2:16 is a motivational statement (HBS) building upon prior experience and expressing an ongoing situation. Second, the interpretation is also supported by the tempora of Heb 2:14–16: the phrase “The children (QBJEJB) are partakers of esh and blood” in 2:14 is formulated with a perfect indicative. Here the action of the Son is subsequently46 described three times using aorist possible that the translators of Sir 4:11 wanted to imply the more threatening aspect of “admonish.” This also explains the alternative reading BOUJMBNCBOFUBJ (cf. the critical edition of Joseph Ziegler, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum, 10/2. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (2d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), laying more emphasis on the adversative character. 39. Cf. Ps 47:7; Jer 30:30; 51:23. 40. See Sebastian Fuhrmann, Vergeben und Vergessen. Christologie und Neuer Bund im Hebräerbrief (WMANT 113; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007), 61–63. 41. That is proposed by Gudorf, “Lens,” 17–18 (and following Gray, “Fear,” 115–17). The proposal of Albert Bonus (“Hebrews 2.16 in the Peshitta Syriac Version,” ExpTim 33 [1921–22]: 234–36) that the “death” has to be the subject of FQJMBNCBOFUBJ may be suitable for the Peshitta, but not for Hebrews, insofar as death never occurs as an entity within the context. The fact, however, that the Peshitta also presents a translation of the verbum that conveys a hostile meaning can be advanced as an argument for the interpretation proposed here. 42. Cf., among others, NA27, although there is BOUJMBNCBOFJO med. in Isa 41:8f. (without alternatives noted by Ziegler). 43. E.g. Grässer, An die Hebräer, 1:149. 44. Cf. LSJ, 388: “perhaps, usual doubtless.” 45. Cf. BDR 441.7: “…Berufung auf das auch bei den Lesern vorhandene Wissen,” “doch wohl, ja.” 46. The UPV_U FTUJO (2:14) is just an expression and needs no consideration concerning our question. 1
94
Psalms and Hebrews
forms (NFUFTYFO, LBUBSHITI], BQBMMBDI]), a phenomenon also found in Heb 2:17 (XGFJMFO…PNPJXRI_OBJ). By means of these complexive aorists47 Christ’s action is characterized as a unique and perfected one. In Heb 2:15b–16, however, only present stems (I>TBO, FQJMBNCBOFUBJ) are to be found, these stressing an aspect of the duration of an activity,48 thus possessing a more dening character. &QJMBNCBOFUBJ therefore cannot refer to the Son, over and above the semantic considerations previously mentioned, because his actions on behalf of the “children” are related to an exact point of time (hence the use of an aorist) and are not commonplace or ongoing actions (which would require a present stem). The EJBCPMPK as prosecutor attacks man. That is why Christ had to become a human being, which in this instance required that he be humiliated to a status lower than the angels, because the angels were not to be liberated. Hence it becomes obvious that the mention of the angels in Heb 2:16 is directly related to the angels of Ps 8:6 cited in Heb 2:7. The question pending from the psalm quotation was not, “is Jesus taking care of the angels or on anybody else?,” but rather “why was the Son required to be humiliated?” The EJBCPMPK, as it is well known, does not attack the angels, but he attacks the seed of Abraham, “therefore (PRFO is a consecutive conjunction)49 … Christ had to be made like his brethren—read: not like the angels—in all things.”50 As can be seen, we nally have in Heb 2:16, 17a a conclusion drawn from a Christological interpretation and a justication of Ps 8:6, both of which have as their foundation the motifs of participation and disempowerment taken from a traditional interpretation of Ps 8:7 and Ps 109:1 (LXX). The Incarnation and the Visible Dominion It is remarkable that there are Christological statements, concerning Christ’s exaltation as well as his humiliation, in close proximity to each other in the rst two chapters of Hebrews.51 The author initially emphasizes—according to the traditional interpretation of Pss 8 and 109 (LXX)—the dominion of Christ, seen in his being enthroned at the right hand of God. It is, however, the impact of Ps 8 that enables the author
47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 1
Cf. BDR 332. Cf. BDR 318.2. Cf. BDR 451.6. The paraphrase here follows the translation of NKJV. Cf. Steyn, “Observations,” 499, with reference to Barth and Clements.
FUHRMANN The Son, the Angels and the Odd
95
specically to focus on the statements of Christ’s superiority over the angels, in a manner markedly different from the traditional listing of the various authorities dominated by the risen Christ. The reason for this specic focus is very likely owing to an attempt to increase the rhetorical effect: the description of Christ’s dominion, derived from the traditional interpretation of Pss 8 and 109, that is, according to Scripture, completely contradicts the experience of the addressees.52 Having increased the rhetorical effect in Heb 1:3–2:5 the author considers the lack of correspondence between the promise of the scripture and the everyday experience, and indicates that even that lack somehow corresponds to scripture. That is why he writes in Heb 2:8–9: “we do not (yet or not at all)53 see the risen and governing Christ (PVQX PSX_NFO BVUX_] UB= QBOUB VQPUFUBHNFOB) but the humiliated and crowned one” (cf. Heb 2:9, UP=O EF= CSBYV UJ QBS BHHFMPVK IMMBUXNFOPO CMFQPNFO *ITPV_O…EPDI] LBJ= UJNI]_ FTUFGBOXNFOPO). This section now seeks to explain the ideas behind that construction. By quoting Ps 8:6 the author gives a rst hint that not only Christ’s enthroning at the right hand of the Father, but also his humiliation, are proven by Scripture: it should be assumed as being known to the addressees that incarnation was an integral part of God’s salvic acts regarding the very probable supposition that the idea of the unity between Christ and those belonging to him was part of the traditional interpretation of both Pss 8 and 109 (LXX) (cf. 1 Corinthians and Ephesians). Otherwise, there would hardly be an explanation for the brevity of argumentation concerning this theme in Heb 2. But the author is not only concerned with the proof from Scripture concerning the necessity of the fact of incarnation and therefore humiliation, but also with the method of this humiliation, namely with Christ’s suffering. As is well known, particularly this suffering on the cross was a christologumenon most defamatory for a Christian in Antiquity.54 Hebrews 2:8b–10 is concerned with this relation.
52. Cf., among others, the socio-historical analyses carried out by David A. DeSilva, Despising Shame: Honor, Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SBLDS 152; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), and Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). 53. Both translations are possible with PVQX, cf. LSJ, s.v. 54. For the implications of crucixion as summum and ultimum supplicium, cf. Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit: Ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums,” ANRW 2.25:1:648– 793. For the understanding of the disgracefulness of crucixion in Hebrews, see 1
96
Psalms and Hebrews
These verses express an interpretation of the preceding quotation of Ps 8:5–7. In 2:8b it is stated that the believers are not yet able to perceive the universal dominion of the Son (the QBOUB VQFUBDBK from Ps 8:7). What they can see is Jesus as the humiliated man in his earthly days (2:9a: UP=O EF= CSBYV UJ QBS BHHFMPVK IMBUUXNFOPO CMFQPNFO *ITPV_O, cf. Ps 8:6a). Astonishingly, however, according to 2:9aC, the believers do not only see Jesus as the humiliated, but also as the crowned, one (EJB= UP= QBRINB UPV_ RBOBUPV EPDB] LBJ= UJNI]_ FTUFGBOXNFOPO, cf. Ps 8:6b), which would rather have been expected to be a statement about the ruling Christ. Furthermore, as the nal conjunction PQXK55 indicates, Christ’s coronation was before his death on the cross, and was because of his suffering. That is: The suffering of Jesus while he was dying—that is to say his suffering on the cross—qualied him to taste56 death effectively for all (VQF=S QBOUPK).57 When the author of the epistle to the Hebrews did not connect the motif of being crowned from Ps 8 with the initiation of the sessio ad dexteram it demanded an answer as to what he intended when he located this crowning “with honour and fame” in Jesus’ earthly days. The most probable explanation is that this alludes to the appointment of the Son in the high priest’s ministry. The investiture of a high priest was, according to our sources, accompanied by a kind of crowning, which can be understood as a type of encyclopaedic background58 (cf., e.g., Sir 45:12, investiture of Aaron, among other things with a golden wreath: TUFGBOPK YSVTPV_K) and especially in the book of Zechariah (Zech 6:11, crowning of the high priest: QPJITFJK TUFGBOPVK LBJ= FQJRITFJK FQJ= UI=O LFGBMI=O *ITPV_).59 11:26; 12:2; 13:13. Probably not the crucixion per se, but the non-heroic way of suffering (cf. Heb 5:7) of Jesus was reason for the mockery by pagan and Jewish critics of early Christendom. 55. See Herbert Braun, An die Hebräer (HNT 14; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1984), 56: “a nal clause would be against the course of argumentation and absurd” (“ablaufs- und sinnwidrig”). 56. That there is a difference in meaning between “suffering of death” and “tasting the death” is also seen by Karrer (Brief, 172), in opposition to, for example, Braun (Hebräer, 56), who is assuming an epexegetical function of UPV_ RBOBUPV, which means an identity of QBRINB UPV_ RBOBUPV and HFVPNBJ RBOBUPV. 57. The same line of argumentation is, it should be noted, also to be found in Heb 5:8–9 and 7:28. 58. Perhaps there is also an allusion on the passion narratives and the crown of thorns (Mark 15:17 par. Matt 27:29; John 19:2), but there the reference is to the crowning of a king. 59. For pagan priesthood, see also Diodor of Sicily 20.54. 1
FUHRMANN The Son, the Angels and the Odd
97
Because of the nal conjunction PQXK (Heb 2:9), the expression of the God-forsaken Jesus on the cross refers to the intention of the author to describe Christ’s suffering and his death as a necessary event according to God’s salvic plan. Regarding the explanation of the author, the suffering and death of Jesus were not only disgraceful but in addition they were actually according to God’s will (FQSFQFO RFX],_ Heb 2:10) with regard to the perfection of the Son (UFMFJXTJK, cf. Heb 5:9 and 7:28)60. The Son had necessarily to withstand these temptations, sufferings and hostilities, in order to comply with the rule formulated in Heb 2:11 (P BHJB[XO LBJ= PJ BHJB[PNFOPJ FD FOP=K QBOUFK [cf. 5:1]).61 This sentence is the author’s interpretation of the motif of the close connection of Jesus and those belonging to him, which we know from the interpretation of the psalm in Eph 1–2, as well as in 1 Cor 15 (and Rom 5). Conclusion Hopefully it has been demonstrated how at least one important intention of the author of Hebrews was to contextualize the traditional interpretation of Ps 8 anew. The author emphasizes a new interpretation of these portions of Scripture, which were used to explicate the Son’s resurrection and enthronement. In Hebrews these portions of Scripture are also employed to prove that the humiliation of Christ is according to God’s plan. This new interpretation begins in the rst verses of the epistle with a detailed reference to a well-known matter: the name of Christ, Son, is higher than that of the angels (Heb 1:4), although he was humiliated to a position lower than the angels (Heb 2:7 = Ps 8:7). The motif of the close connection between the “saviour” and the ones to be saved found in 1 Cor 15 and Eph 1–2, regarding the Christians and the risen Christ, is, in Hebrews, initially applied to the taking part of the Son in the temptations during his earthly ministry. This manner of thinking underlines the
60. See Sebastian Fuhrmann, “Christ Grown into Perfection. Hebrews 9,11 from a Christological Point of View,” Biblica 89 (2008): 92–100. 61. Cf. Otfried Hous, Katapausis. Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT 11; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1970), 216 n. 830, with examples. Hous summarizes, “daß der zitierte Satz v.11a nicht eine christologische Aussage darstellt, sondern einen mit 5,1–3 zu vergleichenden allgemeingültigen Grundsatz über das Verhältnis von Priester und Gemeinde: Priestertum setzt Blutsverwandtschaft voraus… An Hand dieses Grundsatzes wird in Hebr 2,11bff aufgezeigt, warum Christus Mensch werden mußte.” Cf. also Karrer, Hebräer I, 182, referring to Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.229. 1
98
Psalms and Hebrews
comforting (paracletic) character of the text. The author of Hebrews places emphasis on the compassion of Christ with the attempted believers and gives an argument for Jesus’ disgraceful suffering on the cross by means of the scriptural proof of Ps 8.
1
THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION OF PSALM 8:4–6 IN HEBREWS 2:6–9. PART I Leonard P. Maré
Introduction Psalm 8 stands out in comparison to the psalms surrounding it in its placement in the Psalter. The previous ve psalms (Pss 3–7) led us through the dark valleys of lament and times of disconsolation, and in the psalms following we will again return to the depths of despair and misery, to the deepest darkness of heartache and suffering. In the midst of these, Ps 8 stands as a beacon of light, illuminating a bleak and desolate landscape with its enjoyment of the glory of Yahweh, as revealed in the majesty of creation. In this study I intend to examine Ps 8 in its original setting and investigate how the author of Hebrews interprets this psalm christologically. It seems that there are two extreme scholarly viewpoints in this regard. On the one hand, we have the view of Goldingay who argues that the New Testament interpretation of the psalm should be seen as part of New Testament Theology and quite irrelevant to the meaning of the psalm, which does not have a direct bearing on Jesus.1 In its own context, the psalm is neither explicitly nor implicitly eschatological. Nor is it messianic. It is rather a celebration of the position of rulership to which God has appointed humankind. On the other hand, Leupold maintains that Ps 8 is messianic by type.2 He argues that man as originally created is a clear foreshadowing of Jesus Christ. What was said of the one may be claimed for the other. Leupold believes that the author of the psalm did not fully realize this particular aspect when he composed his poem, but he was led by God’s 1. John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology. Vol. 1, Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 112. 2. Herbert C. Leupold, Exposition of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), 101.
1
100
Psalms and Hebrews
Spirit to express certain higher elements of truth. By divine providence the human author was inspired to write truths of which he himself was not aware at the time, but which the Spirit of God intended. Structure, Gattung, Sitz im Leben and Dating Structure In the heading, the meaning of EJE89 is uncertain. The word might be linked to one of the well-known towns of the Philistines, Gath. Whether the word might indicate a type of instrument, or a melody, or perhaps some kind of religious festival associated with that town, is completely unknown.3 With regard to the structure of the psalm, various possibilities have been offered. Craigie maintains that the psalm consists of four strophes, namely, God’s majesty and might (vv. 2–3), humankind’s sense of insignicance (vv. 4–5), God’s role for humankind (vv. 6–9), and concluding praise (v. 10).4 Terrien describes the structure as follows: Prelude—the marvel of the Name (v. 2ab); Strophe 1—the majesty of God (vv. 2c–3); Strophe 2— the fragility of humanity (vv. 4–5); Strophe 3—the greatness of humankind (vv. 6–7); Strophe 4—the service of animals (vv. 8–9); Postlude— the marvel of the Name (v. 10). According to Terrien, the psalm thus consists of four quatrains of four cola each.5 Wilson divides the psalm into the following sections: vv. 2a and 10 form an inclusio that proclaims the wondrous admiration of the psalmist for the glory of God; vv. 2b–3 praise Yahweh’s majestic power and protection as creation displays it; vv. 4–5 give recognition to human frailty in the light of the creative power of God; and vv. 6–9 contain the astonished acceptance of divine empowerment and humankind’s resultant responsibility.6 Müller sees vv. 2 and 10 as the framework of the psalm, declaring the worldwide praise of Yahweh, Israel’s God, with v. 3 as an expansion on this theme. Verses 4–5 contain the crux of the psalm, namely, the praise 3. For a reference to an instrument or melody, cf. Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50 (WBC 19; Waco: Word, 1983), 105; and also Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59 (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 31. For the understanding of a religious festival, cf. Robert Davidson, The Vitality of Worship: A Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 37. 4. Craigie, Psalms, 106–7. 5. Samuel Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary (ECC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 126. 6. Gerald H. Wilson, Psalms (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 1:199. 1
MARÉ The Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 8:4–6. Part I
101
of the Creator and his creation—humankind—with 6–9 an elaboration of this theme.7 Bullock believes that the psalm has a chiastic pattern: A B
B A
Benediction (1) God’s rule (2–3) C Human meanness (4) C Human greatness (5) Humanity’s rule (6–9) Benediction (10)8
All of these suggestions certainly have their merit, but to my mind the structure of the psalm is as follows: v. 2a forms an inclusio with v. 10, proclaiming the majesty and glory of Yahweh. The name of Yahweh here is a reference to God’s person and his character. The Name is synonymous with everything he is. Therefore the psalmist begins with Yahweh and ends with Yahweh. Before he speaks of enemies and humanity and its place in creation, he speaks of God, and when he has nished speaking of humanity, crowned with glory, he again speaks of God. Ultimately, the psalmist declares that God is an awesome God. Verses 2b–3 speak of Yahweh’s majestic power displayed in creation and the protection found in Yahweh that silences the enemy. The Hebrew of this verse and a half is difcult to understand. The verse begins with the words 9?E C0 , the relative particle followed by an imperative. This reading is not only extremely awkward, but also grammatically impossible. Various solutions have been proposed for this problem.9 In the end there is no clear solution and I have decided to follow the suggestion of the critical apparatus of BHS and read the Qal perfect second masculine singular of the verb *E?, with the translation “You have set your glory above the heavens.” The H+-assonance in )JB?H+JH )J==H+ and (JCCH+4 and 3JH+ emphasizes the contrast between God’s power and the strength of the enemies. God’s power is established in the mouths of those who are regarded as weak and unable to neutralize the strength of the enemies. Thus the psalmist underlines the fact that the power of enemies, human or otherwise, is as 7. Buks A. Müller, “Psalm 8,” in Riglyne vir prediking oor die Psalms (ed. Coenie W. Burger, Buks A. Müller and Dirkie J. Smit; Kaapstad: N. G. KerkUitgewers, 1988), 36. 8. C. Hassell Bullock, Encountering the Book of Psalms (EBS; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 42. 9. Cf. Kraus, Psalms, 178, for an overview as well as a bibliography on the subject; cf. also Marvin E. Tate, “An Exposition of Psalm 8,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 28, no. 4 (2001): 349–50. 1
Psalms and Hebrews
102
nothing compared to the strength of God, even when that strength is revealed in the weakest of the weak. The focus stays therefore on God. Verses 4–6 proclaim the glory of humankind as the apex of God’s creation. Verse 4 forms the introduction to the question posed in v. 5. When the psalmist surveys the glory of creation, he is overwhelmed with the realization that humankind really is the pinnacle of the work of God’s ngers. Verse 5, H?5BAE J< )5 *3H H?C
, is a synonymous parallelism, while v. 6 has a chiastic pattern: H9C E A
C59H 5H3
)J9= > > B
H9CDIEH A
The >-alliteration between )J9= > and > emphasizes the position of humankind in relation to God and /or the heavenly beings, depending on one’s reading of )J9= (see the analysis below). The last syllables of the verbs in vv. 5–6 rhyme: H?C in vv. 2, 5 and 10. The eye and ear of the reader are through the use of this particle immediately drawn to the centre and the boundaries of the psalm. Thus, Yahweh’s majesty forms the boundaries in which humanity nds its place of glory through its God-appointed position of rulership. Therefore the question “What is man?” cannot be separated from the question “Who is God?” I will elaborate on this later in the analysis of the psalm. In vv. 7–9 the poet expands on the position of humankind as ruler over all the animals. Verse 7, HJ=8CEIE 9E =< (J5J J >3 H9=J>E, forms a synonymous parallelism. The use of second person verbal forms reiterates what was said previously concerning God’s actions. Verse 8 shows a chiastic pattern: J5 EH>93 A
)8H B
)=< B
)JA= H 9?4 A
The use of the word =< here in vv. 7–9 as well as in vv. 2 and 10 again draws attention to the boundaries and the centre of the psalm. God’s majesty can be seen in all of creation, and he has placed all the works of his hands under humankind’s feet. Thus the psalmist again calls attention to the fact that humankind’s identity is found within God. 1
MARÉ The Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 8:4–6. Part I
103
Gattung There can be little doubt that Ps 8 should be described as a hymn, and more specically, as a creation hymn.10 It is, however, not a hymn in praise of creation, but in praise of the Creator.11 Yet, it is an original and unique creation by its author, resulting in an apparent mixture of forms within the psalm. The form of the psalm is unusual in the sense that it does not contain the usual calls to praise found in hymns; also, it is addressed to God throughout.12 Hymnic material, wisdom material and elements of the lament can be found in the psalm.13 The terse, direct address of God with which the psalm begins is typical of lament, while the question of v. 5, “What is man?,” is a phrase used in wisdom literature in the context of suffering, the pursuit of justice and fear of mortality and guilt (cf. Job 7:17; 15:14; Ps 144:3).14 This reection on the nature and destiny of humankind is of course typical of wisdom literature. Sitz im Leben It is quite impossible to ascertain whether the psalm was composed specically for use in the liturgy for a specic act of cultic worship. It was possibly used in the cult, perhaps on an occasion such as the Feast of Tabernacles.15 Eaton thinks that the psalm has a connection with the autumnal New Year festival where Yahweh was celebrated as king.16 However, its content is so central to Israel’s tradition that there certainly were numerous occasions for which the psalm would be appropriate. The fact that the psalm alternates between singular and plural forms would make it tting for communal worship. The heading of the psalm certainly indicates a cultic use of the psalm during the course of Israel’s worship in the temple. At a later date, the psalm was associated with the Day of Ascension in Christian circles, due to the New Testament’s interpretation thereof.17 10. Arnold A. Anderson, Psalms 1–72 (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 100; and also Craigie, Psalms, 106. 11. Müller, “Psalm 8,” 35. 12. John Eaton, The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary with an Introduction and New Translation (London: T&T Clark International, 2003), 80; cf. also Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Psalms Part 1, with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL 14; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 67; and also James Luther Mays, Psalms (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1994), 65. 13. Craigie, Psalms, 106; cf. also Kraus, Psalms, 179. 14. Gerstenberger, Psalms, 68–69. 15. Anderson, Psalms, 100; cf. also Craigie, Psalms, 106. 16. Eaton, Psalms, 80. 17. Craigie, Psalms, 106. 1
104
Psalms and Hebrews
Kraus argues that the psalm was used during a festival that took place at night-time, during which it was sung antiphonally (cf. Ps 134:1; Isa 30:29; 1 Chr 9:33).18 Davidson, however, argues the exact opposite, maintaining that the fact that the psalmist refers only to the stars and the moon does not necessarily indicate that the psalm was performed at night during some cultic act.19 In the end, I do not think that the cultic use of the psalm should be conned to one specic occasion; it was probably used in a variety of settings, including private use by an individual believer. Gerstenberger maintains that humanity’s experience of the general volatility and insecurities of life provide the background for the origin of the psalm.20 Tate also believes that the psalm originated from a situation of stress and that the psalmist wants to strengthen the faith of the community of Yahweh worshippers.21 Thus, the praise offered to God in Ps 8 forms a rampart of strength against evil forces that endanger a person in the midst of the community. The reference to the enemy and the avenger in v. 3 surely means that Gerstenberger’s and Tate’s viewpoints are feasible. In the midst of everything that can and does go pear-shaped in life, the psalmist is aware of his frailty as a nite human being. But then he looks up, perhaps at night, to see the beauty of God’s glory revealed in his creation. Then he realizes that humankind, being created in God’s image, displays God’s glory and majesty so much more than the rest of creation. This oods him with praise to God the Creator, and thus, through his praise, the enemy is silenced. The place of the psalm in the Psalter also lends support to this view. Tate has pointed out that the psalms surrounding Ps 8 reect oppression and distress, and enemies of all kinds are extremely prolic.22 The faithful worshipper is indeed under siege, living in a world where they are under constant threat, but where their praise will silence the enemy, even if just for a moment. Dating It is not really possible to date the psalm with any degree of certainty. The psalm itself provides us with no clues in this regard. It is similar to Gen 1 with regard to creation in general as well as humanity’s position in 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 1
Kraus, Psalms, 179. Davidson, Vitality of Worship, 38. Gerstenberger, Psalms, 71. Tate, “Psalm 8,” 346. Ibid, 344, 346.
MARÉ The Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 8:4–6. Part I
105
creation, but these similarities do not provide us with any information concerning its precise dating. The theme of creation does not necessarily mean that it should be assigned a post-exilic date, as is often assumed.23 A post-exilic date is possible, but a pre-exilic date cannot be discounted. We simply cannot be sure. Analysis of Psalm 8 As will be seen, the inclusio (vv. 2a and 10) should be understood as the key to our understanding of the psalm. The inclusio shows that Yahweh’s sovereign power encompasses the whole of creation as well as all spheres of life. Everything in the psalm should be read in service of the glory of Yahweh’s name.24 God is addressed as Yahweh, Israel’s Lord. The Name is an indication of God’s revelation of himself.25 The glory of his Name speaks of the glory of his being; his person. Through his name, Yahweh acts in this world.26 Wilson points out that the use of the name 9H9J is signicant.27 God made himself known and accessible to his people through the revelation of the Name. It is an extension of who he is. Where the Name of God is, there he is. The divine name presents God to the world. A god is usually found in a place where his worshippers can gather to offer him praise. The temple is often such a place where believers encounter God. In Ps 8, however, the name of Israel’s God is not conned to the temple, but it extends throughout all the earth.28 The word-pair (> and (5H9 occurs elsewhere, in Ps 148:13. There, as is the case here, the Name is used almost as a synonym for the glory of God. Yahweh’s name reveals his glory in all of creation. The word-pair #C 9 and )J>9 forms a merism and indicates the all-encompassing reach of God’s glory. Both heaven and earth display the glory and majesty of God, who encounters humankind throughout creation. The focus is on Yahweh and his glory, not on creation. The subject matter of Israel’s praise is not the glory of creation, but the glory of the Creator.
23. Craigie, Psalms, 106. 24. Cas Vos and G. C. Olivier, “Die Psalms in die liturgie met verwysing na Psalm 8 as liedteks,” HTS 58 (November 2002): 1431–46 (1436). 25. Craigie, Psalms, 107. 26. Vos and Olivier, “Psalm 8,” 1436. 27. Wilson, Psalms, 200. 28. Cf. Richard J. Clifford, Psalms 1–72 (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 68. 1
106
Psalms and Hebrews
5H9 often refers to the glory or majesty of an earthly king (e.g. Ps 21:5). It is therefore quite appropriate that this word is used to describe the glory of the one whose majesty and splendour surpass that of any human ruler, because his rule encompasses both heaven and earth.29 As was shown in the structural analysis of the psalm, in v. 3 the poet contrasts Yahweh’s power and the strength of the enemies. Yahweh’s power is established in the mouths of babes and children. Scholarly opinions differ regarding how this verse should be understood. Eaton argues that “the context suggests that these ‘babes’ are the weak and humble worshippers, whose inadequate singing of God’s glory is yet used by him to still the avenger.”30 Mays states that it should be understood as hyperbole—every human sound is a response to the universal reign of God and the revelation of his majesty.31 Children can also be understood as a symbol of the weak and powerless.32 Dahood holds to the view that the psalmist is so overwhelmed by God’s majesty that he can only babble like an infant.33 Vos and Olivier believe that the babes and children are not a metaphor for the suffering and scorned people of God, but are instead a reference to those who testify of God’s power.34 Perhaps the psalmist simply means that children will literally join in the praise offered to Yahweh and that out of their praise Yahweh raises a bulwark of strength to silence the enemies. Kraus suggests that perhaps wisdom thinking was involved here and that the poet wanted to indicate that the power of enemies is broken by the voice of weak children.35 Here in Ps 8 the enemies are not identied, and therefore they can refer to any and everyone who opposes God. Weiser’s assertion that the enemies refer to sceptics and atheists does not nd support in the text.36 From that which in the eyes of man is helpless and weak, God ordains strength to defy everything and everyone that oppose him. The power of the enemy, of whatever kind they might be, is utterly and absolutely neutralized by Yahweh’s strength, even when that strength is revealed in the weakest of the weak. The focus therefore stays on God.
29. Cf. Davidson, Vitality of Worship, 37. 30. Eaton, Psalms, 81. 31. Mays, Psalms, 66. 32. Müller, “Psalm 8,” 36. 33. Mitchell J. Dahood, Psalms. Vol. 1, 1–50 (AB 16; Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), 49. 34. Vos and Olivier, “Psalm 8,” 1437. 35. Kraus, Psalms, 182. 36. Artur Weiser, The Psalms (trans. Herbert Hartwell; OTL; London: SCM, 1962), 141. 1
MARÉ The Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 8:4–6. Part I
107
In v. 4 the poet looks at the majesty of God’s work and describes it as J > (JE 34 . Terrien compares this with the art of a sculptor, whose ngers, more than his hands, fashion and mould the complex designs of the Universe.37 Davidson points out that we need to recognize the huge gulf that exists between our world and the world of the psalmist.38 When we look to the heavens today, using modern technology, we can see so much more than he or she did, looking up at the sky in ancient Israel. The psalmist only saw the stars and the moon (and, of course, the sun), but we can gaze in wonder at galaxies millions of light years away, at black holes and thousands of planets. The immensity of space and thus of God’s creation is such an overwhelming display of the majesty and the splendour, the greatness of the Creator, that we can certainly echo the words of the psalmist to the nth degree. And yet, in the midst of this display of power and glory, we can also cry out in wonder with the psalmist: H?5BAE J< )5 *3H H?C
Verse 5 is an expression of wonder that in the vastness of the universe, a universe that reveals the fullness of God’s glory, human beings have such a noble and important role: “Though unfurling the vast reaches of space and directing the movement of the stars and moon, God gives special attention to humans on earth.”39 They do not deserve this in any way; God simply chooses to crown humans with his splendour and majesty. They are indeed endowed with glory and splendour like the king in Ps 21:5, and they have dominion over the three spheres of earthly life: land, air, and sea (vv. 7–8).40 This is in contrast to the cosmogonies found in ancient Near Eastern texts, where humans are created to be the slaves of the gods—maintaining the universe for them and seeing to their food, clothing and honour. However, biblical cosmogony differs: Yahweh is not needy like these other gods; he created humans in his image and likeness to live in a living relationship with him, to subdue the earth and to rule over its creatures.41 When the psalmist views the wonder of God’s creation one would expect that he would be overwhelmed by the knowledge that humankind is small and insignicant. Yet, the opposite is true: he is fascinated by humankind’s greatness as the apex of God’s creation.42 Here the 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 1
Terrien, Psalms, 129. Davidson, Vitality of Worship, 38. Clifford, Psalms, 69. Ibid, 69–70. Ibid, 70. Müller, “Psalm 8,” 37.
108
Psalms and Hebrews
signicance of the interrogative particle 9>, which was pointed out in the structural analysis, comes into play. By drawing our attention to the centre and the boundaries of the psalm, the poet shows that the revelation of God’s glory and the distinguished position of humanity cannot and should not be separated. The glory of humanity is indeed a reection of God’s glory. The glory and honour of humankind cannot be understood in isolation from the majesty and glory of Yahweh. Yahweh’s glory is revealed in all of creation, and thus also in humankind, as the crown of that glory. The centre of the psalm announces human power and authority. The boundaries of the psalm contain declarations of praise to God. The centre (v. 5) and the boundaries (vv. 2a, 10) must be understood in relation to one another. In the words of Brueggemann, Human power is always bounded and surrounded by divine praise. Doxology gives dominium its context and legitimacy. The two must be held together… [T]o use human power without the context of praise of God is to profane human regency over creation and so usurp more than has been granted.43
Weiser conrms this viewpoint by pointing out that God’s revelation enables humankind to arrive at the right understanding of his own self.44 The Bible upholds an intimate relation between God’s revelation and humankind’s comprehension of his own existence. God’s revelation always illuminates the nature of humankind; and, on the other hand, an accurate appreciation of humanity cannot be realized if God is taken out of the equation. “The claim of the Psalm is thus that we can say ‘human being’ only after we have learned to say ‘God’.”45 Kraus points out that the exclamation introduced by 9> expresses unlimited astonishment.46 Heaven and earth testify to Yahweh’s greatness and majesty, and thus the poet is made aware of the ultimate depths of his humanity. The statement in Ps 8:2 and 10 is decisive in this regard. Just as the creative power and majesty of Yahweh can only be known in the entire creation through the revelatory power of his Name, so too the mystery and wonder of humankind’s beginning and destiny can be perceived only through Yahweh’s self-revelation. Mays rightly points 43. Walter Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 37–38. 44. Weiser, Psalms, 142–43. 45. James Luther Mays, “What is a Human Being? Reections on Psalm 8,” Theology Today 50, no. 44 (1994): 519. 46. H.-J. Kraus, Theology of the Psalms (trans. Keith Crim; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 148. 1
MARÉ The Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 8:4–6. Part I
109
out that the riddle of human identity is somehow interrelated with its being remembered and visited by God.47 Childs maintains that the psalmist, while observing the magnitude of God’s creative power as displayed in the heavens, is overwhelmed with the thought of humankind’s insignicance.48 Davidson also believes that to look at ourselves in the light of the vastness of the universe is to have our insignicance forcefully brought home to us, because we are tiny specks living on one of the smallest planets.49 It is indeed true that basic to the term H? is the idea of humankind as weak and vulnerable.50 This means that the position of glory that this psalm assigns to humankind is so much more wonderful—because it is indeed this weak nite vulnerable being that has been elevated to a position a little lower than heavenly beings, because he has been created in the image of almighty Yahweh. The position of humankind as the one creature adorned with God’s glory thus stands in sharp contrast to the image of frailty and nitude. The question asked in v. 5 also occurs in Ps 144:3–4, where the psalmist asks it in reference to the frailty and eetingness of human life. H? and )5 *3 also occur in Ps 90:3 in this sense. Job also asks this question in Job 7:17, where it reads as a bitter parody of Ps 8.51 The question the psalm asks, “What is man?,” is a question that reects our time. In other times the focus was on the doctrine of creation or Christology. In the psalmist’s own time the question was “Who is God?” Psalm 8 holds those two questions together.52 To ask what humankind is, one has to ask who is God, because it is only in that relationship that humanity can really discover who it is. The poet continues by declaring that humankind has been made a little less than )J9= , and that he has been crowned with C59H 5H3<. Scholars differ concerning the translation of )J9= . Clifford believes that )J9= should be understood as “heavenly beings” (cf. Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; Ps 97:7).53 Crenshaw argues for the opposite, maintaining that the audacity
47. Mays, “Psalm 8,” 515. 48. Brevard S. Childs, “Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian Canon,” Int 23 (1969): 20–31 (22). 49. Davidson, Vitality of Worship, 39. 50. Kraus, Theology, 149; cf. also Wilson, Psalms, 204. 51. Davidson, Vitality of Worship, 39; cf. also J. Clinton McCann, A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 60–64, for a discussion of the intertextuality of Ps 8 and the book of Job. 52. McCann, Theological Introduction, 58; cf. also Mays, “Psalm 8,” 511–12. 53. Clifford, Psalms, 69; cf. also Wilson, Psalms, 206. 1
110
Psalms and Hebrews
of the claim made by the psalmist favours the sense “God.”54 This is also the position that Craigie takes, arguing that )J9= contains here an allusion to God’s image in humankind, and the exercise of the God-given dominion in creation. I think either translation is possible.55 It certainly does not refer to gods in the sense of idols, because they are usually considered weak and ultimately powerless.56 The point the psalmist wishes to make is that humankind is not equal to God or to heavenly beings, but they are just a little lower, “endowed with divine qualities, but not inherently divine in nature.”57 The place of humankind in the world is portrayed in the psalm by the use of imagery related to the coronation of a king. The word-pair C59H 5H3< is found elsewhere in Ps 145:12, where it refers to Yahweh’s kingship. C59 occurs in Ps 104:1 in relation to creation, and is a quality usually ascribed to kings (Pss 21:6; 45:4–5).58 Humankind is set up as a king over all the creatures. McCann points out the signicance of the repetition of the word =< in vv. 2, 7, 8 and 10.59 God’s glory is revealed in all of creation, and he has placed all under humankind’s feet. Thus, the “allness” of Yahweh’s majesty is given by him to humankind. This means that God’s majesty as it is revealed in all of the earth includes humanity’s glory and position of authority. Yet, this dominion of humankind should never be seen as a self-serving use of power against other creatures; rather, it should be understood as a claim that human dominance should be undertaken as a vocation whose source and signicance lies in Yahweh’s rulership. The reign of humans over other creatures is thus a reign for the sake of the subjects.60 Structurally as well as theologically the psalm declares that humankind’s authority is bounded by God’s sovereignty and majesty. If we ignore the central position of humankind in God’s creative order we can shun our responsibility to rule and be faithful stewards of all things. But the greater danger would be to focus on the centre and ignore the boundaries. Human dominion should always be placed in the context of God’s sovereignty.61 54. James Crenshaw, The Psalms: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 63. 55. Craigie, Psalms, 108. 56. Tate, “Psalm 8,” 355. 57. Ibid. 58. Ibid. 59. McCann, Theological Introduction, 58. 60. Mays, “Psalm 8,” 518. 61. McCann, Theological Introduction, 59. 1
MARÉ The Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 8:4–6. Part I
111
The privileged position of humankind as portrayed in this psalm should never be understood as the glorication of humankind. The psalm speaks of delegated authority and delegated glory, as vv. 6–7 make clear. Here we nd four verbs with God as the subject (H9CDIEH, H9C E, H9=J>E, 9E). Humankind’s signicance can never be seen in isolation from God’s majesty and glory. It is in humankind’s reection of God’s glory that they nd their signicance. Kraus puts it beautifully: The origin of human life and the form of its meaning are given in relationship with God… Only in this face-to-face relationship does the glory of God’s world shine into the depths where mankind stands, and only thus does the “elohim nature” of mankind nd tangible expression and only thus do splendour and beauty, like a royal crown, adorn and honour mankind. By Yahweh’s decision and ordinance, humans, though miserable and vulnerable, have come to belong to God’s world. Just as the name of Yahweh is manifest upon the earth, and God’s majesty is reected in the creation of the heavens, so now from mankind, as beings incorporated into the “elohim world,” the reection of God’s majesty shines forth.62
God has appointed humankind to a position of rulership. This rulership involves taking care of that which God has made; we are indeed accountable to God for what we have done to the earth. When humankind’s rulership becomes the focus and it is no longer bounded within the context of Yahweh’s sovereign power, then dominion can and will result in disaster. The rape and pillage of the earth and its resources, the very real threat to so many species of wildlife, and the pollution of the atmosphere stand in shrill dissonance to this trust, accusing humankind of disobedience to the mandate of care, of rulership that God has delegated to us. In the words of McCann, If the centrality of human dominion does not contribute to the majesty of God “in all the earth,” then God-given dominion has been replaced by human autonomy. The result is death and destruction—for the earth, for us, for future generations.63
Human greed accompanied by the relentless exploitation of the creation must be replaced by a new sense of stewardship. This stewardship will only be possible when we accept the authority of God over us, and when we understand that it is in our reection of his majesty and glory that we can come to the right understanding of who and what we really are; only then can we full our God-ordained position as the apex of his creation.64 62. Kraus, Theology, 149. 63. McCann, Theological Introduction, 59. 64. Davidson, Vitality of Worship, 40; cf. also Elizabeth Hinson-Hasty, “Psalm 8,” Int 59 (2005): 392–94. 1
112
Psalms and Hebrews
McCann is therefore correct when he observes that the praise of God is the rst step in addressing the environmental crisis.65 When we worship God we are reminded that humanity is not free to do whatever science and technology enables us to do. Worship insists on God being God and human being human. Worship of God demands that we recognize that our identity and destiny should not and cannot be understood apart from the sovereign majesty of Yahweh. God has not withdrawn the commission to have dominion over the world. He created humankind in his image to be his representatives on earth (cf. Gen 1:28; 2:15). In the words of Goldingay, The fullment of this sovereignty does not have to wait for the coming of a messiah. Psalm 8 does not speak ideally of a world that could not become a reality in the psalmist’s day. It is a rejoicing in the nature of human experience now and it implies an accepting of a human vocation for now.66
Summary and Conclusion In this study Ps 8 was analyzed in its Old Testament context. This setting indicated that humankind nds its glory in the glory and the majesty of Yahweh. The inclusio (vv. 2a and 10) has shown that we cannot speak about humankind without speaking about God rst. To ask “What is man?” we rst have to ask “Who is God?” Psalm 8 pictures humankind as the apex of God’s creation. In the midst of the glorious revelation of God’s majesty in his creative work, the psalmist celebrates the superior position of humankind. Psalm 8, however, does not proclaim the glory of humankind in isolation from the glory of God. The authority of humankind over all the works of creation, all the animals, birds and creatures of the sea, should always be understood as delegated authority. God appoints humankind to rule over the creation that he fashioned with his ngers. Therefore, humankind has the obligation not to exploit creation for its own selsh purposes, but to care for creation as faithful stewards under God’s rule. The second part of this study (by Chris L. De Wet) will pay attention to the citation of Ps 8:4–6 in Heb 2:6–9. The author of Hebrews, writing in a different context would interpret the Old Testament text messianically, inuenced by the events surrounding the person of Jesus Christ. The author of Hebrews adapts the text to suit his own purpose, which makes the messianic interpretation possible.
65. McCann, Theological Introduction, 59. 66. Goldingay, Theology, 113. 1
THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION OF PSALM 8:4–6 IN HEBREWS 2:6–9. PART II Chris L. De Wet
Introduction It has been demonstrated in the contribution by Leonard P. Maré that the Old Testament context of Ps 8 exclaims the glory of humankind as the crown of God’s creation. Literally centuries later, the psalm would be read by the author of Hebrews, who is faced with the grave circumstances of an imperfect reality a number of years after the events surrounding the work and person of Jesus Christ. This contribution intends to investigate particularly the Messianic interpretation of Ps 8:4– 6 in Heb 2:6–9. First, a textual analysis of the citation in Hebrews will be attempted, focussing on the structural and semantic characteristics of the text in question. Second, the motif of Jesus as the Messiah in Heb 2:6–9 will be extrapolated from the theological data in the text—attention will be given to the theomorphic and anthropomorphic attributes of the Messiah. Finally, some concluding remarks will be made. The Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 8:4–6 in Hebrews 2:6–9 In the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (or “sermon” to the Hebrews1), the author applies Ps 8, along with numerous other psalms, to Jesus. As the Messiah, he is the fullment of Scripture. This interpretation would seem unacceptable by modern standards of exegesis, but such judgment would be unfair and anachronistic. His exegesis must be judged by the standards of his own cultural milieu.2 Thus, in order to examine the messianic 1. David A. DeSilva, Honour, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Illinois: IVP Academic, 2000), 308. 2. Natalio F. Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 328, states that the author of Hebrews modied the text to suit his own purpose. 1
114
Psalms and Hebrews
interpretation of this psalm in the text of Hebrews, one rst needs to view the text in question and, second, offer an elaboration of the specic reference to Jesus, examining the theomorphic and anthropomorphic attributes of the Messiah. Textual Comments The author of Hebrews cites Ps 8:5–7 (LXX), which is one of several quotations in the rst section of Hebrews—also described as the Exordium (Heb 1:1–2:18) of the Epistle.3 In the Exordium, the author warns the recipients that Christ is the nal word of God, “greater” (EJBGPSXUFSPO) than the angels. Thus, disobedience to Christ, resulting in “drifting away” (QBSBSVX_NFO), has grave consequences. This Exordium4 thus gives authority to the writing; the discourse concerns this ultimate revelation of God, and in turn, also adds authority to the author. The numerous Old Testament quotations also serve to establish authority in the Exordium. The author of Hebrews uses the LXX and not the MT as the basis for his quotation from Ps 8. The introductory formula for this quotation (EJFNBSUVSBUP EF QPV UJK MFHXO, Heb 2:6a) needs to be examined.5 Ellingworth mentions the distinctiveness of the author’s choice of EJBNBSUVSPNBJ rather than the usual NBSUVSFX, which is used in most of the introductory formulae.6 This word, which occurs frequently in the LXX, usually has a nuance of warning, especially linked with QBSBLBMFX, as Ellingworth states. It would make sense in the light of the warning that surfaces in vv. 1–4. This also supports the notion that Heb 3. Cf. David Wallace, “The Use of Psalms in the Shaping of a Text: Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:1 in Hebrews 1,” ResQ 45 (2003): 41–50 (44). 4. David A. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 45–49, is correct in stating that Hebrews does not t in with the classical rhetorical pattern; however, the use of classical discourse appellations aid in the understanding of the rhetorical function of the text. For a structural and discourse analysis of Hebrews, see Frederick F. Bruce, “The Structure and Argument of Hebrews,” SwJT 28 (1985): 6–12, and Albert S. J. Vanhoye, “Discussions sur la Structure de l’Épître Hébreux,” Bib 55 (1974): 361–62. 5. The introductory formulae of Hebrews can also be compared with the introductory formulae of the Qumran Pesharim. For some interesting observations regarding differences and similarities, cf. Moshe J. Bernstein, “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re-Citation in the Qumran Pesharim: Observations on the Pesher Technique,” DSD 1 (1994): 30–70. 6. Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 147. 1
DE WET The Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 8:4–6. Part II
115
1:1–2:18 forms an Exordium. A sense of solemnity is created.7 The wording QPV UJK is a somewhat strange occurrence, as some commentators have noted.8 Leschert shows that it is probably not God who is speaking in this instance, as with other citations of Scripture in Hebrews, though labelling it as a Philonism does not add much signicance to the interpretation.9 He also notes that, to the author of Hebrews, the human author is relatively unimportant in contrast to God, who is the primary author of Scripture. In my opinion, the use of this vague statement may have a rhetorical effect. The use of Ps 8 in other New Testament writings (Matt 21:16; 1 Cor 15:27, and the possible allusions in Eph 1:22; Phil 3:21; 1 Pet 3:22) indicates the popularity of this psalm in early Christianity.10 The vagueness of the phrase could almost be sarcastic, as the readers probably knew exactly where the psalm occurs and who wrote it. It may have been used so frequently that explanation of author and place seemed unnecessary.11 Ellingworth explains the alternate reading of UJ for UJK in the LXX and rightly refutes statements by some that it is a deliberate alteration to refer to Christ.12 The Hebraism MFHXO typically introduces a quotation. The quotation in Hebrews of LXX Ps 8 has a number of interesting features that warrant some discussion. First, it must be stated that there is some ambiguity regarding the contents of the quotation. Some manuscripts ( A C D* P : 33 1739) include the full quotation by inserting LBJ= LBUFTUITBK BV UP=O FQJ= UB= FSHB UX_O YFJSX_O TPV. Others (P46 B DC K L al) omit the line. Metzger prefers the shorter reading due to the probability of scribal enlargement of the quotation.13 The logic of the argument in Heb 2:6–9 also supports a shorter reading. In a previous quotation, that of Ps 102:26 in Heb 1:10, it is stated that the heavens and the earth are “the works of your hands.” It would seem illogical to state 7. Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 70. 8. Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 147–48; Dale F. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some Core Citations from the Psalms (NABPR Dissertation Series 10; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1994), 99, who notes its occurrence in Philo’s Ebr. 61 and also correctly states that this observation does not really aid in the interpretation. 9. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 99. 10. Cf. Brevard S. Childs, “Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian Canon,” Int 23 (1969): 20–31; Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 90–91. 11. So argues John Chrysostom (Homily 4 on Hebrews [PG 63:36–40]). 12. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 148. 13. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975), 663–64. 1
116
Psalms and Hebrews
now that Jesus, to whom this quote refers, is ruler of the works of God’s hands, which would in fact be his own hands.14 Second, the author’s understanding of VJPK BORSXQPV needs to be discussed. This, however, will be postponed until the discussion of Jesus as the Messiah in another section of this study since it relates more to theological than text-critical issues. Third, the LXX has translated )J9:= G with BHHFMPVK, thus corresponding with the Targum.15 It obviously ts in with the author’s line of argumentation. The question of how to translate )J9:= G will not be discussed here.16 The issue at stake here, is rather that the author of Hebrews understood it to mean “angels,” especially due to the use of the subject in the former and latter parts of the discourse. Fourth, there is a slight but signicant difference between the MT and the LXX regarding the meaning of the phrase CSBYV UJ. The meaning of the phrase in the LXX would have a temporal connotation,17 thus translated as “a little while.” The phrase “a little lower,” as stated in the MT, rather refers to degree or position within the cosmos. It is convenient for the author of Hebrews to use the LXX, as it subscribes more to the idea of Christ’s temporal and temporary humiliation in the form of his incarnation. But it will be shown that even if the text would apply to humankind in general, it would still be a tting nuance. Humanity is lower than the angels only for “a little while,” but later, in an eschatological hope, humanity will rise above the angels and then be “crowned with glory and honour” (Heb 2:7). After the quotation has been given, a typical midrashic interpretation follows in Heb 2:8b–9. This genre of interpretation involves the citation of a text with an exposition of key words and phrases. The structure of the midrash appears below, with the Old Testament citation underlined: Introductory Formula 0 EJFNBSUVSBUP EF QPV UJK MFHXO Old Testament Citation 1 5J FTUJO BORSXQPK PUJ NJNOI]TLI] BVUPV_ I VJP=K BORSXQPV PUJ FQJTLFQUI] BVUPO 14. Cf. DeSilva, Hebrews, 109; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 148–49; Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 102–4. 15. Bernard H. J. Combrink, “Some Thoughts on the Old Testament Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Neot 5 (1971): 22–36. 16. For possible translations of )J9= G, see Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 86–88, 103; Childs, Psalm 8, 24–26. 17. Cf. Simon J. Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam: Soest, 1961), 105–6; Childs, Psalm 8, 25. 1
DE WET The Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 8:4–6. Part II
5
117
IMBUUXTBK BVUP=O CSBYV UJ QBS’ BHHFMPVK EPDI] LBJ UJNI_] FTUFGBOXTBK BVUPO QBOUB VQFUBDBK VQPLBUX UX_O QPEX_O BVUPV_
Midrash FO UX_] HB=S VQPUBDBJ BVUX_] UB= QBOUB PVEF=O BGI_LFO BVUX_] BOVQPUBLUPO 10 OV_O EF= PVQX PSX_NFO BVUX_] UB= QBOUB VQPUFUBHNFOB [UP=O EF] CSBYV UJ QBS’ BHHFMPVK IMBUUXNFOPO CMFQPNFO ’*ITPV_O EJB= UP= QBRINB UPV_ RBOBUPV EPDI] LBJ= UJNI_] FTUFGBOXNFOPO 15 PQXK HFVTIUBJ RBOBUPV YBSJUJ RFPV_ VQF=S QBOUPK
The structural analysis offered here aims to highlight the form and nature of both the quotation and the following midrashic exposition.18 The word MFHXO introduces the quotation. The Old Testament quotation is given and the start of the midrash is signalled by the marker HBS. The exposition starts with a two-fold Demonstrandum, which is the main point the author is attempting to make with this midrash: (a) in the subjection of all things [positive description] (b) nothing has been left out that is not subjected to him [negative description]. At this stage, the readers may think that the author is still referring to humankind in general if they did not nd clues in the previous verses. It is interesting to note that the author does not even bother with an explanation of the rst part of the quotation as found in Heb 2:6. Whether it is Jesus or humankind that the reader is thinking of, the problem of the Demonstrandum remains: all things are not yet subjected to humanity or to Jesus.19 The author acknowledges this problem in colon 10 and then explains it from colon 11 to 17—we do not see all things subjected “now” (OV_O), which is read temporally.20 The key to this problem lies in the occurrence of the phrase CSBYV UJ, which gives the answer to why we only see Jesus and not the subsequent subjection of all things. A beautiful chiastic construction is present in colons 11–14, in which the name and act of Jesus is framed.21 18. For the structure and comments of previous citations, cf. John P. Meier, “Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Hebrews 1:5–14,” Bib 66 (1985): 504–33; Edward R. Dalglish, “The Use of the Book of Psalms in the New Testament,” SwJT 27 (1984): 25–39. 19. Cf. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 105. 20. Cf. Kistemaker, Citations, 104. 21. Attridge, Hebrews, 66, notes that the use of the name of Jesus in Hebrews is signicant and in this chiasm again the skilful structuring of the text around the name of Jesus is seen. 1
118
Psalms and Hebrews
A further explanation is given in Heb 2:10, stating that he is still bringing many children (QPMMPVK VJPVK, literally “many sons”) to glory by means of his suffering22 (QBRINBUXO 23 The repetition of the words in 2:10 from those in the exposition is clear. It could then be argued that 2:10 is either part of the midrash or an extended exposition. The use of the word “sons” also refers to the “son of man” in the quotation, which indicates that a double meaning of the psalm quotation is possible.24 We will come back to this later in the study. The crowning with honour and glory relates, then, to the suffering and death of Christ on the cross. Jesus as the Messiah in Hebrews 2:6–9 It has been seen in his midrash that the author of Hebrews is specically referring to Jesus as the Messiah. He takes a typical creation hymn and gives it a Messianic motif. If one wants to understand Jesus as the Messiah in 2:6–9, one needs to examine the way the author describes Jesus. There are two attributes the author of Hebrews gives to Jesus the Messiah. First, he describes a number of theomorphic attributes of Jesus, especially found in 1:1–14. Although this part of the text is not part of the designated verses of this study, it needs to be examined thoroughly if one wants to understand the claims made about Jesus in 2:6–9. Second, in 2:6–9, the anthropomorphic attributes of Jesus as the Messiah are discussed. These attributes will now be examined in detail. The Theomorphic Attributes of the Messiah The author of Hebrews starts by describing the theomorphic attributes of the Messiah. Theomorphic attributes refer to those attributes of the Messiah which are of divine nature or described in divine terms. He uses the title “Son” (VJPK) for the Messiah. This title is basically used throughout the entire Exordium up to 3:1, in which Jesus’ status as high priest is elaborated upon, and even in this section and onwards, the title of “Son” is still used (3:6; 4:14; 5:8 etc).25 Thus, the very rst theomorphic attribute of Jesus is that he is the Son of God. The socio-rhetorical analysis of DeSilva provides many useful insights for understanding this term, and he elaborates: “The title ‘Son’ carries a message that Jesus’ honour and worth derives from the honour of the father, God himself.”26 He states 22. Ibid., 73–75. 23. Cf. Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New (Continuum: London, 2001), 101; Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken, The Psalms in the New Testament (London: Continuum, 2004); Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 105–6. 24. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 106–9. 25. Wallace, Psalms, 44–45. 26. Cf. DeSilva, Hebrews, 85–87. 1
DE WET The Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 8:4–6. Part II
119
further that honour in the Greco-Roman world was greatly inuenced by one’s parentage. If the father has a favourable reputation, the son is also seen in that light, unless time proves it different.27 A son was also a very precious possession to the father. Daughters, as Malina describes,28 were seen in a different light. A father was very vulnerable to shame through daughters, and it was preferable to marry them off as soon as possible, usually after menstruation has started. But Jesus, being the Son of God, carries the honour of God himself. As the Son, he is also the nal revelation of God (Heb 1:1) and this implies that he is the fullment of Scripture.29 As God spoke to the fathers in the old days through the prophets, we are spoken to now in the last days through his Son. The Son carries the honour of God, but he is also a representative of God in his word and revelation (Heb 1:1). The Son is also the heir of everything God has created. The author of Hebrews is here already setting the stage for the argument of subjection of all things to the Son. Not only is he the heir of all things, but all things have been created through him. Leschert indicates that the use of the phrase UB= QBOUB excludes any possibility of exception.30 Hebrews 1:3 again illustrates the close relationship in honour between the Father and the Son, masterfully in Christological hymns. The Son is described as the “radiance” or “reection” (BQBVHBTNB)31 of the glory (EPDB) of the Father and the “representation” or “characteristic trait” (YBSBLUIS) of his very being (VQPTUBTFXK).32 Furthermore, the Son also “bears all things” (GFSXO UF UB= QBOUB), which implies that not only is the Son the subject through which all of the universe is created, but the entire universe is sustained through the Son. It takes place through the “word of his power” (UX]_ SINBUJ UI_K EVOBNFXK BVUPV_). Attridge also afrms a possible Philonic link, as the Logos of Philo of Alexandria is also the instrument by which God sustains creation.33 He is also “purication for our sins” (LBRBSJTNPO UX_O BNBSUJX_O). These four attributes 27. Cf. David A. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 137–39, and New Testament Culture, 200–202. 28. Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 153. 29. Cf. DeSilva, Hebrews, 84–85. 30. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 106. 31. This word is also used by Philo to illustrate the relationship of the Logos to God; cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 44. 32. According to Attridge (ibid, 44–45), this word is derived from the Stoic philosophy referring to the “fundamental reality” of God. 33. Ibid., 45. 1
120
Psalms and Hebrews
are pointers to the immense power of the Son, which is now nally stated, in that the Son has been “seated on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Christ is then the one who sits the nearest to God in the heavenly household. This would also play an important role later in the Epistle when Christ is described as the Mediator or Broker. DeSilva points out that in the imperial Roman household, the sons of the emperor were usually sought as mediators (or brokers) to the emperor’s benecence.34 He also notes that glory was usually seen as the visible manifestation of one’s honour. Against this backdrop, Jesus is then the visible manifestation of God’s glory.35 This aspect is also seen in the quotation from Ps 8:5–7, where the term “glory” again appears. The next section in Heb 2 is the logical result of the previous statements. If the Son is then at the right hand of God, there cannot be anything that he is subjected to, not even the angels. He is more superior to the angels because he has inherited a greater name than all of them.36 The introduction of the subject of angels is quite interesting. Angels became quite popular in the inter-testamental period. They were seen as the mediators between God and humankind. They mediated the Torah between God and Israel.37 It would imply, then, that the role of Jesus, as a new Mediator, and his power, supersedes the role and power of the angels. The same notion is found in 1 Clem 36:1–6, which could have been inuenced directly by Hebrews.38 In later Christian literature, in Similitude 5 and 6 of The Shepherd of Hermas, we nd that the angels are commanded by the Son and also serve the Son. This is also seen in Athenagoras’s Apology 10.39 Attridge gives sufcient attention to the signicance of the use of the adjective LSFJUUXO in Hebrews, which 34. DeSilva, Hebrews, 88. 35. David A. DeSilva, Despising Shame: Honour Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 213–15. 36. The name given to a person played a very important role in the estimation of that individual’s honour in the ancient Mediterranean. The title/name given to Jesus, “Son of God,” implies the highest possible status of kinship as the angels are not called by this name. 37. DeSilva, Hebrews, 93–94. This notion of mediation of angels is described in many Old Testament texts, Old Testament apocryphal texts and Dead Sea Scrolls. 38. John C. O’Neill, “ ‘Who is Comparable to Me in My Glory’: 4Q491 Fragment 11 (4Q191C) and the New Testament,” NovT 42 (2000): 33–35, believes that Hebrews may not have inuenced 1 Clement. He also draws comparison to the reference in Hebrews to that of the Incomparable One in certain Qumran texts. 39. In some later patristic writings, the hierarchy of the heavenly beings is discussed in some length; cf. Dionysius (Denis) the (Pseudo-)Areopagite, On the Celestial Hierarchy; and in medieval literature, Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.108. 1
DE WET The Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 8:4–6. Part II
121
should be noted as a distinct stylistic feature from Greek rhetoric.40 The name that Christ bears is the title “Son,” which the angels could not possibly bear. The signicance of this name should not be underestimated, as Attridge also points out.41 In Philo, the Logos also has the name of “Son” and in the Enoch-Metatron tradition, in 3 En 12:15, Metatron is given the name of the “lesser YHWH” after he is clothed in glory and splendour. Thus, for the author of Hebrews, the appellation “Son” as a name above the names of the angels is a very high status-indicator. The name of Christ as Son cannot be underestimated as a theomorphic attribute, which is the key premise in the argument of the author of Hebrews regarding angels and the position of Christ and humanity. As rstborn (QSXUPUPLPO) of God, the angels must worship him.42 Hebrews 1:5–14 then forms an implicit Refutatio against any who would disagree with the author that Christ is more superior to the angels. A number of proof-texts and allusions to certain texts are given, including 2 Sam 7:14; Pss 2:7; 45:7–8; 102:26; 103:20; 104:4; 110:1.43 The occurrence of Ps 110 with Ps 8 is not uncommon in the New Testament. This will be elaborated on in the next section of this study. In conclusion, the status of Jesus as Son of God is the primary theomorphic attribute. From this attribute stems others, such as the roles of heir and sustainer of the universe, as nal revelation, reection and representation of the glory of the Father, powerful Ruler and Mediator at the right hand of God, and nally, the One whom the angels will worship (Heb 1:6). He bears the glory of God, the manifestation of the Father’s honour, as key representative of the divine and heavenly household. The Anthropomorphic Attributes of the Messiah The Messiah does not only have theomorphic attributes; rather, according to the author of Hebrews, he also has anthropomorphic attributes. These 40. Attridge, Hebrews, 47. 41. Ibid., 48; cf. also Andrei A. Orlov, “Titles of Enoch-Metatron in 2 Enoch,” JSP 18 (1998): 71–86; Daniel Abrams, “Boundaries of Divine Ontology: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Metatron in the Godhead,” HTR 87 (1994): 291–321. 42. This term is also traditionally used for the Davidic king in Ps 88:28, though Stephen Motyer, “The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?,” TynBul 50 (1999): 3–22 (16), points to Peter’s statement in Acts 2:32–34 that the psalmist is actually David and he is addressing YHWH about another “Lord” at his right hand. Others make a connection between Adam and Jesus as the QSXUPUPLPO; see, for example, Frederick F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 16–17. 43. Cf. Karen H. Jobes, “Rhetorical Achievement in the Hebrews 10 ‘Misquote’ of Psalm 40,” Bib 72 (1991): 387–96. 1
122
Psalms and Hebrews
attributes are of a human nature or described in human terms. The citation of Ps 8 is especially used to describe the anthropomorphic attributes of the Messiah. As was mentioned, the author of Hebrews does not provide a midrashic exposition on Ps 8:5. He does not answer the question “What is a human?” The understanding of the phrase “son of man” (VJPK BORSXQPV) by the author of Hebrews may warrant some discussion. The title “Son of Man” immediately invokes a messianic connotation. The occurrence of the title in Dan 7:13 does appear to be a messianic title, along with allusions in Ps 110:1.44 Psalm 110 is also used in Heb 1:3 with Ps 8. Yet this is not enough evidence alone to assume that the author of Hebrews interprets it as a messianic title. Another fact that supports this statement is that the author of Hebrews does not use the title in his midrashic exposition. Childs believes that the title is a reference to Christ in Hebrews, as Christ embodies everything “man” (humankind) is supposed to be.45 Such an interpretation, at this juncture, is a hermeneutical leap we are not yet ready to take. If the author of Hebrews did interpret it messianically, he would have utilized it more in the following midrash. On the other hand, the author of Hebrews also does not refer to humankind in general in his midrash. Although he does not use the title “Son of Man,” he makes the quote refer specically to Jesus.46 The fact that the midrash provided does not give an explanation leaves us only to speculate. One must, however, note that the author of Hebrews was possibly aware of the original interpretation of Ps 8, and Jesus’ incarnation, suffering and death would then also include him in the appellations BORSXQPK and VJP=K BORSXQPV, especially due to his position to the angels. The exalted Son is certainly not lower than the angels. The occurrence of the LXX reading of CSBYV UJ may also allude to the temporary incarnation or “becoming human” of Jesus. The author of Hebrews does, however, state that the psalm is referring to Jesus, though not to Jesus as the messianic “Son of Man,” but rather to Jesus as the “son of man” or “son of a human being”—who was made less than the angels only for a little while. The author of Hebrews makes Jesus the representative human being. Why does the author do this? This is because Jesus, unlike the rest of humankind, has already been “crowned with glory and honour” through his suffering and death.47 The central issue of the anthropomorphic attributes of the Messiah is “subjection” (Heb 2:8b). This is demonstrated, rhetorically, by the repetition 44. 45. 46. 47. 1
Cf. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 100–101. Childs, Psalm 8, 30. These are relevant points made by Ellingworth, Hebrews, 150–51. Cf. Moyise, Old Testament, 101; Attridge, Psalms, 203.
DE WET The Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 8:4–6. Part II
123
of several forms of VQPUBTTX, namely, VQFUBDFO, VQFUBDBK, VQPUBDBJ, BOVQPUBLUPO, VQPUFUBHNFOB and even VQPLBUX. It was illustrated that the Demonstrandum of the midrash concerned subjection. The author even gives a positive and negative description thereof (Heb 2:8b), again for emphasis. The original interpretation of Ps 8 depicts humankind in its full glory. However, to the author of Hebrews, this creates a problem, namely: OV_O EF= PVQX PSX_NFO BVUX]_ UB= QBOUB VQPUFUBHNFOB. DeSilva appropriately states: Although “we” do not yet see the psalm’s declaration as reality, the author will go on to tell the hearers what they can see: “but we see the one who was made lower than the angels for a little while, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honour in order that he might taste death on behalf of all by the favour of God” (2:9). This verse re-contextualizes the psalm in the interpretative context of Jesus’ career, and the choice of the LXX over the MT signicantly opens up this possibility.48
The author of Hebrews needs to nd sense in an apparent tension: on the one hand, in the promise of Scripture in Ps 8 and Ps 110 it is said that humankind will rule over all (UB= QBOUB) the universe in its entirety;49 yet, on the other hand, the reality is of a broken world, one epitomized in the suffering and death of Christ.50 But this also becomes the crux of the search for sense, as is seen in the presence of the chiasm. The name and actions of Jesus are surrounded by the citations. At rst, Jesus was made less than the angels, but is now crowned with glory and honour. This notion is also supported by the author’s use of perfect participles (IMBUUXNFOPO and FTUFGBOXNFOPO)51 rather than the previous aorists. The author of Hebrews and his audience, as he assumes, are still subjected to a broken existence. The use of the rst person plural verbs of observation, such as CMFQPNFO and PSX_NFO, indicate two things: (1) that the author acknowledges that he also experiences the tension his audience probably experiences when coming across Ps 8, hence the use of the rst person, and (2) that he is dealing with the realities they are faced with every day, as with the use of the verbs of observation. Yet their hope is ’*ITPV_O, who has tasted (HFVTIUBJ) death for every person by the grace of God.
48. DeSilva, Hebrews, 109; cf. Childs, Psalm 8, 30. 49. Cf. Paul Ellingworth and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook to the Epistle to the Hebrews (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1983), 36. 50. For a detailed discussion of the possible referents of the pronoun BVUX]_ in the Midrashic interpretation, see Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 106. 51. For a thorough discussion of the grammar, see Ellingworth, Hebrews, 150. 1
Psalms and Hebrews
124
There are a number of important theological elements in the reasoning of the author of Hebrews. Jesus, the Son of God, was also the son of a human being, and experienced rst hand the realities of living in a broken world which is not subject to him. This sense of experience is strengthened by the use of the word HFVTIUBJ. The most horric reality of a broken world is the suffering of death (UP= QBRINB UPV_ RBOBUPV). The word QBRINB, in the singular form, could refer explicitly to the event of the crucixion. In its plural form, it usually refers to human suffering in general, and in Heb 2:10 the plural may refer to the many sufferings of Jesus—the result of incarnation. It may, however, only be ambiguity on the part of the author.52 The point is that suffering is generally a human experience, reserved for the “sons of human beings.” The hope in the midst of this crucible of human suffering is embodied in the phrase EPDI] LBJ= UJNI_] FTUFGBOXNFOPO PQXK YBSJUJ RFPV_ VQF=S QBOUPK HFVTIUBJ RBOBUPV YBSJUJ RFPV VQF=S QBOUPK By the grace of God, every person will share in this realization of the original meaning of Ps 8, according to the author of Hebrews. The phrase YBSJUJ RFPV_ indicates that the “crowning of honour and glory” is now also transmitted to human beings (Heb 2:10).53 The use of VQF=S QBOUPK is also signicant, indicating that it is for every individual person. This skillful choice of words in Hebrews makes the argument personal, and thus even more effective. Thus, DeSilva’s statement that the midrash holds a possible double meaning, in my opinion, is conrmed.54 Leschert also concludes: …the writer of Hebrews does not remove mankind from the picture, by applying the Psalm to Christ. He views Jesus, not as an isolated individual, but as the representative of mankind, through whom humanity will also be exalted (cf. v 10). Rather than detracting from the glory of man in Psalm 8 by his Christological interpretation, the writer elevates man to an even higher plane.55
To conclude, the author of Hebrews speaks of Jesus overwhelmingly in anthropomorphic terms in this midrash. Primarily, Jesus is the representative of humankind, who has experienced the greatest reality of humanity, namely, the suffering of death. Yet the bridge between the anthropomorphic and theomorphic attributes, according to Hebrews, is the “crowning of glory” of the son of a human being, who is also the Son of God. As the honour of God, visibly manifested in glory, is transmitted
52. 53. 54. 55. 1
Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 73. For a full discussion of the term TUFGBOPX, see Ellingworth, Hebrews, 155. DeSilva, Hebrews, 110–11. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 115.
DE WET The Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 8:4–6. Part II
125
to the Son, the reverse also takes place, namely, that the honour of the son of humanity, Jesus, will be visibly manifested in an eschatological hope of the crowing of humankind with honour and glory.56 Conclusion The author of Hebrews interprets Ps 8 messianically despite its typical nature as a creation hymn. The citation given in the text also excludes certain words and phrases, and new meaning is given to certain words. This makes the messianic interpretation possible. Jesus, as the Son of God, was made lower than the angels “for a little while,” but through his death and suffering has been crowned with honour and glory. Yet Jesus is also representative of all humankind, which means that through him humankind will also be crowned with honour and glory. This is closer to the psalm’s original meaning, which understands the glory of humankind in relation to the glory of God. Jesus as the Theanthropos, according to the author of Hebrews, is the representation of God’s honour and glory, which is then also transmitted, in an eschatological hope, to humankind. It is quite possible that the author of Hebrews did know the original meaning of the psalm, but in his view and according to the principles of interpretation of his own time, this meaning could only be realized in the events of Jesus’ death and suffering.
56. Cf. Geoffrey W. Grogan, “Christ and His People: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Hebrews 2:5–18,” VE 6 (1969): 54–71. 1
LXX PSALM 39:7–10 IN HEBREWS 10:5–7 Martin Karrer
1. Introduction Some years ago Gert Steyn (2001) opened his contribution to the Jesus sayings in Hebrews with the following observation: “In Hebrews…one encounters a fascinating perspective on the human Jesus,” the Jesus who takes the form of blood and esh (2:14).1 In his study, Steyn entered the (sometimes lively) discussion of the image of the historical Jesus in Hebrews2 and drew special attention to Heb 2:12–13 and Heb 10, places where Jesus’ speech is recorded. The second of these texts is the subject of the present discussion. The NRSV translates the central passage, 10:5–7, as follows: …when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘See, God, I have come [or more precisely: I come] to do your will, O God’ (in the scroll of the book it is written of me).”
Jesus “talks” (MFHFJ) in 10:5a. Therefore we explicitly nd a “Jesus logion.” However, neither this word, nor the words in 2:12–13, left any traces in any known collection of Jesus logia elsewhere.3 Evidently, the Jesus of Hebrews ignores the utterances of the Jesus delivered in the 1. Gert J. Steyn, “ ‘Jesus-Sayings’ in Hebrews,” ETL 77 (2001): 433–40 (433). 2. Erich Grässer, “Der historische Jesus im Hebräerbrief” (1965), in Aufbruch und Verheißung. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief (BZNW 65; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), 100–128; Jürgen Roloff, “Der mitleidende Hohepriester” (1975), in Exegetische Verantwortung in der Kirche (ed. M. Karrer; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 44–61; Nikolaus Walter, “Christologie und irdischer Jesus im Hebräerbrief” (1982), in Praeparatio Evangelica: Studien zur Umwelt, Exegese und Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments (ed. W. Kraus; WUNT 98; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 151–68, and others. 3. Cf. Friedrich Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger, (BU 4; Regensburg: Pustet, 1968), 88. 1
KARRER LXX Psalm 39:7–10 in Hebrews 10:5–7
127
Synoptic, Johannine and other Jesus traditions. Instead, he speaks in words of Israel’s scripture. In Heb 2:12–13 he cites LXX Ps 21:23 besides other texts, in Heb 10:5–7 he cites LXX Ps 39:7–9 (according to the numeration of the MT, Ps 40:6–8). This usage of scripture in Jesus’ sayings is one of the peculiar features of Hebrews. It is worthwhile considering for two reasons. First, Jesus cites a psalm—which is of Christological importance. We will begin there. Secondly, the quoted text of LXX Ps 39:7–10 is signicant for the textual history of the LXX. I will dedicate the second part of my study to that theme, trying to make a small contribution to LXX research. The last part of this study will provide a short summary in the form of some posed theses. 2. Jesus Speaks LXX Psalm 39: The Perspective in Hebrews a. The Place of Our Quotation in Hebrews The readers of Hebrews are prepared to listen to this psalm since they have been acquainted with extensive quotations from Israel’s scriptures since ch. 1. From this chapter onwards, the author used Israel’s scriptures and based his argument on quotations from them. It is well known that he quoted more often and widely than any other early Christian author, and this does not need to be discussed here.4 4. For the history of research, see Günther Harder, “Die Septuagintazitate des Hebräerbriefs: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Auslegung des AT,” in Theologia Viatorum (ed. M. Albertz; Munich: Kaiser, 1939), 33–52; Peter Katz, “The Quotations from Deuteronomy in Hebrews,” ZNW 49 (1958): 213–23; Erko Ahlborn, “Die Septuaginta-Vorlage des Hebräerbriefes” (Ph.D. diss., Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, 1967); Schröger, Schriftausleger; George D. Howard, “Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations,” NovT 10 (1968): 208–16; Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New Testament Example of Biblical Interpretation (SNTSMS 36; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979); John Cecil McCullough, “The Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews,” NTS 26 (1980): 363–79; Otfried Hous, “Biblische Theologie im Lichte des Hebräerbriefes,” in New Directions in Biblical Theology: Papers of the Aarhus Conference, 16–19 September 1992 (ed. S. Pedersen; NovTSup 76; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 108–25; Hans Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments III (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 15–63; Dale F. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some Core Citations from the Psalms, National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion (NABPR.DS 10; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1995); Richard T. France, “The Writer of Hebrews as a Biblical Expositor,” TynBul 47 (1996): 245–76; James W. Thompson, “The Hermeneutics of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” ResQ 38 (1996): 229–37; Karen 1
128
Psalms and Hebrews
Likewise, the readers are prepared thematically. The author has led them through more than nine chapters before reaching our quotation. He has told them of the greatness of the word of God; that was the theme of Heb 1:1–4:13, which grounds his extensive use of scripture. Thereafter he has introduced his christologically essential point, namely, that Jesus is to be understood as a priest who has given himself as an offering (Heb 4:14–9:28). No Aaronic priest could do so. Therefore, different from the Aaronic priesthood (which is a priesthood in earthly history), Jesus’ offering (RVTJB) marks the end and completion of time, the TVOUFMFJB UX_O BJXOXO—as is outlined in Heb 9:26, only a few verses before our quotation.5 Consequently, the readers expect a précis in ch. 10—the offering of Christ stands out against the Aaronic offerings—and a commentary, one which deepens their understanding of that special moment. They will not be disappointed, because in these verses Jesus elucidates his offering in contrast to all the familiar offerings in Israel (gift offerings, slain offerings, burnt offerings, sin offerings). The word of scripture, as the author of Hebrews understands it, denies these offerings (QSPTGPSBJ, RVTJBJ, PMPLBVUXNBUB, QFSJ= BNBSUJBK). Nevertheless, Jesus himself is an offering (QSPTGPSB, Heb 10:10).6 LXX Psalm 39 condenses the Christological point of Hebrews.7 b. The Quotation and the Previous Word of Jesus, Hebrews 2:12f. The readers are prepared to mingle the word of scripture and the word of Jesus. This occurred in a similar way in Heb 2:12f. There, Jesus quoted the scriptures of Israel (Psalms and the prophet Isaiah) for the rst time to characterize his work. The readers heard: Jesus will announce the H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 195–99; Ulrich Rüsen-Weinhold, Der Septuaginta-Psalter im Neuen Testament: Eine textgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004); Martin Karrer, “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Septuagint,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (ed. W. Kraus and G. Wooden; SBLSCS 53; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 335–53. 5. That eschatological motif is prepared for in Heb 1:2. 6. Ulrich Wilckens, Theologie des Neuen Testaments I/3: Paulus und seine Schüler, Theologen aus dem Bereich judenchristlicher Heidenmission (Neukirchen– Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005), 325, points out correctly that the author of Hebrews in that way transposes and modies cultic ideas but does not imagine an end of cultic ideas on the whole. 7. One may discuss heavy tensions in the background (so Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, “Sawing off the Branches: Theologizing Dangerously ‘Ad Hebraeos’,” JTS 56 [2005]: 393–414), and yet the line of the argument as a whole seems consequential (see the commentaries). 1
KARRER LXX Psalm 39:7–10 in Hebrews 10:5–7
129
name of God and be of faithful obedience, surrounded by a holy community—BHJB[PNFOPJ in 2:11 corresponds to FLLMITJB in 2:12.8 Hebrews 10 forms an inclusio9 to these motifs as Jesus again characterizes his obedience (he realizes the will of God, 10:7/9). Moreover, he now constitutes the holiness of the community; IHJBTNFOPJ FTNFO in 10:10 corresponds to BHJB[PNFOPJ in 2:11. Thus, ch. 10 sharpens the point, sharpening at the soteriology, with IHJBTNFOPJ FTNFO emphasizing the enduring reality. The effect of Jesus’ offering culminates in the certitude of the community to be holy and clean to appear before God, who is enthroned in his heavenly sanctuary (BHJPK LUM means “clean” as well as “holy”; cf. 4:16).10 Perhaps the tie between the passages is even more solid. Michael Theobald proposes to read the future in Heb 2:12f. (BQBHHFMX_, FTPNBJ) in a strict sense. If we follow him, the author of Hebrews has found the future tense in his quotations (LXX Ps 21:23, etc.), but has interpreted it. He inferred that Jesus spoke the words of scripture as a self-characterization when his entrance into the community was yet to come, while it belonged to the future.11 Theobald concludes succinctly that Jesus speaks of his pre-existence. The peculiar idiom in 10:5 underlines that tendency: Jesus talks about, “coming into the world” (FJTFSYPNFOPK FJK UP=O LPTNPO). The words spoken by him initiate his way on earth; they are not part of the earthly way itself.12 In addition, Lance Laughton noted that Jesus both times, in chs. 2 and 10, speaks to God rather than humans.13 Again, that ts best 8. For more details, see Steyn, “Jesus-Sayings,” 434–37; Michael Theobald, “Vom Text zum ‘lebendigen Wort’ (Hebr 4,12),” in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift (ed. C. Landmesser; BZNW 86; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 751–90 (773–77), and Claus-P. März, “‘Herrenworte’ im Hebräerbrief,” in Studien zum Hebräerbrief (SBABNT 39; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 97–139 (99–111). 9. Cf. März, “Herrenworte,” 137. 10. Cf. Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 510–11. 11. Theobald, “Text,” 775. 12. The FJTFSYPNFOPK FJK UP=O LPTNPO sounds Johannine but also can be interpreted independently as equivalent to a Semitic expression which means “to be born” (Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer II: Hebräer 7,1–10,18 [EKKNT 17/2; Neukirchen– Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1993], 214f., after Bill. II 358). Efforts to nd a place for the word in the earthen biography of Jesus missed the point; see Theobald, “Text,” 777 n. 91, against Franz Delitzsch, Der Hebräerbrief (Leipzig: Dörfing u. Franke, 1857; repr., Giessen: Brunnen, 1989) and others. 13. Lance C. Laughton, “The Hermeneutic of the Author of Hebrews as Manifest in the Introductory Formulae and Its Implications for Modern Hermeneutics” (M.A. diss., University of Pretoria, 2005), 51, 54. 1
130
Psalms and Hebrews
if Hebrews contours the words of Jesus against a background of transcendence and pre-existence. All in all, the Jesus of Hebrews differs in a double sense from the Jesus of the Gospels. He speaks only words of scripture, as we saw in the introduction, and he speaks these words relating to his pre-existence. Perceived in that manner, Hebrews does not compete with the Gospels, which are written about the same time. The author of Hebrews rather develops another, complementary point of view. The Gospels locate the words of Jesus during his life on earth. Our author conversely strengthens words which shed light on Jesus’ life in a pre-existent perspective. He learns through his transcendence that Jesus directs his way into the world as a way of obedience (ch. 10), of bringing holiness (chs. 2 and 10) and of proclaiming God (ch. 2). If we are more cautious and locate the words of ch. 2 in history (not pre-existence), we observe a similarly consistent perspective: Jesus announces his obedience, which brings holiness to humans, out of his pre-existence (10:5–7). Then in history, he proclaims God in the community which is constituted by the word of God to Israel and now founded in his own obedience and sharing his faithfulness (2:11–13). In any case, the quotations summarize the Christological soteriology of Hebrews and its consequence for ecclesiology in a nutshell. Let me add an observation of secondary importance but yet of interest. If the author of Hebrews allocates all words of Jesus (2:12f. and 10:5–7) in his pre-existence, he also solves a problem discussed by modern authors—namely, how Jesus can speak through the Psalms and other scriptural texts which were formulated and written centuries before his earthly birth. The author of Hebrews removes that problem, as well as, perhaps, denying it. For—as he sees it—Jesus is able to speak words from Israel’s scriptures because they are words of God (given through the Holy Ghost14) regarding his work; they are word that are effective through all time.15 c. The Introductory Formulae of Jesus’ Words, Spoken and Written Text A look at the introductory formulae deepens our observations. The author of Hebrews stereotypically opens the words of Jesus by verbs of speaking, LBMFJ_O and MFHFJO (2:11f.; 10:5, 8, 9), and neglects the most 14. Cf. Thomasz Lewicki, “Der Heilige Geist im Hebräerbrief,” TGl 89 (1999): 494–513 (497f.), and idem, “Weist nicht ab den Sprechenden!”: Wort Gottes und Paraklese im Hebräerbrief (PaThSt 41; Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004), 82–88. 15. Cf. the notes at Theobald, “Text,” 775, and Peter Pilhofer, “,SFJUUPOPK EJBRI LIK FHHVPK: Die Bedeutung der Präexistenzchristologie für die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs,” TLZ 121 (1996): 319–28 (328). 1
KARRER LXX Psalm 39:7–10 in Hebrews 10:5–7
131
frequent quotation formula of the rst century, HFHSBQUBJ (“it is written”).16 That means he favours the linguistic eld of the spoken word (forms of MFHFJO, GBOBJ and NBSUVSFJ_O, EJBNFSUVSFTUIBJ, “say,” “speak,” “testify” throughout the text).17 So, all his emphasis lies on the actual, performative word. The given word of God continuously becomes a spoken word.18 Theobald states: “Streng genommen, handelt es sich…gar nicht um Schriftzitate…, sondern lebendige Rede.”19 Lance Laughton worked out this non-interchangeable tone with relevant details and some differing aspects.20 It is noteworthy that one line of our text, 10:7, shows a discrepancy: the author uses HFHSBQUBJ, which is contrary to his normal approach—a solitary case, as we nd no other instance in Hebrews. The difference is, of course, slight. (FHSBQUBJ stands inside the quotation and is part of the cited text of LXX Ps 39:8. It is, therefore, not arranged by the author: for him, also in our passage Jesus speaks (MFHFJ, 10:5). And yet, why does the author transmit the line FO LFGBMJEJ CJCMJPV HFHSBQUBJ QFSJ= FNPV_, “in the main point of a scroll it is written of me,” and not exclude it? Remarkably enough, in 10:8–9, during the repetition of the quotation, he ignores the line. It is clearly not the focus of his interest.21 Therefore the simplest explanation establishes a philological paradox: the author of Hebrews respects the quoted written text despite his preference for the living word. He quotes what he reads in his Psalms scroll and does not exclude a line. In consequence, Jesus actually speaks, but he does not speak a new word. Even in the detail from which the living word is taken, it can be controlled by the scriptures of Israel—in this case, it can be veried by a written Psalms scroll. The author has strong reasons to do so. He anticipates a possible criticism of readers (omitting a line would mean to change the claimed text) and realizes a distinct fundamental decision: in 1:1f. he has asserted that the one God speaks through the Son, who spoke to the fathers. 16. (FHSBQUBJ is used since LXX 4 Kgdms 14:6. 17. Theobald, “Text,” 764, nds God as speaker 22 times, the Son four times, the Spirit twice and others (mostly abstract formulae) ve times. 18. Heb 1:5 etc.; 10:5, 8 etc.; 2:6; 7:17 etc. See the overview and literature in Karrer, “Epistle,” 335–53 (336–38). 19. Theobald, “Text,” 759. 20. Cf. Laughton, “Hermeneutic of the Author of Hebrews,” especially 38–47. 21. The interpretation of the motif lies beyond our interest here. The most fascinating theory thinks that our author in effect allows a self-reference to the main point (LFGB MBJPO; cf. Heb 8:1) of his text (the Hebrews scroll); cf. Martin Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebräer. Vol. 2, Kapitel 5,11–13,25 (ÖTK 20/2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008), 184f. 1
132
Psalms and Hebrews
Therefore, the fathers (Israel) have the words of God. The ancient words of God are in power and have an actual sense. To put it differently: the Son speaks the psalm in our chapter, since the word of the psalm is the given, rm and solid word of God. That is a very high esteem to assign to the written, given word. In some way, we can say that the word of Israel’s scripture is even more important than the delivered words of the historical Jesus.22 Swiftly, the contrast of Hebrews to the Gospels sharpens. It was noted above that Hebrews chooses another perspective than those presented in the Gospels. Now we must add: even if the author of Hebrews does not want to compete with the Gospels, he prefers his own perspective. He prefers to read and interpret the old scriptures, not the Gospel tradition.23 d. The Role of the Psalms Many scholars think of congruence between Philo and Hebrews,24 yet Philo and Hebrews differ in their use of scripture. Philo interprets the law (the “Nomos”) and only sometimes in his works uses Psalms to elucidate utterances of the Law. The author of Hebrews, in contrast, prefers the Psalms. He quotes the Psalms (fourteen instances) more often than the Pentateuch (thirteen instances) and the Prophets (major prophets ve instances, minor prophets two instances).25 The words of Jesus indicate his special view: The Jesus of Hebrews especially loves the Psalms. In Heb 2 he cites LXX Ps 21:23 (MT 22:23) to outline his announcement of the name of God in the community (FLLMITJB) and directs the following reception of Isaiah (Isa 8:17f.; 12:2 LXX) by another psalm, the song of David in LXX 2 Kgdms (MT 2 Sam) 22:3.26 In Heb 10 he exclusively cites LXX Ps 39:7– 9 (MT 40:6–8). All in all, the Jesus of Hebrews understands himself in relation to psalms and prophecy, favouring the psalms in that frame. 22. For Heb 1:1f., cf. Martin Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebräer. Vol. 1, Kapitel 1,1–5,10 (ÖTK 20/1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2002), 111–14, and pp. 56ff. for the theology of the word in Hebrews. 23. Thus it is no wonder that it is impossible to identify the Christological hints of Hebrews and Gospel traditions even in 5:7–8 (see Jörg Frey, “Leidenskampf und Himmelsreise: Das Berliner Evangelienfragment [Papyrus Berolinensis 22220] und die Gethsemane-Tradition,” BZ 46 [2002]: 71–96). 24. Cf. Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (ALGHJ 4; Leiden: Brill, 1970). 25. Schröger, Schriftausleger, 251–56, lists the 35 (if we do not count recapitulations, 29) quotations (and the most important allusions [ibid., 201–7]). 26. There we nd QFQPJRX=K FTPNBJ FQ BVUX_] as in Heb 2:13a. Only the order of the words differs. 1
KARRER LXX Psalm 39:7–10 in Hebrews 10:5–7
133
Is it possible to explain that peculiarity? There is an additional phenomenon which helps. All the psalms quoted are connected to David. David once spoke the words of the song in LXX 2 Kgdms (MT 2 Sam) 22, as we read in v. 1 (LBJ= FMBMITFO %BVJE UX_] LVSJX] UPV=K MPHPVK UI_K X]EI_K UBVUIK, “and David spoke to the Lord the words of this song”), and the Psalter attributes LXX Ps 21 (MT 22) as well as LXX Ps 39 (MT 40) to David (we nd UX_] %BVJE in v. 1 of both psalms). Maybe that assignment originally did not mark Davidic authorship, but described situations in the life of David27 to give an “orientation” (as Gilles Dorival suggests contrary to the majority of scholarship).28 Nonetheless, in that case the psalms too are Davidic, in the wider sense that David exemplarily used them. David is the psalmist par excellence,29 who sheds light on the words used by Jesus and, mediates these words, to Jesus himself. The conclusion is obvious (and is drawn by Gert Steyn and others): Hebrews refers to David, the famous poet-king of Judah, since the author participates in the early Christian development of Davidic Christological thoughts.30 The argument is intriguing. One must merely be warned to strengthen the special motif of a Davidic origin of Jesus,31 against scholars who point that the Christ in Hebrews is a Davidic descendant—“great David’s greater Son,”32 who receives illumination by his ancestor—for the author of Hebrews avoids sketching a Davidic genealogy of Jesus. He restricts his inuential genealogical hint in Heb 7:14 to Jesus’ provenance from Judah (differing, for example, from the old tradition in Rom 1:3, which names David).33 27. LXX 2 Kgs 22:1 connects the recitation by David and a situation in his life. 28. Gilles Dorival, “À propos de quelques titres grecs des psaumes,” in Le Psautier chez les Pères (ed. Gilles Dorival et al.; CBiPa 4; Strasbourg: Centre d’analyse et de documentation patristiques, 1994), 21–36; Christian-B. Amphoux and Gilles Dorival, “ ‘Des oreilles, tu m’as creusées’ ou ‘un corps, tu m’as ajusté’? À propos du Psaume 39 (40 TM), 7,” in 'JMPMPHJB (ed. P. Brillet-Dubois et al.; CMOMLP 9; Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 2006), 315–27. 29. &O %BVJE in Heb 4:7 conrms that view on David. 30. Cf. Steyn, “Jesus-Sayings,” 437f. 31. While knowing that this idea is widespread in scholarship, see Jean-Marie van Cangh, “ ‘Fils de David’ dans les évangiles synoptiques,” in Figures de David à travers la bible (ed. L. Desrousseaux and J. Vermeylen; LD 177; Paris: Cerf, 1999), 345–427 (384f. and others). 32. Frederick F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), 232. 33. See the discussion and bibliographical citations in Martin Karrer, “Von David zu Christus,” in König David—biblische Schlüsselgur und europäische 1
134
Psalms and Hebrews
Indeed, though Judah is the Davidic tribe, nevertheless it seems possible that the author of Hebrews hesitates to promote the opinion of Jesus’ Davidic birth which was common knowledge in his time.34 He, instead, looks for an indirect connection: the Jesus, born from Judah, loves the psalms created or used by the peerless poet-king who is born of Judah. This Judaic tradition grants an alternative to Aaronic thoughts, an alternative which Hebrews needs for its theology. All in all, 7:14 uses Judah to formulate an opposition to Aaron–Levi. Read from this perspective, Jesus nds the necessity of his obedience to God (Heb 10) and the announcement of his priesthood according Melchizedek in the psalms of the Judahite king David (Melchizedek is mentioned immediately after Heb 7:14, in 7:15, and 7:17—quoting the Davidic psalm LXX 109 [MT 110]).35 Additionally we nd a second relevant impulse in the psalm tradition. The LXX understands Ps 21 (MT 22) and Ps 39 (MT 40) as being directed to the future, FJK UP= UFMPK (Pss 21:1; 39:1). Modern research disputes the scope of this heading, and many doubt if the LXX translators wanted to eschatologize the psalms. But inevitably the eschatological lecture was spread in the rst century B.C.E., continuing into the Christianity of the rst century C.E.36 This development made it easy to transform the psalm into Christology. Formulated within Hebrews, the Psalms are no less prophetic than the words of Isaiah and other prophets. Jesus uses the Psalms because the great poet-king David speaks of the time to come and the texts allow themselves to be spoken by Jesus himself. In sum, Hebrews provides a ne paradigm for the eschatologization of the Psalter and uses that eschatologization as a basis for his Christology.
Leitgestalt: 19. Kolloquium (2000) der Schweizerischen Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften (ed. W. Dietrich and H. Herkommer; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003), 327–65 (333, 340, 350 n. 31). 34. Cf. 2 Tim 2:8; Matt 1 and Luke 2; 3:23–38. 35. The psalm is assigned to David again in v. 1. 36. For an overview of the discussion, see Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT 2/76; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995); Christoph Rösel, Die messianische Redaktion des Psalters: Studien zu Entstehung und Theologie der Sammlung Psalm 2–89 (CThM 19; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1999); Martin Rösel, “Die Psalmüberschriften des Septuagintapsalters,” in Der Septuaginta-Psalter: Sprachliche und theologische Aspekte (ed. E. Zenger; HBS 32; Freiburg: Herder, 2001), 125–48; Holger Gzella, Lebenszeit und Ewigkeit: Studien zur Eschatologie und Anthropologie des Septuaginta-Psalters (BBB 134; Berlin: Philo, 2002). 1
KARRER LXX Psalm 39:7–10 in Hebrews 10:5–7
135
e. LXX Psalm 39 (MT 40) and Christology Some scholars tried to nd traces of a Christological reception of LXX Ps 39 (MT 40) in early Christianity before or besides Hebrews, but did not fully succeed in their efforts. The introduction in Heb 10:5a—Jesus speaks “coming into the world” (FJTFSYPNFOPK FJK UP=O LPTNPO)—truly reminds us of Johannine theology (cf. John 11:27). But the motif is not specic enough to prove a rm coherence between Hebrews and Johannine literature. We also nd it in expressions of the post-Pauline literature, for instance ’*TPV_K I>MRFO FJK UP=O LPTNPO (“Jesus came into the world”) of 1 Tim 1:15. Furthermore, the motif does not touch the psalm immediately. Günter Reim37 attempted to ll this gap in a recent essay and suggested that the Johannine community used LXX Ps 39 to structure the Gospel of John. Yet we nd not a single quotation of this psalm in John and the Johannine letters,38 and similarities such as the use of TX_NB in the Christology (cf. Heb 10:5 to John 2:21)39 are not necessarily caused by LXX Ps 39. Reim’s argument, therefore, does not hold water. On rst sight, comparison with Pauline literature provides a somewhat better prospect. The author of Hebrews denitely knows one or more members of the Pauline circle (Heb 13:23 mentions Timothy),40 and Eph 5:2 conrms an understanding of Jesus as QSPTGPSB= LBJ= RVTJB (cf. RVTJB LBJ= QSPTGPSB in Heb 10:5, and especially the Christological QSPTGPSB in Heb 10:10). However, the language of offering is too well established in thoughts of the rst century.41 Therefore, if we are cautious, we only succeed in nding the following development: in the post-Pauline period of the late rst century Jesus’ death is understood as an offering in parts of the Christian communities. Hebrews, a non-Pauline writing, but with links to Paulinism—and other aspects of the contemporary Johannine literature—uses and intensies this theologumenon independently.42
37. Günther Reim, “Vom Hebräerbrief zum Johannesevangelium anhand der Psalmzitate,” BZ 44 (2000): 92–99. 38. There may be an allusion to v. 11 of the psalm in John 1:17. But even that is not a certainty. 39. Reim, “Hebräerbrief,” 96. 40. Some propose that the verse (and its environment) was secondarily included into Hebrews. However, the textual tradition does not support that; see the discussion in the commentaries (e.g. Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 1:35–37). 41. Cf., for different aspects, Simon Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam: Van Soest, 1961), 43, and Steyn, “JesusSayings,” 438. 42. For a discussion on the relation of Hebrews to Pauline literature and thought, see, for example, Knut Backhaus, “Der Hebräerbrief und die Paulus-Schule,” BZ 37 1
136
Psalms and Hebrews
All in all, our psalm does not play a signicant role in Christology before Hebrews was written. That is no surprise, because if we read the psalm independently, it does not show any tendency towards Christology. The psalm itself consists of two parts, a song of thanks (vv. 2–11) and a prayer for further assistance against enemies (vv. 12–18). The latter part (the prayer) contains a confession of sins that made a Christological interpretation impossible (LBUFMBCPO NF BJ BOPNJBJ NPV, “my acts of unlawlessness have overtaken me,” LXX Ps 39:13).43 Furthermore, the rst part could be spoken by any person whom God had helped. The “I” in the beginning of the psalm is collectively intended. Anyone can cite a visit of the temple or personal piety: “I waited patiently for the Lord; he inclined to me and heard my cry. He drew me up from the desolate pit… He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God” (vv. 1–3), and so on until v. 8, “I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.”44 Unfortunately, we lack a quotation of the psalm in early Jewish literature (Qumran etc.).45 Yet, the rst reception of the psalm in Christianity after Hebrews underlines the non-Christological sense. It is a quotation by Irenaeus (written a century after Hebrews). In comparison to Hebrews, Irenaeus ignores the second part of the psalm (the supplication) and cites v. 7 (“sacricium et oblationem noluisti…”; Haer. IV 17:1).46 And yet, in spite of Hebrews, he applies this verse anthropologically. He comments that “David, the author of the psalm, teaches humans (‘homines’)47 that God wishes obedience (‘obauditio’)48 by them.” The psalm has ethical consequences for Irenaeus and is not Christologically focussed as in Hebrews. That is of special importance since Irenaeus knows Hebrews.49 Evidently Hebrews offers an interpretation deviating from the normal sense.
(1993): 183–208, and James W. Thompson, “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Legacy,” ResQ 47 (2005): 197–206. 43. Wedderburn, “Branches,” 405 n. 23, assumes that this motif has caused the late reception. 44. I cite the translation of the Hebrew text in the NRSV. 45. The text is lost even in the biblical manuscripts from the Judean desert, except for a small fragment in 11QPsd =11Q8 Frg. 6 (DJD 23, 69). 46. I follow the Latin text in Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus haereses = Gegen die Häresien IV (trans. and Preface N. Brox; FC 8/4; Freiburg: Herder, 1995), 126 l. 7f. 47. “Eos,” ibid., 126 l. 9 refers to “homines,” 124 l. 24. 48. Ibid., 126 l. 9. 49. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.26 proves that Irenaeus knows Hebrews; cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 2.30:9; 3.6:5; 5.32:2. 1
KARRER LXX Psalm 39:7–10 in Hebrews 10:5–7
137
f. A First Result All these observations show that LXX 39 (MT 40) illustrates the Christology of Hebrews in an outstanding way. The kind of quotation (a quotation in the mouth of the pre-existent Jesus) is as singular as is the Christological application of the psalm on the whole. Surely, an eschatological use of the Psalms is prepared during the time of Hebrews, and the author of Hebrews participates in the theological developments of the late rst century. His reection, that Jesus comes into the world and gives himself as an offering, belongs in that time (we noticed the connections with Johannine and post-Pauline theology). Nevertheless, the frame and the scope of his psalm-adaptation remain unique. Modelled on our psalm, the author transposes the tradition that Jesus came into the world to save sinners (cf. the full formula in 1 Tim 1:15, *ITPV_K I>MRFO FJK UP=O LPTNPO BNBSUXMPV=K TX_TBJ) into his own theology: Jesus Christ, obedient to God, came in the body which God had prepared for him to bring holiness (the possibility to live in God’s presence) to humankind through his offering (Heb 10:5–7 together with 10:10). 3. The Text of the Psalm: Hebrews 10:5–7 and the LXX a. From Hebrews to the Psalm It would be fascinating to continue with the theology of Hebrews, to pass through the ideas of Christ’s obedience, priesthood and offering and to correlate the words of Jesus to the words of God spoken from Heb 1:5 onwards (Harold W. Attridge pursues the “dialogue…between God and Christ,” the Son, throughout Hebrews),50 although in that case we would need to leave aside the quotation that is the focus of the present study.51 Nearer to our theme lies another much disputed question. Therefore we change the perspective and take up that question in our second main part: Does the quotation of LXX Ps 39 (MT Ps 40) in Hebrews contribute to the textual history of that psalm?
50. Harold W. Attridge, “The Psalms in Hebrews,” in The Psalms in the New Testament (ed. S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 197–212 (212). 51. Information is given in the commentaries and specialist literature (with different accents). See, for example, Walter C. Kaiser, “The Abolition of the Old Order and Establishment of the New,” in Tradition and Testament (ed. S. J. Feinberg and P. D. Feinberg; Chicago: Moody, 1981), 19–37; März, “Herrenworte,” 111–37; and Georg Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie (WUNT 2/212; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 185–203 and passim. 1
138
Psalms and Hebrews
Two lines intersect in the discussion. On the one hand, there are strong indications that Hebrews is interested in the written text and tries to follow it without many corrections (also in our quotation, as discussed above). On the other hand, scholarship until today has been dominated by the suspicion that New Testament authors, and the author of Hebrews as well, felt free to alter the texts they used by expressing the creativity of their thinking, especially with regard to Christology. Hebrews 10 ts as a test case in that discussion since A. Rahlfs reconstructed the LXX (in the critical edition)52 against Hebrews, this despite the fact that the major manuscripts of the LXX go in a decisive point with Hebrews, namely, they read the variant TX_NB (“body”) instead of XUJB (“ears”). Scholarly opinion is divided.53 Gert Steyn summed up the arguments some years ago and concluded: “It is…extremely difcult to establish here in Heb 10:5–7 the Textvorlage used for this quotation.”54 Meanwhile, the clearing process goes on. I will now sketch the extent of the debate and try to advance it. b. The Text in Hebrews and LXX Hebrews in our passage, as in all his quotations, uses the LXX. While it is possible that the author knew the Hebrew manuscripts, there is no indication of this in his writing, and so on.55 Therefore we must concentrate on a comparison between Hebrews and the LXX. The following table notes the texts and marks the differences between Hebrews (cited 52. Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis (3d ed.; Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 143f.; cf. Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Editio altera (ed. and rev. R. Hanhart; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), 2:41. 53. See Ahlborn, “Septuaginta-Vorlage,” 122; Masséo Caloz, Étude sur la LXX origénienne du Psautier: Les relations entre les leçons des psaumes du Manuscrit Coislin 44, les fragments des Hexaples et le texte du Psautier Gallican (OBO 19; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 382–86; Karen H. Jobes, “Rhetorical Achievement in the Hebrews 10 ‘Misquote’ of Psalm 40,” Bib 72 (1991): 387–96; idem, “The Function of Paronomasia in Hebrews 10:5–7,” TJ 13 (1992): 181–91; Jobes and Silva, “Invitation,” 195–99; Pierre Grelot, “Le texte du Psaume 39,7 dans la Septante,” RB 108 (2001): 210–13; Radu Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews: An Investigation of Its Inuence with Special Consideration to the Use of Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38 (WUNT 2/160; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 48f.; Rüsen-Weinhold, “Septuagintapsalter,” 205; Amphoux and Dorival, “Des oreilles”; Gäbel, “Kulttheologie,” 188–200. 54. Steyn, “Jesus-Sayings,” 439. 55. It is impossible to prove that the author of Hebrews used a Hebrew text of scriptures. See, for an overall view, Karrer, “Epistle.” 1
KARRER LXX Psalm 39:7–10 in Hebrews 10:5–7
139
according to Nestle-Aland’s 27th edition) and the critical text of the LXX as reconstructed by Rahlfs–Hanhart:56 LXX Ps 39:7–9 Rahlfs (differences from Hebrews underlined)
Heb 10:5b–7 (differences from LXX Rahlfs underlined)
RVTJBO LBJ= QSPTGPSB=O PVL IRFMITBK XUJB EF= LBUISUJTX NPJPMPLBVUXNB LBJ= QFSJ= BNBSUJBK PVL I]UITBK 8 UPUF FJ>QPO JEPV= ILX FO LFGBMJEJ CJCMJPV HFHSBQUBJ QFSJ= FNPV_ 9 UPV_ QPJI_TBJ UP= RFMINB TPV P RFPK NPV FCPVMIRIO…
5
7
…2VTJBO LBJ= QSPTGPSB=O PVL IRFMITBKTX_NB EF= LBUISUJTX NPJ 6 PMPLBVUXNBUB LBJ= QFSJ= BNBSUJBK PVLFVEPLITBK 7 UPUF FJ>QPO, ’*EPV= ILX, FO LFGBMJEJ CJCMJPV HFHSBQUBJ QFSJ= FNPV_, UPV_ QPJI_TBJ P RFPK UP= RFMINB TPV
One of the deviations, the difference between PMPLBVUXNB and PMPLBVUXNBUB, is minor and shows a shift in both textual traditions: the singular PMPLBVUXNB is witnessed in the LXX by B and some others and in Hebrews by the oldest manuscript, Papyrus 46, D and others. The great majority of manuscripts of the LXX (including the Papyrus Bodmer XXIV = manuscript 2110 of the LXX) and Hebrews testify to the plural PMPLBVUXNBUB (A etc.). It is, therefore, impossible to build a theory of intentional correction on that variant.57 Better is the case with the last variant: the author of Hebrews cuts off the quotation in the midst of v. 9 of the LXX Ps 39 and omits the verb FCPVMIRIO. That alters the whole construction. The LXX had the sense “I wanted to do your will.” Hebrews gains the new construction ILX UPV_ QPJI_TBJ (“I come to do…”). A second change follows; Hebrews rearranges the address P RFPK NPV and omits the NPV. Here one must evidently concede a redactional amendment: the author of Hebrews shortens and manages the quotation to integrate it well into the context of his document.58 Nonetheless such a management is often necessary at the beginning or the end of quotations. It does not decide the case in the centre of the quoted text. There remain two variants. Let us rst look at I]UITBK in LXX Ps 39:7, which is replaced by FVEPLITBK in Hebrews (“you—God did not wish” instead of “you have taken no pleasure”). Rahlfs preferred in his edition of the LXX the codex B while and A have F[IUITBK 56. We leave the repetition of the quotation in Heb 10:8f. out of consideration. The variants there are caused by the rhetorical will of the author of Hebrews; cf. the commentaries. 57. Alan H. Cadwallader, “The Correction of the Text of Hebrews Towards the LXX,” NovT 34 (1992): 257–92 (291), comments: “the reading PMPLBVUXNB… possibly indicates contact with a LXX text showing recensional / revisional activity towards the Hebrew.” 58. For more arguments, see Steyn, “Jesus-Sayings,” 439f. 1
140
Psalms and Hebrews
(“you—God—did not look for…”). The previously mentioned Papyrus Bodmer, at the moment the oldest witness of LXX Ps 39, could not be used by Rahlfs in his critical edition. Today we can do so—and read there, coherent to Hebrews, IVEPLITBK (an alternative writing for FVEPLITBK). Moreover, the text of the papyrus corresponds to LXX Ps 50 (MT 51):18 where the psalmist again expresses the conviction: “You (God) will take no pleasure (PVL FVEPLITFJK) in burnt offerings (PMPLBVUXNBUB).” It becomes possible that the translators of the LXX preferred the same phrase in both psalms; or copyists in an early time balanced the translation of Ps 39 and Ps 50. In both cases Hebrews may have found the verb in the Psalms scroll he used (the author himself does not prefer FVEPLFJ_O, which is found exclusively in the quotations appearing at Heb 10:6, 8, 38). So far we reach an ambivalent result. On the one hand, the author of Hebrews alters the used text at the end of the quotation for his own purpose. On the other hand, important LXX manuscripts support the peculiarities of Hebrews within the quotation (PMPLBVUXNBUB and FVEPLITBK). The most interesting of these manuscripts is the Papyrus Bodmer XXIV. That papyrus59 seems to offer a prehexaplaric textform.60 Therefore the variants tested by Hebrews perhaps are not the oldest text of the psalm in the LXX, but they are certainly old.61 c. 4X_NB or XUJB: The Decision of Rahlfs We now reach the last and principal contrast of Hebrews to the Rahlfs text. It is at the same time very different from the Hebrew version of the psalm. The latter reads EJC< )J?K (unvocalized), MT E7JC&<7 )J:?"K 7, “you (God) have dug ears,” like one digs a cistern (cf. 9C< in Exod 21:33). The phrase is difcult to understand but readers who were familiar with Semitic languages insisted on the given text (that proves the Midrash Tehillim62). At most they integrated a gloss, which enlightens the
59. Dated by some to the end and by others to the beginning of the third century or even the end of the second: see Amphoux in: Amphoux and Dorival, “Des oreilles,” 320. 60. See Dominique Barthélemy, “Le psautier grec et le Papyrus Bodmer XXIV” (1969), in Etudes d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO 21; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 174–78, and cf., in the same volume, idem, “Le Papyrus Bodmer 24 jugé par Origène” (1972), 194–201. 61. We must correct the proposal of Rahlfs (apparatus) that the FVEPLITBK in LXX manuscripts stems from Hebrews (“ex Hebr. 10,6”). 62. See The Midrash on Psalms (trans. W. G. Braude; 2 vols.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), 1:435. 1
KARRER LXX Psalm 39:7–10 in Hebrews 10:5–7
141
understanding.63 So, we have a strong Hebrew tradition for the text, or in terms of textual criticism, a lectio difcilior against all translators who facilitate the understanding. Knowing that, Rahlfs studied the manuscripts of LXX and the textual situation was very clear: all the Greek manuscripts (B, , A, etc.) read a facilitating variant, TX_NB However, all the manuscripts were more recent than Hebrews, which is the rst witness for TX_NB. Therefore he suggests that Hebrews created the variant and the Greek manuscripts took it over. Pierre Grelot recently renewed that explanation.64 Surely, the reconstruction of the Old Greek had to come into conict with all Greek manuscripts (each of them has TX_NB, as noted). But there was the Latin daughter translation—the manuscript G of the Vetus Latina (sixth century) and the Psalterium Gallicanum, which read “aures” (ears), and, as we may add (Rahlfs does not record it) Irenaeus. We earlier referred to his quotation, of which the full text reads: “Sacricium et oblationem noluisti, aures autem perfecisti mihi”65 (“sacrice and offering you have not desired, but ears you have perfected for me”). Irenaeus counts the Psalms according to the LXX (some lines later he mentions the comparable criticism of the offerings “in quinquagesimo Psalmo” = LXX Ps 50 / MT 5166) and agrees to the LBUISUJTX of the LXX and Hebrews (“perfecisti” contradicts the Hebrew verb “dig”). But he presupposes XUJB or X>UB (the classic plural), an equivalent to the Hebrew “ears.” Thus, we condently know that the “ears” of the Hebrew occurred in the text of a LXX manuscript from the late second century. Last, but not least, that corresponds to the more recent translations listed in the Hexapla (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion etc.). Therefore Rahlfs reconstructed XUJB as the Old Greek, but only according to young witnesses. The problem is stated: Is it permissible to follow the daughter translations and the parallel younger translations against all Greek manuscripts of the LXX? d. 4X_NB or XUJB (X>UB): New Evidence In the decades since Rahlfs our knowledge of manuscripts has increased. Previously we missed any Greek LXX-manuscript attesting XUJB. But 63. Amphoux and Dorival, “Des oreilles,” 316, read in the Targum: “you have dug ears to hear your salvation”; cf. Luis Diez Merino, Targum de Salmos: Edición príncipe del Ms. Villa-Amil no. 5 de Alfonso de Zamora (BHBib 6; Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cienticas, Inst. “Francisco Suárez,” 1982), 106, and 225 (there Latin translation: “aures ad audienda precepta tua fodisti mihi”). 64. Grelot, “Texte,” 212. 65. And ongoing: “holocausta autem pro delicto non postulasti”; see Irenaeus, Haer. 4.17:1 (= 126 l. 7–9). 66. Ibid., ll. 12ff. 1
142
Psalms and Hebrews
TX_NB has won an outstanding witness. The Papyrus Bodmer (witness of the textual tradition previous to Origen, as noticed) supports it. At the same time, inquiries into the quotations of Hebrews did not nd any secondary case where Hebrews would have inuenced all Greek manuscripts of the LXX. On the contrary, the text of Hebrews conates regularly a part of the LXX transmission (most often to the upper-Egyptian textform) and differs from other LXX manuscripts.67 Even Irenaeus disputes the high estimation of Hebrews since he despises it, despite knowing Hebrews. Thus it becomes difcult to ignore the homogeneity of the Greek LXX manuscripts. In that erratic situation, in 2006, Gilles Dorival inspected the Church Fathers again. He found that some of them go with TX_NB—from Origen, On the Pascha 2.46.33–3668 to the scholia of Ps 39 (MT 40) of the fth century. Others testify “ears,” again from the end of the second century (Irenaeus, as noted above) up to the late Old Church (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Psalms 39:7b).69 But most interesting, the witnesses for “ears” do not throughout testify to XUJB. Eusebius (Commentary on Psalms 39:7 [PG 23:356]) and Diodorus (Commentary on Psalms 39:7 [CCSG 242]) have X>UB. Dorival correlated that observation with the history of Greek language. ’8UB (the plural to PV>K) is the older and better Greek, XUJB (the plural to XUJPO) younger. What is now decisive is that we nd precisely the same development in the sequence of the psalm translations. The LXX of Psalms translates *K in nearly all cases by PV>K / X>UB (twenty times)70 while the younger translations have XUJPO / XUJB Dorival concludes that Rahlfs has erred when he followed the younger word formation (N.B. Rahlfs could not use a LXX manuscript for his reconstruction of “ears”). The Old Greek must sound X>UB—if it had ears at all!71 e. From TX_NB to XUJB: A Proposal Regarding Textual History Despite these problems Dorival prefers a new reconstructed text with X>UB (together with Christian Amphoux).72 However, another explanation 67. See Rüsen-Weinhold, “Septuaginta-Psalter,” 169–206 (there older literature). 68. Origène, Sur la Pâque (trans. O. Guéraud and P. Nautin; Paris: Beauchesne, 1979), 244f. The matter is somewhat surprising, if one thinks of the Hexapla. 69. For the full evidence, see Dorival in Amphoux and Dorival, “Des Oreilles,” 321–24. For more insights on the reception by the Church Fathers, see Pierre Grelot, Le mystère du Christ dans les Psaumes (CJJC 74; Paris: Desclée, 1998), 127–32. 70. The only exception, Ps 17(18):45, can be disputed; see Dorival, “Des Oreilles,” 324f. 71. Ibid. 72. Ibid., 326f. 1
KARRER LXX Psalm 39:7–10 in Hebrews 10:5–7
143
is easier: the Old Greek had TX_NB as witnessed by all Greek manuscripts of the LXX, Hebrews and a part of the quotations in the Old Church. Then, in a process of revision, the text was corrected alongside the Hebrew. 4X_NB was replaced by X>UB or XUJB. None of these variants is attested to earlier than Hebrews, but all the younger translations of the Hebrew text and Church fathers from the second century onwards demonstrated proof of it. Thus the variant spread into the second century and was perhaps formed in the rst century, but could not reject the Old Greek for some decades. Such a history of the text ts well into what we know of the general development of the LXX: the old translators took into account the understanding of the Greek readers. They dared to substitute the phrase “You (God) dug (!) ears,” which contradicted the Hellenistic way of thinking (as it does modern thought). To do so they used a well-known stylistic instrument of metonymy, the synecdoche totum pro parte,73 and exchanged “ears” to “body” (TX_NB), “dig” to “make ready” (LBUBSUJ[FTRBJ). Rahlfs breaks their phrase needlessly; he preserves the second half of the synecdoche, LBUBSUJ[FTRBJ, with the manuscripts, but destroys the rst half of them. Vice versa Rahlfs and his followers indicate the more recent development of the text. As we know from many sources (especially the kaigemanuscripts), the translations of the Old Greek seemed too free to redactors from the rst century BCE onwards. These redactors rejected inuences on the meaning by the Greek target language and tried to represent the Hebrew tone as far as possible. For them, X>UB and (shortly after that) XUJB was a very good choice—it not only was semantically correct, but it also sounded phonetically nearer to )J:?"K 7. Therefore they introduced XUJB. The Christian authors from the second century onwards sometimes used the older TX_NB and sometimes the younger text XUJB. A few of them corrected XUJB to X>UB in the classicist manner which we often nd in later antiquity. In sum, our text really is a test case for the text history of LXX. But we must correct the critical text of LXX Ps 39:7 against Rahlfs. 4X_NB is the better text, or—if one wishes to make a compromise—at least a very good attested old text of the psalm, which should be noted in some way in the “Obertext” of the critical edition.
73. Ahlborn, “Septuaginta-Vorlage,” 122, lists other examples with TX_NB in the (Job 3:17 and Prov 3:8).
LXX 1
144
Psalms and Hebrews
f. 4X_NB and the Theology of Hebrews There are some possibilities which can broaden the text critical argument. Setting aside the discussions of a writing error74 or the inuence of paronomasia (phonetic assonance),75 a third aspect needs some attention: the signicance of TX_NB for the theology and language of Hebrews. A look at the concordance is revealing. Hebrews prefers the term TBSD, “esh,” (and BJ
KARRER LXX Psalm 39:7–10 in Hebrews 10:5–7
145
the blood into the sanctuary on earth and opens the way for God there. However, in that way all life remains on earth (if we follow Hebrews). It does not enter into the greater heavenly sanctuary and the heavenly holy town that comes. Jesus opens the way and guides to the town in opposition to Aaron (cf. Heb 13:14).77 Perhaps Hebrews uses TX_NB in that context by chance. But the matter would become fascinating if the author had detected a plus of sense and set the noun deliberately. In any case, he forms an inclusio to Heb 10 (TX_NB, vv. 5, 10, and BJ
77. Again it is impossible to discuss the text in detail. Ibid., 454–58, and the commentaries list the relevant literature. 78. See Eckart Otto’s contribution in the present volume, “Hermeneutics of Biblical Theology, History of Religion and the Theological Substance of Two Testaments: The Reception of Psalms in Hebrews” (pp. 3–26). 1
146
Psalms and Hebrews
1. The author of Hebrews develops a non-interchangeable theology of the spoken and yet written word of God. That theology sets off his many quotations and culminates in the words of Jesus: Jesus speaks authentically, and yet he exclusively speaks words of the written scriptures of Israel. 2. The words of scripture spoken by Jesus transcend Jesus’ earthly biography and at the same time characterize it as a whole. The author of Hebrews, in that manner, prefers a view of pre-existence. He risks, perhaps intentionally, a striking difference from the Gospel tradition. 3. The quotations spoken by Jesus are dominated by words of the Psalms. Therefore the Psalms illustrate the Christology of Hebrews in an outstanding manner. However, the Jesus of Hebrews actualizes the Psalms. LXX Psalm 39 gets a new Christological perspective (preparing Heb 13:10–14). That shift in meaning must be handled in hermeneutics (we may not forget the original sense of the Psalms today). 4. The Psalms used by Jesus in Hebrews are connected to David in the tradition. Additionally, in the LXX they received an eschatological tone. Thus Hebrews associates the Jesus, born of Judah, with the hopes in the Psalms of the peerless poet-king, born from Judah. 5. The author of Hebrews quotes written texts and tries to maintain their wording. Hence his quotations gain reliability in textual criticism regarding the LXX. Each quotation needs a detailed philological examination. 6. The textual reliability of Hebrews urges the correction of a widespread scholarly opinion: TX_NB in Heb 10:5 belongs to the Old Greek, or at least to a wide-spread draft of the LXX in the times of Hebrews (as the best manuscripts of the LXX conrm). Consequently, the revision of the Rahlfs text, which is in the making, should favour TX_NB against Rahlfs, or as a minimum mark the alternative TX_NB besides XUJB in the “Obertext” (for example by parentheses).
1
A PROPHETIC VOICE FOR AFRICA FROM PSALM 95* Dirk J. Human
Introduction In Ps 95 one is introduced to the unashamed and exuberant joy of a community participating in a cultic festival to glorify the kingship of Yahweh. The text is characterized not only by a summons to praise (vv. 1–5) and worship (vv. 6–7a) this God of Israel; its celebration also includes an admonitory sermon (vv. 7b–11) that convinces the community of believers to maintain their faith in this supreme God. Both exultation and admonition thus build the antithetic atmosphere of praise and warning in the psalm. In the Jewish worship tradition, the psalm is used on Friday evenings as the rst of six psalms to welcome the Sabbath celebrations. It is also one of the special psalms used for morning prayer on the Sabbath. In the Christian tradition it is called the Invitatory Psalm (“Venite”)—an introduction to the psalms of the day.1 In the Common Lectionary, the psalm is used in the Sunday service on the third Sunday in Lent in Year A.2 Even more than this, the whole of Ps 95 is in general use among Christians, who invite and exhort one another with its words during worship and other festival services. Several research issues are at stake in the Forschungsgeschichte of the psalm.3 These issues touch on such themes as: the coherence or unity of * I dedicate the present study to Eckart Otto, to mark his 65th birthday. 1. Cf. Alexander Vella, “To Enter and Not to Enter: A Literary and Theological Study of Psalm 95,” Melita Theologica 42 (1991): 77–94 (77); and A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 572. 2. Ronald P. Byars, “Psalm 95,” Scripture and Theology 56, no. 1 (2002): 77–79 (78). 3. G. Henton Davies, “Psalm 95,” ZAW 85 (1973): 183–87, gives a literature review on the psalm’s research history. See also Willem S. Prinsloo, “If Only You Would Listen to His Voice!,” in The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson (ed. R. P. Carroll, D. J. A. Clines and P. R. Davies; JSOTSup 200; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1995), 393–95; idem, Die lof van my God solank 1
148
Psalms and Hebrews
the psalm, its relation to other Festival Psalms including Pss 50 and 81; the genre(s) or Gattung(en) of the text; its dating or historical setting; its cultic Sitz im Leben; and the psalm’s relationship to the New Testament. It is indeed the psalm’s relation to the New Testament that raises interest in the hermeneutical relationship between the two Testaments. An understanding of Ps 95 in its Old Testament context, in comparison with its New Testament use and understanding, reveals continuity and discontinuity with regard to context, content and the theological meaning of the text. The interpretation and exposition of Ps 95 (or its motifs and allusions) in the New Testament does not comply exactly with the psalm’s understanding in its Old Testament setting(s). To illustrate this point, in this study the psalm will primarily be explicated in its Old Testament context(s). Then a few remarks on the comparison between the Old Testament interpretation, as well as the psalm’s New Testament understanding (according to Heb 3–4), will illustrate the continuity and discontinuity in the theological signicance between both texts. Finally, a short word on the relevance of the psalm for my African context will be voiced. Composition and Poetic Quality Text and Translation The Hebrew text of Ps 95 is well preserved. It has no heading and offers an intelligible reading to the exegete. While the whole of the psalm exhibits a constant 3 + 3 metre, v. 7 poses metrical irregularities.4 This has not only caused commentators to suggest text-critical emendations for the verse; these irregularities, together with the change of tenor from worship to warning (in v. 8) have also given rise to questions about the verse’s redaction-critical composition.5 It becomes a question of whether ek lewe (Irene: Medpharm, 2000), 156–58; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, “Psalm 95. Gattungsgeschichtliche, kompositionskritische und bibeltheologische Anfragen,” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Für Walter Beyerlin (ed. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger; Freiburg: Herder, 1995), 29–44, idem, “Psalm 95,” in Psalmen 51– 100 (ed. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger; HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 658. 4. Alfons Deissler, Die Psalmen (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1964), 374. 5. For a thorough discussion of text-critical suggestions and emendations, cf. Charles A. Briggs and Emilie G. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969), 1:296; Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 (WBC 20; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1990), 497, and Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen 60–150 (ed. Siegfried Hermann and Hans Walter Wolff; 5th ed; BKAT; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 2:828. 1
HUMAN A Prophetic Voice for Africa from Psalm 95
149
or not v. 7b (“Today, if you hear his voice”) was a later text insertion, or Fortschreibung, made in order to bridge two distinct parts of the psalm (1–7a; 8–11).6 Nevertheless, Ps 95 makes sense without any emendations to the Masoretic text. Despite discussions on the original unity and growth of the poem, the text in its present form comprises a coherent and meaningful whole.7 Stylistic features and repetitions, as well as the logical conception of the psalm, serve as major reasons why the interpretation of the psalm as a unit can be maintained.8 Especially when comparing Ps 95 with Pss 50 and 81 (Festival Psalms), all these texts are seen to share the same untypical combination of the elements of praise and prophetic admonition.9 There is thus no reason why the whole of the psalm could not have functioned as part of a liturgical agenda or a cultic procession for the ancient Israelites.10 With this in mind, the Ps 95 reads as follows: H? J CH4= 9 JC? 9H9J= 9??C? H<= 1 H= JC? EHC>K3 95HE3 HJ?A 9>5B? 2 )J9= =<= =H58 (=>H 9H9J =H58 = J< 3 H= )JC9 EHA HEH #C JCBI> H5J3 C 4 HC4J HJ5J E3JH H9 H9H )J9 H=C 5 6. Theodor Seidl, “Scheltwort als Befreiungsrede: Eine Deutung der deuteronomistischen Paränese für Israel in Ps 95, 7c–11,” in Das Volk Gottes en Ort der Befreiung. Festschrift E. Klinger (ed. H. Keul and H. J. Sander; Würzburg: Echter, 1998), 107–20 (109, 117). 7. Cf. Vella, “To Enter,” 82; Prinsloo, “If Only,” 406. See also the structural analyses of Marc Girard, “Analyse structurelle du Psaume 95,” Science et Espirit 33, no. 2 (1981): 179–89, and Pierre Auffret, “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 95,” Biblische Notizen 22 (1983): 47–69. 8. Hossfeld, “Psalm 95,” 661; and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Die Psalmen: Psalm 51–100 (NEB; Würzburg: Echter, 2002), 513. 9. Oswalt Loretz, Ugarit-Texte und Thronbesteigungspsalmen: Die Metamorphose des Regenspenders Baal-Jahwe: Ps 24, 7–10; 29; 47; 93; 95–100 sowie Ps 77, 17–20; 114 (UBL 7; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1988), 305. 10. The psalm is neither a complete hymn nor a full sermon, with the function to admonish people as “Mahnwort.” Hermann Gunkel, Die Psalmen übersetzt und erklärt (GHAT 2/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926), 417, understood the text as “prophetische Liturgie,” while Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien. Buch I–II (Amsterdam: P. Schippers, [1921] 1961), 329–30, attributed the psalm to the category of the “Thronbesteigungspsalmen” and the cult. For the liturgical agenda, cf. Erhard Gerstenberger, Psalms Part 2 and Lamentations (FOTL XV; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 184. For a cultic procession hymn, cf. Rudolf Kittel, Die Psalmen (KAT XIII; Leipzig: Erlangen, 1929), 312. For an entrance liturgy, cf. Vella, “To Enter,” 94. 1
Psalms and Hebrews
150
H? 9H9JJ?A= 9 ) H?I? H H?J9= H9 J< 7 H >E H=B3) )HJ9 H5J C35>3 9D> )HJ< 93JC>< )<33= HBE= 8 J= A H C)8 J?H?I3 )<JEH3 J?HD? C 9 J H CH53 HB 9? )J 3C 10 JEIH?>= *H 3J) JA 3 JE 3?C 11 1
Come, let us shout with joy to Yahweh; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. 2 Let us come before him with thanksgiving (praise), with songs let us shout with joy to him. 3 For Yahweh is the great God, and the great king above all gods. 4 In his hand are the depths of the earth, and the mountain peaks belong to him. 5 The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land. 6
Come, let us worship, let us bow down, let us kneel before Yahweh, our Maker; 7 for he is our God and we are the people of his pasture, the ock of his hand. 7b
…Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts, as you did at Meribah; as in the day at Massah in the desert, 9 where your fathers tested and tried me, though they had seen my deeds. 10 For forty years I was angry with that generation; and I said: “(They are) a people whose hearts go astray, and they have not known my ways.” 11 So I have sworn an oath in my anger, “They shall never enter my rest.” 8
Literary Context Psalm 95 forms part of (a) larger literary context(s) in the Psalter. Without taking this these larger redactional context(s) into consideration, the specic theological function of the psalm, in relation to neighboring psalms, will be forfeited. Psalms 90–150 form the second major division of the Psalter. This part contains more untitled (or so-called orphan) psalms than in the rst (Pss 1–89). Psalms 90–106 (Book IV) forms the “editorial centre” of the Pss 90–150 collection.11 Furthermore, two groups of psalms seem to form 11. Jerome F. D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (JSOTSup 217; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1996), 99. 1
HUMAN A Prophetic Voice for Africa from Psalm 95
151
an intentionally ordered section in Book IV. Each group is bound by a theological concept or idea, namely, Yahweh as refuge (Pss 90–92, 94), and Yahweh as king (Pss 93, 95–99). Psalms 1–89 also form a redactional unit in the Psalter. After the rise (Ps 1) and the fall (Ps 89) of the earthly king, the descriptions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in Ps 89 seem to leave Israel void. The second part of the Psalter, namely, Pss 90–150, with the theological concepts of Yahweh as refuge (Pss 90–92, 94) and Yahweh as king (Pss 93, 95–99), is a response to the agony over the destruction of Jerusalem.12 The earthly king is overthrown. Who will reign now? Yahweh is king. Not only is he described in this part as the only reliable monarch, but as king he is depicted as the protector of Israel. Wilson’s suggestion—that Pss 93, 95–99 hold the key to the theological meaning of the completed Psalter—therefore seems to be convincing.13 Psalm 95 exhibits an important function inside the coherent collection of Pss 93–100, which hails the universality of Yahweh’s kingship over the world. To a large extent, this kernel group (Pss 93–99) in Book IV is an invitation to acknowledge the kingship of Yahweh and to participate in Israel’s worship.14 The psalm plays a pivotal role in the unfolding of the theme of Yahweh’s kingship. It serves to address Israel on their election as God’s people; and to sensitize them, by means of an oracular admonition, to their responsibility to be faithful to the king. Three basic functions of the psalm might be deployed.15 In combination with Ps 94, the endangering of Yahweh’s kingship is addressed. Psalm 95 portrays an inside perspective, namely, that Israel itself could be a threat to the intimate communion with Yahweh, by means of disbelief and unfaithfulness among the people. Secondly, Ps 95 and Ps 100 form an inclusion or frame around the discrete unit Pss 96–99—the kingship of Yahweh psalms.16 The psalm nally serves as a bridge between the cluster of psalms that describes the establishment of the kingship in Pss 93–94, and the cluster of psalms that depicts the universal execution of the kingship in Pss 96–100. 12. Ibid., 98. 13. Gerald Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS 76; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 216–17. 14. Jörg Jeremias, “Ps 100 als Auslegung von Ps 93–99,” Skrif en Kerk 19, no. 3 (1998): 605–15 (605). 15. Hossfeld, “Psalm 95,” 660, and Die Psalmen 51–100, 513. 16. David M. Howard, The Structure of Psalms 93–100 (ed. W. H. Propp; Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 5; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 141. 1
152
Psalms and Hebrews
Literary Characteristics Psalm 95 undoubtedly reveals poetic quality, although it “does not read like a typical psalm.”17 Even Hermann Gunkel was of the opinion that the poem is either original, or rich in spirit (“wenig ursprünglich oder geistreich”).18 However, sound and stylistic features enhance the beauty of the psalm’s composition and the poetic interwovenness of its various components.19 Poetic conventions that contribute to its literary identity include: rhyme patterns (vv. 1–5); alliteration (vv. 1, 5, 7, 8); assonance (v. 7ab); word- and sound-play (vv. 1, 6); metonymy (v. 2); repetition;20 antithesis or contrast (vv. 1–7a/7b–11; v. 4); anadiplosis (vv. 4–5); chiasms (vv. 1–7c; v. 2; vv, 4–5); inclusion (vv. 6/8); pars pro toto (vv. 4–5); metaphor (vv. 1, 7b); simile (v. 8); and merism (v. 5). All these gures of speech are applied functionally in order to enhance either aspects of the text, or the signicance of its theological content. The fact that the psalm ends in a blunt and abrupt way has led to assumptions that the psalm serves only as an introit, or as part of a larger liturgical agenda during worship services and other festival celebrations of the congregation, at the sanctuary.21 Its open-endedness, a feature found in other psalms (Pss 77 and 78), might even be an intentional device used by the author in order to emphasize the seriousness of the exhortation and the required urgency of the congregants’ response to the “divine voice.” Segmentation On the basis of morphologic, syntactic, stylistic and semantic criteria, the text can be divided into two basic sections: namely, vv. 1–7a and 7b– 11.22 The rst stanza (vv. 1–7a) is characterized by its typical Old 17. Peter E. Enns, “Creation and Recreation: Psalm 95 and Its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1–4:13,” Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993): 255–80. 18. Hermann Gunkel, Die Psalmen übersetzt und erklärt (GHAT II/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926), 418. 19. Cf. Beat Weber, Werkbuch Psalmen II: Die Psalmen 73 bis 150 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003), 141–42. 20. Various words and sounds are repeated in the text. These include: 9H9J (vv. 1, 3, 6, 6); C (vv. 4, 5, 9, 11); ) (vv. 7, 10); =H58 (v. 3 [×2]); )9 (v. 10 [×2]); 3 (vv. 6, 11); 9 (vv. 5, 6); J< (vv. 3, 7); 5J (vv. 4, 5); H= (vv. 4, 5). 21. Gerstenberger, Psalms Part 2, 184. Cf. also Klaus Seybold, Die Psalmen (HAT I/15; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996], 376). 22. Various possibilities prevail for the division of the psalm. Examples are: vv. 1–7c, 7d–11—cf. Gunkel, Die Psalmen, 418, and many others after him; vv. 1–7, 8–11—cf. R. E. O. White, A Christian Handbook to the Psalms (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 147; vv. 1–5, 6–11—cf. Jörg Jeremias, Das Königtum Gottes in 1
HUMAN A Prophetic Voice for Africa from Psalm 95
153
Testament hymn structure; while the second stanza (vv. 7b–11) is described as a prophetic oracle because of the divine admonition or exhortation. The rst stanza (vv. 1–7a) consists of two parallel structured strophes, where the believing community is summoned to bring homage to Yahweh through praise (vv. 1–5) and worship (vv. 6–7a). In both instances, each call is a self-summons (Selbstausforderung)—where either the people in the whole community address one another (“Come” or “go in”), or a cult ofcial calls on people in a procession to participate in exuberant praise and in humble worship. Both these calls are motivated with reasons why Yahweh should be hailed (vv. 3–5) or worshipped (v. 7a). These motivations are in both cases introduced by the causal particle J<. The tenor of the cultic atmosphere changes drastically in the second stanza (vv. 7b–11). Verse 7b, “Today, if you hear his voice,” functions as a bridge verse and an introduction to a liturgical sermon, one in which the present Israelite community is warned to be faithful to Yahweh, their king, in order to enter his rest (v. 11). This sermon is clearly a re-actualization of traditions in the Israelite history, to convince and remind the contemporary community of the conditional character of Yahweh’s covenant promises to his people. The current generation23 should listen to his voice (v. 7b), not harden their hearts (v. 8) or let their hearts err (v. 10). Ultimately, they should know his ways. In other words, Israel should recognize his salvation deeds (v. 9) and Torah ordinances (v. 10) if they want to enter his rest (v. 11). To summarize, the text of Ps 95 can be divided into:
den Psalmen. Israels Begegnung mit dem kanaanäischen Mythos in den JahweKönig-Psalmen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), 108; vv. 1–6, 7–11— cf. Georg Fohrer, Psalmen (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 37–38. 23. Many exegetes have made suggestions for the dating of the psalm. Attempts vary from “impossible to x a date” (cf. John W. Rogerson, Psalms 51–100 [CBC: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977], 217) to viewpoints such as preexilic, exilic and post-exilic datings (cf. Prinsloo, “If Only,” 396, for a summary of these views). One should reckon with the growth of the psalm in its different historical, cultic and literary contexts, but if one takes the psalm’s literary position in Books IV and V, as part of the theology and Sitz of the Yahweh-is-King Psalms, as the point of departure, then a post-exilic dating of the psalm seems to be convincing. Since Friedrich Baethgen, Die Psalmen übersetzt und erklärt (HAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1904), 293, the late exilic, post-exilic period after the Babylonian exile has regularly been indicated as the historical setting or date for the psalm—cf. Hossfeld, “Psalm 95,” 662. 1
Psalms and Hebrews
154
x x x
a summons to praise Yahweh (vv. 1–5); a summons to worship Yahweh (vv. 6–7a); a prophetic oracle explicated in a sermon (vv. 7b–11). Textual Analysis
Summons to Praise Yahweh (vv. 1–5) The psalm starts with festive jubilation.24 With a plural imperative (“Come”), and four plural cohortatives (“let us shout with joy,” “let us shout aloud,” let us come,” “let us shout with joy”), the congregation is challenged in vv. 1–2 to praise Yahweh with song and music. A cultic scene is alluded to with various components of the text: apart from the hymnic summons, the term 95HE3 implies either a thanksgiving song or a prayer offering; while EHC>K3 supposes songs sung by the accompaniment of a stringed instrument (Ps 119:54). These activities were probably executed in the sanctuary. In addition to this, the “face” of Yahweh is meant to be a metonym for his presence. With regard to ancient Near Eastern understanding, the term represents the image of a god in a sanctuary. In the case of Israel, the inside of the Jerusalem temple—probably the inner parts like the Holy or Most Holy (where the ark of the covenant was placed, or else the empty debir, which fullled a similar function)—can be visualized. Tradition-historically, the expression “to approach” or “to see God’s face” presupposes a situation where a subject is given an audience before a king in his throne room.25 24. Whether it was a “Prozessionshymnus” (cf. Rudolf Kittel, Die Psalmen übersetzt und erklärt [KAT; Leipzig: A. Deicherische Verlagsbuchhandlung W. Scholl, 1922], 312), “Wallfahrts- und Einzugsliturgie” (cf. Hans Schmidt, Die Psalmen [HAT 15; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1934], 177), the text of an autumnal new year celebration (cf. John Eaton, The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary with an Introduction and New Translation [London: T. & T. Clark, 2003], 337), employed during the Feast of the Tabernacles/Booths (cf. Deissler, Die Psalmen, 374 and Tate, Psalms 51–100, 499), or any other cultic or festive worship service (cf. Seybold, Die Psalmen, 377), is hard to determine. 25. Herbert J. Levine, Sing Unto God a New Song: A Contemporary Reading of the Psalms (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), 112–16; Friedhelm Hartenstein, Die Unzugänglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum. Jesaja 6 und der Wohnort JHWHs in der Jerusalemer Kulttradition (WMANT 75; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997), 41–108 (63–78); Friedhelm Hartenstein, “Das ‘Angesicht Gottes’ im Exodus 32–24,” in Gottes Volk am Sinai. Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–24 und Dtn 9–10 (ed. M. Köckert and E. Blum; Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 18; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2001), 157–83 (160–64). 1
HUMAN A Prophetic Voice for Africa from Psalm 95
155
In the cultic language of the Old Testament, the hymnic self-summons to praise in the plural (cohortative) form has its setting in the context of pilgrimages to Jerusalem, or processions in the cultic areas of Zion.26 Thus, these joyful calls to pay homage to Yahweh, while the people are approaching his presence, are probably part of a festive procession or liturgy in the area of the Jerusalem temple. That Yahweh is characterized by the metaphor “Rock of our salvation” in v. 1 (Deut 32:15; Pss 18:3, 32, 47; 89:27) is signicant. This image already anticipates the reason why the festive crowd should come to praise him—he was responsible for their salvation, either recently or in the distant past. Israel’s experience with the “rock” as a symbol for refuge or protection against danger during their desert wanderings (Num 24:21; Isa 33:16); or the water given by God from the rock that Moses hit (Exod 17:1–7; Num 20:8), as well as the rm rock on which the temple was built, all recall redemption associations in the Israelite history. The expression H? J (“our salvation”) also conveys a confessional character. In relation to H? in v. 6 (“our Maker/Creator”), with which word-play is effected, the two expressions denote and alert the feast participant to God’s work with this faith community. Yahweh is simultaneously redeemer and creator of the contemporary “us,” namely, the present Israel. A large chiasm or ABBA parallelism (vv. 1–5 / 6–7)27 not only effects cohesion in these verses, but also the motifs of Yahweh being saviour and maker are brought to the fore: Saviour (A, vv. 1–2) Creator (B, vv. 3–5) Maker (B, v. 6) Saviour (A, v. 7)
Verses 3–5 provide the reasons as to why Yahweh should be praised. In the typical form of the Old Testament hymn genre, the call to praise is followed by the J< particle (“for”) and the consequent motivation. Yahweh should be praised because he is a great God and great King over all the gods (Pss 47:3; 96:4; 99:2). To sketch the greatness and supremacy of Yahweh above all other gods, the author alludes to the mythological worldview of the Ugaritic pantheon, where the supreme god El surpasses the power of all other gods. The reference to Yahweh as =H58 = (“a great God”) elevates Yahweh to the highest God in the whole universe. The portrayal of Yahweh of =H58 (=> (“a great king”) also has 26. Frank Crüsemann, Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel (WMANT 32; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 181. See also Jörg Jeremias, Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der später Königszeit Israels (WMANT 35; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970), 109. 27. Charles B. Riding, “Psalm 95:1–7c as a Large Chiasm,” ZAW 88 (1976): 418. 1
156
Psalms and Hebrews
mythological allusions—it reects typical descriptions in Ugarit, where Baal is depicted as almighty king and judge, who reigns over all the gods.28 And yet, to ascribe these titles to Yahweh also has a polemical function, as this means that Yahweh is the only high god—his kingship even surpasses that of El and Baal. For the people of the ancient Near East the acknowledgment of someone as king was inextricably bound to the choice of that person (or power) as a means of protection.29 Israel’s praise of Yahweh therefore means that they recognize him as sole ruler and protector. Verses 4–5 elaborate on these statements, stating why Yahweh is a great God and a great King. Both verses are syntactically and stylistically bound together with a chiastic pattern, as well as the introduction of the relative particle C . The comprehensive work of Yahweh as creator is described with vertical dimensions in v. 4, and horizontal dimensions in v. 5. The depths of the earth and the peaks of the mountains are the work of his hands. These antithetic parts of the universe not only express the utmost borders of creation; they also represent the abodes of the gods of life on the mountains, and the spirits/gods of death who reside in Sheol (in the depths). According to ancient Near Eastern belief, the high mountains were the abodes of the gods (Pss 68:15; 89:12; 121:1), while the netherworld was the realm of the powers of death.30 Behind these descriptions again appear the mythological multi-layered world-building that was visualized by ancient Near Eastern people.31 The merism of sea and dry land (v. 5) indicates the whole universe, and represents everything that Yahweh has made. Interestingly, the notions )J9 (“sea”) and E3JH (“dry land”) may also allude to Yam or Yammu, the Canaanite god of chaos, as well as and Boshet or Bashtu, a 28. See KTU 1.3 V 32–33: “Our king is almighty Baal, our judge, no one is above him”; KTU 1.4 VII 49–50: “I alone am the one who reigns over the gods.” Cf. Oswalt Loretz, Ugarit-Texte und Thronbesteigungspsalmen. Die Metamorphose des Regenspenders Baal-Jahwe (UBL 7; Bielefeld: Cornelsen Verlagsgesellschaft, 1988), 309–10. 29. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge, 97. 30. Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1962), 626. 31. Othmar Keel, Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament. Am Beispiel der Psalmen (Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 21–48 (36–39, 47–48). See also Claus Peterson, Mythos im Alten Testament. Bestimmung des Mythosbegriffs und Untersuchung der mythischen Elemente in den Psalmen (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982), 181–82, for other Old Testament parallels. 1
HUMAN A Prophetic Voice for Africa from Psalm 95
157
protective spirit in Mesopotamia.32 Yahweh’s creative power over both Canaanite and Mesopotamian gods are hereby alluded to. The repetitions of both H5J (“his hands”) and H= (“for him”), as part of the chiasm between vv. 4 and 5, simultaneously emphasize that Yahweh is not only the Maker/Creator of the depths of earth, the peaks of the mountains, and the sea and dry land, but also that he owns them. His ownership and power to create them elevates him above all other gods; whether they are gods/spirits of life, death, chaos or protection. While holding everything in his hand, there is no threat that could endanger the kingship of this great God at all. His power knows no limitations. Summons to Worship Yahweh (vv. 6–7) In contrast to the noisy music and shouts of joy in vv. 1–2, a more devoted atmosphere characterizes the second strophe of the rst stanza (vv. 6–7a). Here the festive throng is again summoned, but this time it is to worship Yahweh. With a plural imperative (“Come” or “Go in”), and three cohortative self-summons, the worshippers are again challenged to prostrate, kneel and bow down before the presence of Yahweh. If the imperative verb “Come” (v. 1) has invited the congregation to approach the temple area, and if the cohortative “let us near” (v. 2) is an indication that the people enter the temple, then the imperative “Go in” (v. 6) might be the movement of their last approach before they prostrate themselves in the inner parts of the sanctuary. The humble submission of the worshippers before the great God evokes the obedience, trust and gratitude of the creatures before their creator. In their prostration they recognize him as “our Maker” (v. 6). Yahweh is not only the creator of the universe, he is also the creator of his people, Israel. The contrast between his greatness and their humble obedience indicates their low and dependent position before Yahweh. Parallel to the hymnic structure in the rst strophe, the motivation to come and worship Yahweh is introduced in v. 7a by the particle J<. The reason for their devotion is founded in the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel. The covenant formula, “He is our God and we are the people of his pasture, the ock of his hand” (Jer 11:4), underscores both Yahweh’s ownership and his guidance of his people. The shepherd and ock metaphor is probably a reference to Yahweh’s deeds of salvation during the exodus events, the desert wanderings, the Sinai events, and the occupation of the land. 32. Hannes D. Galter, “Bastu,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P. W. van der Horst; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 163–64. 1
158
Psalms and Hebrews
The shepherd metaphor (Pss 77:21; 78:52; 80:2; 100:3)33 is supportive of the function of the king. In ancient Near Eastern thought, the king’s role as shepherd of his people was to provide for, guide and protect them among the world’s nations.34 For this purpose, Yahweh’s covenant ock was dependent upon him. Their obligation was to show their trust in their creator, shepherd and protector for their needs. Sermon as Prophetic Oracle (vv. 7b–11) In the second stanza of Ps 95 (vv. 7b–11) there is a sudden change in subject and atmosphere. A divine voice, one which reminds of a prophetic oracle, meets the ears of the current congregation. Not the festive praise and the devout worship, but the warning and admonishment of the present congregation become evident. In the typical style of the Deuteronomic/deuteronomistic theology, the contemporary congregation is warned to listen to Yahweh’s voice, and not to harden their hearts like their fathers did.35 The author uses the Mosaic sermon style when he urges them to make a decision “today” (Deut 4:40; 6:6; 7:11; 8:19; 9:3; 30:15; Exod 34:11). The emphasis on “today” intensies Yahweh’s determination to treat mistrust and unfaithfulness in the same way that he treated their unfaithful fathers, namely, to deny them the occupation of the Promised Land. The psalm’s author applies the divine voice, probably represented in the cultic ceremony by a Levite speaker or cultic prophet, to voice this exhortation.36 Israel’s own history is used as an example to convince and remind the present Israelite generation (probably a post-exilic generation who returned from Babylon and had experienced the hardships of resettlement in their land) to be faithful to Yahweh in order to enjoy his promised Heilsgut, the blessings of his “rest.” This generation is taken on a trip down the Israelite memory lane to see how their forefathers behaved. Tradition-historically, the Massah and Meribah narratives of Exod 17:1–7 and Num 20:1–13 (see also Deut 33:8 and Ps 81:8) are explicated 33. For Mitchell Dahood, Psalms. Vol. 2, 51–100 (AB 17; New York: Doubleday, 1986), 355, the resumption of the ock metaphor in the second part (vv. 7b–11) is indicative of the unity of authorship of the psalm. 34. The shepherd image is more than a pastoral metaphor. It expresses the role of a king in the ancient Near East as provider, leader and protector; cf. James L. Mays, Psalms (Interpretation; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1994), 306. 35. Thijs Booij, Psalmen. Deel III (81–110) (POT; Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1994), 150; W. Dennis Tucker, “Psalm 95: Text, Context and Intertext,” Bib 81 (2000): 540–50 (540); Seidl, “Scheltwort als Befreiungsrede,” 107. 36. Jeremias, Kultprophetie, 127; Levine, Sing Unto God, 115. 1
HUMAN A Prophetic Voice for Africa from Psalm 95
159
and interpreted for the present listening generation. The word-play between 9D> (v. 8) and J?HD? (“they have tested me”) draw the attention to the etymology of the names Meribah and Massa. These locations were the places where the Israelites “tested” and “proofed” Yahweh with “contention” and “testing.” This testing is not spelled out in our text, but, according to the abovementioned traditions, these were the localities where the Israelites found fault with Moses and his guidance. The Israelites rebelled and questioned the presence of Yahweh at Massah and Meribah, where they were in need of water and protection. This conduct was regarded as unfaithfulness, despite Israel’s awareness of Yahweh’s salvation deeds (“my deeds” in v. 9) all along their journey. The consequence of their mistrust and disbelief was that Yahweh loathed this murmuring generation, whose hearts went astray and who didn’t recognize his ways (“my ways” in v. 10). As a semantic synonym of Yahweh’s deeds (“my deeds” in v. 9), the phrase J= A most probably refers to the salvation deeds of Yahweh’s creation power, his guidance and care, and his protection. As the climax of the admonition, the last verse functions as a warning to the present generation: “So I have sworn an oath in my anger: ‘They shall never enter my rest.’ ” This quotation from Deut 12:9 became a reality for the unfaithful generation. Moses and his generation did not enter God’s rest (i.e. the Promised Land) because of their unfaithful behaviour and attitude towards him. God’s rest is indicative of either the Promised Land (Deut 25:19; Num 14:30),37 or the temple as place of Yahweh’s residence (Ps 132:8, 14).38 The ancient Israelite desert generation had to learn what the consequences of unfaithful behaviour were. Now the new (post-exilic) generation is confronted with the same choice: to be faithful to Yahweh, or not. The open-endedness of the psalm leaves room for the open choice that the believing community has when they use the psalm in their cultic celebrations. Everyone who has read the psalm is confronted with the same choice and with self-reection.39 Those who fail to pay heed to the admonition of the prophetic oracle will nd themselves apart from God’s presence.
37. Eaton, The Psalms, 339. 38. Georg Braulik, “Gottes Ruhe. Das Land oder der Tempel? Zu Psalm 95,11,” in Freude an die Weisung des Herrn. Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen. Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag von Heinrich Gross (ed. Ernst Haag and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk), 33–44. 39. Seybold, Die Psalmen, 379. 1
160
Psalms and Hebrews
Psalm 95 in the New Testament Introduction Several motifs or allusions from Ps 95 can be traced in the New Testament. Obvious examples include 1 Cor 10:1–13, where the Meribah narrative (“the water from the rock”) is typologically applied to Jesus, or Matt 15:24; 18:12–13; John 10 and Rev 21:3, where the shepherd motif of Ps 95:7 is applied to Jesus. It is not the intention of the present essay to discuss these examples in detail, but rather to offer a few observations on the discontinuity between the Old and New Testament texts and contexts. It is in Heb 3–4 that Ps 95 functions most extensively. Here we nd parts of the psalm being utilized in the plot of this New Testament narrative. Especially vv. 7–11 are cited and explicated in Heb 3:7 and 4:11. The contribution of Gert J. Steyn to the present volume, entitled “The Reception of Psalm 95 (94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4,” discusses the reception of Ps 95 in this New Testament context thoroughly. Without attempting to engage in a thorough exegesis of these citations, I want to make a few remarks on the author of Hebrews’ use of the psalm. From these observations it becomes evident, I believe, that there is continuity and discontinuity with regard to the context, content and theological meaning of the Old Testament psalm and that the New Testament authors have not done justice to the psalm’s exact understanding in its Old Testament setting. With the citation or exposition of Ps 95, they have (hermeneutically speaking) created a new text in the New Testament context. Under the inuence of the author of Hebrews’ own theological intention, the psalm text became part of its theological programme and narrative. Here follows a few observations. Psalm 95 in Hebrews 3–4: Some Hermeneutical Observations Throughout the letter to the Hebrews it is evident that the full signicance of the Old Testament is realized by the Early Christian Church. The “new” dispensation supersedes the “old” one. This happens proleptically through Israel.40 In the rst part of the book the theological agenda of the book (1:5– 5:10) prepares the reader for the core argument, namely, that Jesus Christ is the high priest (5:11–10:39). This preparation explains that Jesus is greater than the angels (1:5–2:18), greater than Moses (3:1–19), greater than Joshua (4:1–13) and greater than the earthly high priests (4:14– 5:10). 40. Enns, “Creation and Re-creation,” 278. 1
HUMAN A Prophetic Voice for Africa from Psalm 95
161
Most relevant of the present discussion is Heb 3–4, since the prophetic sermon of Ps 95:7b–11 is cited in Heb 3:7–11. Verses 7–8 of Ps 95 appear in Heb 3:15; v. 11 is cited in Heb 4:3, 5; while vv. 7–8 occur once again in Heb 4:7. Hebrews 3:18 alludes to v. 11 of the psalm. The psalm is applied to a context in which the audience is warned against the danger of unbelief, which will cause the denial of the “rest” promised to them.41 Without analyzing or discussing the whole of Heb 3–4 or all the Ps 95 citations therein, the following observations seem to be hermeneutically important: x It is noteworthy that the author of Hebrews makes citations from the Septuagint text, and not from the Masoretic text. Furthermore, it is clear that the author is not always consistent in the treatment of citations. By citing the Septuagint text, the author of Hebrews had deviated from the Masoretic textual tradition. The Septuagint text is a different text and already an interpretive translation of the Masoretic version. x Psalm 95 has no heading or indication of specic authorship. Instead of the unknown author of the psalm, the author of Hebrews puts the psalm quotation in the mouth of the Holy Spirit (3:7), and of David (4:7). This is a denite interpretation of the author of Hebrews, which is absent in Ps 95. To make David the human author of the psalm in a post-exilic context is unimaginable. x The author of Hebrews follows a Midrashic method of exposition. This author has even made a typological connection between Israel and the church. The explication of God’s rest in Heb 4:8–11 as an eschatological event reects the pesher exposition model.42 This boils down to a reinterpretation of the original psalm for a different time period and different historical context. x Changes have been made by the author of Hebrews to the text of Ps 95. The author of Hebrews cites the psalm in such a way to make it sound as if the text has immediate bearing on his audience, the new wilderness community of the Hebrews context.
41. See the exposition of F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (ICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 60–67; Albert Vanhoye, “Longue marche ou accès tout proche? Le contexte biblique de Hébreux 3,7–4,11,” Bib 49 (1968): 9–26; George W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation, Commentary and Conclusions (AB 36; New York: Doubleday, 1972), 61–68; James Moffat, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 43–49; Herbert Braun, An die Hebräer (HNT 14; Tübingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 1984), 85–101; Claus-Peter März, Hebräerbrief (NEB; Würzburg: Echter, 1989), 32–34. 42. Enns, “Creation and Re-creation,” 272. 1
162
x
x
x
x
Psalms and Hebrews
In Heb 3:7–19 the author wants to warn Christians, the new exodus community, against unfaithfulness and disbelief. The quotation and exposition of the psalm serves as an example of apostasy in ancient Israel, and the consequences thereof. The contemporary audience should persevere in their faithfulness to Christ. The author of Hebrews then inserted dio (“therefore”) into Heb 3:10, an element which is absent in the Septuagint text. Here the author has even changed the Septuagint text for the sake of his own theological intention and emphasis.43 Furthermore, the Hebrews author added the phrase en dokimasia (“with scrutiny”) in Heb 3:9, where the Septuagint has edokimasen (MT = Ps 95:9 “they tried” or “they tried me”). This is a deliberate change in the Hebrews text, one presumably intended to t the theological programme of the New Testament context. As a nal example, the author of Hebrews purposefully and deliberately changed the Septuagint and Masoretic reading of Ps 95:10 (= Heb 3:10), namely, “that (ekein) generation” to “this (taut) generation” in order to stress the urgency of the admonition to the present Christian community.
From these observations it becomes clear that the Hebrews author utilized Ps 95 in such a way that the psalm seems to function as a prophetic admonition in the early Hebrew community from the mouth (or pen) of David—not only for ancient Israel, but also for the present Christian “wilderness community.” The Old Testament picture has been modied.44 Here the author warns his contemporaries of their impending fate and therefore not to repeat their ancestors’ mistake.45 Through additions to, and changes of, Ps 95, there is continuity and discontinuity visible in the author’s application (or reinterpretation) of this age-old prophetic admonition (Ps 95:7–11) with regard to context, content and theological signicance. The question is: Does this prophetic admonition and the hermeneutical process of the (re)interpretation of the psalm by the author(s) of Hebrews address modern-day Africa?
43. Cf., ibid., for all three these examples. 44. John Brand, “Sabbath-Rest, Worship, and the Epistle to the Hebrews Celebrating the Rule of Yahweh,” Didaskalia (March 1990): 3–13 (9). 45. David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms (JSOTSup 252; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1997), 287–88. 1
HUMAN A Prophetic Voice for Africa from Psalm 95
163
A Prophetic Word for Africa from Psalm 95 In both Ps 95 and in Heb 3–4 the prophetic oracle serves to sensitize the “current” believing community to its faith relationship with God. It spells out how unfaithfulness to God in the past has led to the withholding, or absence, of his blessing, that is, his “rest.” Not only ancient Israel and/or the early Christian communities, but also African communities have to be on the alert to taking this divine royal voice of Ps 95 seriously. Especially South Africa’s faith attitude, which is reected in the words of Nkosi Sikilele, Africa (“God, bless Africa”), should be nurtured with the reciprocal response to show faithfulness to God by means of respect for the Deity, for fellow Africans and for the land, the continent. The recognition of God as the “great God” and the “great king over the gods” in Africa therefore requires retrospection of, and introspection into, Africa’s own history(-ies). This self-reection, or self-critique, of Africa should lead the multi-cultural and multi-facetted societies of Africa, and South Africa in particular, at various levels of social and religious life: x to detect and discover the stubbornness of their own hearts with regard to inhuman and unloving behaviour; x to learn from the wrongdoings of their forefathers with regard to social, political, economic and religious injustices; x to observe their own ignorance with regard to God’s “ways” of love, justice and grace. Africa has indeed seen and experienced God’s great deeds in many ways. Not only has this continent hosted Yahweh’s rst prototypical redemptive deeds in Egypt and the Reed Sea (Exod 15), but in various ways God’s deliverance, protection and provision have been realized on various parts of the continent today. Stories of hope and encouragement in Africa are well known. Psalm 95 is a challenge to choose an appropriate lifestyle. The praise and worship of God as creator and righteous protective king should therefore be concretized in the care for creation, the continent of Africa, as well as in the just and righteous deeds of all African people towards each other. The African “kings” and rulers have to fulll their royal duties of guidance, in particular, care and protection. If Africa’s nations do not deal regularly with the open-ended prophetic admonition from the divine royal king of Ps 95, then their praise and worship in liturgy and ordinary life will remain an unfullling experience. Africans will experience a denial of access to God’s “rest” on the 1
164
Psalms and Hebrews
African continent in various ways. As a result of this, African nations will rather be drowned in suppression, starvation, illnesses, corruption, ecological46 and other disasters. In order to experience God’s “rest” in Africa to its fullest extent, one very important prerequisite for the understanding of the Old Testament in Africa should prevail—good and thorough textual exegesis. Without this dedication Africa will remain in the desert.
46. Ps 95 has been related to an ecological perspective by Jannie du Preez, “Reading Three ‘Enthronement Psalms’ from an Ecological Perspective,” Missionalia 19, no. 2 (1991): 122–30. To enjoy God’s rest in every country requires, according to Du Preez, care for the land and the people. 1
TI NFSPO—UNDERSTANDING PSALM 95 WITHIN, AND WITHOUT, HEBREWS*
Christian Frevel
1. Introduction When discussing Ps 95 within and without (the Letter to the) Hebrews in biblical theological perspective, we encounter certain hermeneutical presuppositions which cannot be discussed at length in this article: The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament is seen as a strong indication of the coherence of the Bible within itself. Yet this coherence is manifold and by no means unambiguous—there are allusions, afrmative or contrastive citations and lines of reasoning, and more than once the meaning of the Old Testament text is changed. However, despite the diversity of scripture within scripture, and explicit as well as implicit intertextuality, there still remains a strong bond between the Old and the New Testament. How this correlation between Old and New can be perverted, by insisting on the superiority of the New Testament, becomes clear in some results of Hebrews research, where we nd such statements as “Israel wurde verworfen, da es zwar die Gabe des Wortes empng, sich aber nicht glaubend durch die Gabe binden ließ und insofern den Charakter des Logos als einer auf den Weg schickenden Verheißung verkannte.”1 The conclusions drawn here are not only hermeneutically questionable; they are fatal in their practical and inter-religious relevance as well. This is a problem which concerns the Letter to the Hebrews with special urgency, since here a text is presented that has, on the one hand, strong dealings with Old Testament allusions and citations, but that, on the other hand, has also been accused of having an anti-judaistic implication. Therefore a closer look at Hebrews and its specic dealing with * For Bernd Janowski, in celebration of his 65th birthday. 1. Ernst Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk. Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1939), 6. 1
166
Psalms and Hebrews
the Old Testament is necessary. The present study is meant as a contribution to the aforementioned task—by examining the use of Ps 95 in Hebrews, the larger issue of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews will become clearer. In order for this exercise to be successful, some valuations have to be unfolded rst, in contradiction to the aforementioned hermeneutical prejudices of Käsemann and others. In my opinion, dealing with both parts of the twofold Christian Bible as a whole cannot place hermeneutical precedence on either the Old or New Testament. Both testaments bear witness to the same revelation and to the same God.2 Thus they are on an equal theological level, and have the same value concerning the understanding of Christianity. The consequences hereof can be described in the hermeneutical model of a canonical dialog,3 one which is contrastive, but which similarly has to keep in mind that the rst part of our Holy Scripture is part of another world religion. Practically speaking, this means that my exegesis has to justify the interpretation of the text against the backdrop of Jewish–Christian relations. My intentions, when approaching Ps 95 in Hebrews as an Old Testament scholar, are modest. Following the train of thought in the Masoretic version of the book of Psalms, I ask for serious hermeneutical changes in Hebrews by drawing Ps 94 LXX into the discussion of Heb 3 and 4. Searching for continuities and discontinuities, my core question will be the consequences of the psalm’s reception and apparent “updating” in the Letter to the Hebrews. As Hebrews relies strongly on Ps 94 LXX, I have to consider the Greek version of Ps 95 MT as well. 2. Understanding Psalm 95 without Hebrews How to understand Ps 95 MT without Hebrews? As a framework for my exegetical observations in this regard I have to mention some of the methodological starting points for more recent psalms exegesis: (1) the withdrawal of the genre and the traditional genre criticism of Gunkel and Mowinckel (Gattungskritik); (2) the recent tendency to move from the single psalm to the Psalter as a whole, and thus to contextualize the psalm; and (3) the accent on redactional criticism of the psalms. In following these tendencies there are several levels of interpretation of 2. See, for example, Bernd Janowski, “The One God of the Two Testaments: Basic Questions of a Biblical Theology,” Theology Today 57 (2000): 297–324. 3. See Erich Zenger, Das erste Testament: Die jüdische Bibel und die Christen (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1991), and Einleitung in das Alte Testament (7th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008). 1
FREVEL TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95
167
Ps 95 which should be kept in mind: (1) the basic level is the psalm in itself; (2) the next higher level is that of the neighbouring psalms and the concatenation—the psalm has to be considered in the context of the Royal Psalms, or the so-called YHWH-has-become-king Psalms; (3) then it has to be examined in the larger context of the fourth psalm book (Pss 90–106); (4) and nally it needs to be considered in the context of the Psalter as a whole.4 Psalm 95 forms part of fourth book of the Psalms, which begins with the focus on Moses.5 The third book is determined by the Asaphite and Korahite dominance in Pss 73–83 and 84–89 (with the exception of Ps 86, a Davidic Psalm, and the last psalm—Ps 89, which is ascribed to the Ezrahite Etan). With Ps 89 the third book has come to a dark end—the earthly kingdom, with a Davidic successor on the Jerusalem throne, has ceased (Ps 89:40). The whole fourth book seems to be a struggle with this rock bottom of hope, developing a new and lasting perspective through remembrance of, and reection on, anthropological boundaries and the confession of the sole king YHWH. By mentioning Moses in Ps 90, the beginning of the fourth book is like a beat of the drum. In the previous book there is only one citation of Moses, together with Aaron, at the end of Ps 77: “You led your people like a ock by the hand of Moses and Aaron” (*C9 H 9>5J3 (> * 4< EJI?, Ps 77:21). Now, at the beginning of the fourth book, it is Moses bringing his 9=AE. The superscription renders )J9= 9J 9>= 9=AE. The following psalms, Pss 91 and 92, have no heading at all. Like the whole group of Royal Psalms (Pss 93–100), our Ps 95 also has no heading. After the fulminant end of the group of Royal Psalms in Ps 100, Ps 101 starts again with David, last mentioned in Ps 89:50. Inside this framework of the expected psalm composer David, we have a vacuum-like lacuna which is lled by Moses, causing the fourth book of the psalms to have a mosaic accent. Besides Ps 90, and the reection of the Wilderness in the cited passage of Ps 95, there is also an explicit reference to Moses and Aaron (and Samuel) in Ps 99:6–9. The next mention of Moses is to be found in Ps 103—not only through the quotation of the grace formula (Gnadenformel), but also through reference to the revelation of the Law in v. 7, 4. As the numerous references in my footnotes testify, I am strongly indebted to the continuing focus on the Psalms and on Psalter exegesis by Erich Zenger and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld. 5. See extensively Egbert Ballhorn, Zum Telos des Psalters: Der Textzusammenhang des Vierten und Fünften Psalmenbuches (Ps 50–150) (BBB 138; Berlin: Philo, 2004), 62–146; and further Johannes Schnocks, Vergänglichkeit und Gottesherrschaft: Studien zu Psalm 90 und dem vierten Psalmenbuch (BBB 140; Berlin: Philo, 2002), 179–276. 1
Psalms and Hebrews
168
which takes up Ps 90:16: “He revealed to Moses his ways, his great deeds to the children of Israel” (NJB). That Moses plays a crucial role in the retrospection on the history of Israel in Ps 105:26–45 is quite expected, but the dominance of this section in the ashback of the whole history is conspicuous. The fourth book ends with a broad reference to the Exodus and the Wilderness period in Ps 106:8–33. So, even without being called a “Mosaic Psalter,” the tendency of the fourth book to accentuate Moses and his time (the Exodus, Sinai, and the Wilderness) is unmistakable. Judging from the lecturing tone of the whole fourth book, Moses plays a prominent role in this part of the Psalter. In this context it should not be surprising that Ps 95 argues intensively with the Wilderness period.6 Within the “Mosaic Psalter” Ps 95 functions as part of a framework for the Royal Psalms. The parallels with Ps 100 are striking: Ps 95
Ps 100
H? J CH4= 9 JC? 9H9J= 9??C? H<= 1 #C 9=< 9H9J= H JC9 95HE= CH>K> 1 H= JC? EHC>K3 95HE3 HJ?A 9>5B? 2 H 3 9I>3 9H9JE H53 2 3 =H58 (=>H 9H9J =H58 = J< 9??C3 HJ?A= H? H9 )J9= H9 9H9JJ< H 5 3 )J9= =<= HEJ C> * 4H H) H?I? H=H EHA HEH #C JCBI> H5J3 C 4 H= )JC9 9=9E3 HJEC4I 95HE3 HJC H 3 4 5 E3JH H9 H9H )J9 H=C H> H C5H 9 ) H?I? H H?J9= H9 J< 7 H5J * 4H
Structurally, the most convincing argument is that of the covenant formula, which occurs comparably only in Pss 33:12 and 144:15 in the shepherd metaphor for YHWH (which is attested to outside of the forth book only in the Asaphite Psalms, Pss 74:1; 79:13). There can be no doubt as to the fact that these two psalms (Pss 95 and 100) are compositionally parallel, and arranged as sort of twins. Jörg Jeremias published an excellent article in 1998 in Skrif en Kerk in which he argues that Ps 100 cites Pss 93–99.7 Hossfeld and Zenger argue, with Jeremias, that 6. Against Ballhorn (Telos, 93), Moses cannot be the speaker of the psalm performed in the temple. 7. See Jörg Jeremias, “Psalm 100 als Auslegung von Ps 93–99*,” Skrif en Kerk 19 (1998): 605–15 (613). In this article Jeremias stated the connections between Pss 96; 98 and 100 and restricted the parallels with Ps 95 mostly to Ps 100:3: “Waren die Rahmenaussagen in Ps 100 (V. 1,5) von Ps 98 bestimmt und die inneren Rahmenaussagen von (V. 2,4) von Ps 96, so ist der zentrale V. 3 von Ps 95 geprägt. Alle drei Kola in V. 3 sind abgewandelte Zitate aus Ps 95:7a.” I am convinced that 1
FREVEL TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95
169
Ps 100 is a composition which is oriented to Pss 95; 96, and 98, and is congured as the keystone of the original composition of Pss 93; 95; 96; 98; 100. According to Hossfeld and Zenger, “Ps 100 bildet die beabsichtigte Klimax; er ist zu diesem Zweck eigens verfaßt worden und nimmt gezielt die Ps 95; 96 und 98 auf.”8 However, when closely examined, the congruities of Ps 100 with Pss 96 and 99 are less signicant than its broad congruity with Ps 95. Indeed, although Pss 96 and 100 share common terminology—the phrase H> H (Pss 96:13; 100:5), the imperative H H3 (Pss 96:8; 100:2, 4), and the EHC4I of the temple (Pss 96:8 and 100:4)—in the case of Ps 98 there is not much more than the phrase #C 9=< 9H9J= H JC9, which is also used in Pss 96:4 and 100:1, and the two terms 9?> H 5DI (Pss 98:3 and 100:5). The lines between Pss 93 and 100 are imsy. So, the strongest accent is on the parallels between Pss 95 and 100. Both psalms are redactionally congured twins. In short, I agree with David M. Howard’s assertion that “Psalm 100 answers the question that might arise from the end of Psalm 95, which is ‘Has YHWH rejected succeeding generations?’ The answer is ‘No!’.”9 Let us now look at the psalm itself and at its structure. There is a consensus among scholars that we have a very well structured rst part in vv. 1–7, followed by a second part in vv. 8–11.10 This second part has a less well-dened structure, and ends with the dark declaration: “They shall never enter into my rest.” In direct opposition to this end, the psalm starts off very positively with an imperative plural, H<=, paralleled by the imperative at the beginning of v. 6, H 3. Both imperatives, which divide the rst part of the psalm into two further parts, are followed by four (vv. 1–2) and three cohortatives (v. 6). While the imperatives designate a call for nearing with praise, and for the cultic approach to the sanctuary, the cohortatives describe the praise and form coevally as a performative act of praise whose subject is the speaker of the psalm. At the same time as Ps 100 is much more closely associated with the important “brick” of Ps 95:1–7. However, the proposal of William M. Schniedewind (“Are We His People or Not? Biblical Interpretation during Crisis,” Bib 76 [1995]: 546–47 [549]) that Ps 100 is a pre-exilic hymn of thanksgiving, which was reected in Ps 95 and other psalms, is unlikely. 8. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 34. 9. David M. Howard, The Structure of Psalms 93–100 (Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 5; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 141. 10. A survey of the recent literature will reveal that there are many other proposals for the structure of Ps 95; for example, Jörg Jeremias has suggested two parts in vv. 1–5 and vv. 6–11. 1
170
Psalms and Hebrews
the speaker is calling for the hymnal praise which is justied by the deeds of God in vv. 3–5 and 7a, the speaker himself is also performing this praise, which he wants the addressee to perform, exemplarily. The praise is expressed through the use of seven cohortatives 9HIE? 95B? (v. 2), 9 JC? 9??C? (v. 1)—which interact with each other: rejoice; shout for joy; come before; raise a load shout; bow down; bend the knees; kneel.11 The rst four—syntactically split carefully in two colometrically equivalent parts—are each enhanced with an addressee (introduced with =), or a nomen (introduced with 3), and are arranged asyndetically. The second three are ordered in a syndetic chain, and only the last one is extended by the specication of direction 9H9J J?A=. While the rst four cohortatives express acts of praise, the second three aim to perform acts of veneration. The rst part of the psalm looks like a processional hymn (Prozessionshymnus),12 divided in two phases: the way upward and inward into the sanctuary; and then the adoration inside the Temple or in the courts of the Temple (Tempeleinlassliturgie). This framework is oriented to the covenant formulae in v. 7a. The very positive prelude in v. 1 parallels *?C and HC as acts of joy and jubilance. The pair (*?C and HC) occurs in the Asaphite Ps 81:2, and again in Ps 98:4.13 The addressee of the synonyms is God. The Tetragrammaton that is used is connected to the H?J9= 9H9J of Ps 94:23. At the end of the verse the addressee is H? J CH4, which resembles Ps 94:22. This is neither an implicit reference to the temple, nor an association with the water-producing rock which Moses struck in Exod 17:6 (Num 20 misses the term!).14 Rock has no special signicance in Old Testament 11. Translation from Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005). 12. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, “Psalm 95: Gattungsgeschichtliche, compositionskritische und bibeltheologische Anfragen,” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung (ed. K. Seybold and E. Zenger; HBS 1; Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 32; cf. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen 60–150 (5th ed.; BKAT 15/2; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 829; Jörg Jeremias, Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen: Israels Begegnung mit dem kanaanäischen Mythos in den Psalmen (FRLANT 141; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1987), 109. 13. Cf. HC in Ps 98:6; thus attested twice in these two psalms. The other occurrences of the combination *?C with HC are in Job 38:7; Ps 98:4; Isa 16:10; 44:23; Zeph 3:14. 14. Against Georg Braulik, “Gottes Güte—das Land oder der Tempel? Zu Psalm 95,11,” in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn (ed. E. Haag; 2d ed.; SBB 13; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1987), 38; repr. in Studien zum Deuteronomium und seiner Nachgeschichte (SBAB 33; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2001) picked up by Ballhorn, Telos, 93. 1
FREVEL TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95
171
cultic categories—it is never described as the aim of any cultic action or as the destination of any pilgrimage; neither in the Pilgrimage Psalms, nor in Ps 27:5.15 H? J CH4 is much more likely to be the usual metaphorical epitheton for the saving God, the one who intervenes in favour of the one who is pressed hard. The metaphor thus expresses the idea of a stronghold or a fortress, and is often combined with other building metaphors.16 Marked by the sufx, YHWH is portrayed as the rock of the addressed (cultic) community. Thus the psalm starts with references to YHWH as the saviour of his people. The second verse refers to the saviour of v. 1 by way of enclitic personal pronouns, and mentions two acts of praise. The rst verb ()5B) expresses a cultic approach as in Pss 88:14 and 119:147, or a processional motion as in Ps 89:15. It is specied by 95HE3 (“in the mode of thanksgiving,” Pss 69:3; 104:4; 147:7). This act is paralleled by the songs what are presented in reversed order, so that EHC>K3 95HE3 becomes an asyndetic pair. It seems to be a pilgrimage-like situation: coming to the sanctuary with a ceremony which includes prayer and song.17 The second three cohortatives start anew, like v. 1, with an imperative. The second imperative, H 3, can be taken as symbolizing the second phase of the nearing. While approaching the throne of the saving God with songs of thanksgiving and moving inside in the rst part, we now seem to have entered the temple, with the speaker calling for acts of veneration in front of the throne. Interesting to note is that there are no other references in which these three verbs symbolize the act of adoration. The terms H3 and 9HI are attested on only three other occasions in the Psalms (Pss 5:8; 86:9; 132:7). The verb H3 appears to be a specialized term for “nearing” in the sanctuary. One can presume that H3 describes a cultic movement towards God, one which seems subsequent to the actions of praise in v. 1. Comparable to this nearing in Ps 95 are the three other H3 imperatives in the Psalter: in Ps 96:8, “Ascribe to YHWH the glory of his name, bring gifts and enter his courts,” and the very narrow parallel in Ps 100:1b–4 with two imperatives of H3 in vv. 2, 4, “Make a joyful noise to YHWH, all you on earth! Serve YHWH with gladness.
15. Cf. Hossfeld, “Psalm 95,” 32. 16. Cf. Isa 17:10 and Ps 18:47//2 Sam 22:47. The metaphor also appears in fragmented form in various instances of parallelism in 2 Sam 22:3; Pss 18:3; 31:3; 62:8; 71:3. The combination with sufxed 9 HJ and CH4 is found further in Deut 32:15; Pss 62:3, 7; 89:27. 17. Hossfeld, “Psalm 95,” 32. For the connection of Ps 95 with the Festival Psalms Pss 50 and 81, see, in addition to Hossfeld, Jörg Jeremias, Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970), passim; Kraus, Psalmen 60–150, 832. 1
172
Psalms and Hebrews
Know that YHWH—he alone—is God. He has made us and we belong to him, we are his people and the sheep of his pasture. Enter his gates with thanksgiving, go into his courts with songs of praise. Praise/Thank him, bless/praise his name.”18 The liturgical setting of the described scene is further inuenced by the three cohortatives that follow. These are not synonyms, but they are very similar in their meaning (9HI, C<, (C3: “bow down,” “bow low,” “kneel”). The direction evoked by the verbs is downwards; they incline to the earth, minimizing the worshipper in the face of the greatness of the deity, and so signalize subordination. They do not evoke a movement from standing to lying on the ground,19 though the arrangement does begin with the common term 9HI hi£t. (cf. rst of all Ps 99:5, 920), which couches proskynesis. The other two terms can express the bending of the knee(s), which is used as a gesture of adoration (1 Kgs 8:54; 2 Kgs 1:13; 2 Chr 6:13; Ezra 9:5). The verb C< also means “to crouch, to huddle” (e.g. Gen 49:9; Num 24:9; Judg 5:27).21 The second verb (C3, “to kneel,” is very unusual and occurs only three times (Gen 24:11; Ps 95:6; 2 Chr 6:13), but bowing the knees is a very commonly used phrase. The description of these cultic acts is completed by the re-uptake of the 9H9J= of v. 1 as the addressee in v. 6 (with 9H9JJ?A=)—the same God of salvation who is praised in v. 1 is now adored in v. 6. Of special importance are the two sections that justify the solemn call for the hymnic adoration in vv. 3–5, and the shorter one in v. 7a—both of which are syntactically introduced with J<. Verse 3 justies the hymn 18. Translations of Psalms, if not otherwise attested, by Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2. 19. With Andrea Doeker, Die Funktion der Gottesrede in den Psalmen: Eine poetologische Untersuchung (BBB 135; Berlin: Philo, 2004), 253. 20. There is an intimate compositional relationship between Ps 95 and the “Trishagion” in Ps 99 (see Ruth Scoralick, Trishagion und Gottesherrschaft: Psalm 99 als Neuinterpretation von Tora und Propheten [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989], and Erich Zenger, “Das Weltenkönigtum des Gottes Israels [Ps 90– 106],” in Der Gott und die Völker: Untersuchungen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psalmen [ed. N. Lohnk and E. Zenger; SBS 154; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994], 159–60), which encloses the imperative to bow down before YHWH (Ps 99:5, 9; cf. Ps 95:6), the greatness of God (Ps 99:2; cf. Ps 95:3), the designation as “our God” (Ps 99:5, 8, 9; cf. Ps 95:7) and the reference to the covenant (the covenant formula of Ps 95:5 is, on the one hand, explained in Ps 99, and, on the other hand, enhanced so as to include not only Israel but all nations). Both psalms refer to the Wilderness and to the Sinai tradition, the protagonists being Moses and Aaron. 21. As a gesture of adoration it is used in 1 Kgs 8:54; 19:18; 2 Kgs 1:13; 2 Chr 7:3; 29:29; Ezra 9:5; Est 3:5; Isa 45:23. 1
FREVEL TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95
173
through a description of the magnitude of the benevolent God. He is the =H58 = (Deut 7:21; Ps 77:14), and the =H58 (=>.22 When searching for parallels,23 especially Ps 89:7–8 combines this praise with the assembly of the gods: “Who in the skies can compare with Yahweh? Who among the sons of god can rival him? God, awesome in the assembly of holy ones ()J5B5HD3), great and dreaded among all who surround him” (NJB). Compared to the other gods in the divine assembly, YHWH is a great king (Ps 47:3).24 On these grounds v. 3 forms the explicit anchor for the insertion of this somewhat Asaphite Festival Psalm into the group of Royal Psalms (93–100). The J<-sentence is now followed by two relative clauses, which are carefully arranged. By the double H=, the independent pronoun H9, and the double HJ5J, we are pointed back syntactically to v. 3. However, the form indicates that these two sentences are intended to be understood as parallel. The declaration of possession (Eigentumsdeklaration) in v. 4 is clearly linked to the reference to creation in v. 5. Together they span the whole world, representing both axes of the mental worldview. Though the hapax legomenon CBI> remains unsolved, there is a consensus that it should be associated with the vertical axis. They are paralleled to the highest peaks of the hills ()JC9 EHA HE), and therefore mostly translated with “depths” or the like. The merism in v. 5 describes a horizontal axis: from the Mediterranean Sea in the west ()J9), to the arid desert (E3J) in the east. But both pairs have a double duty—not only do they span the spatial dimensions of the world view (Weltbild), they also have cosmological associations. It is in Gen 1:9f. that God divides the water (which is called )J in v. 10) from the 93J9 (cf. Jonah 1:9).25 The second relative clause in v. 5 makes the context of creation explicit, by using two of the most common verbs for creation (9 and C4J). Through the parallel structure of vv. 4 and 5, the Eigentumsdeklaration (H5J3 and H=) is thus substantiated by the act of creation. As in Deutero-Isaiah, YHWH is the great king who rules over all gods, a position he assured for him by the fact that he created the whole world. He reigns over the peaks of the mountains, where gods used to dwell, and his sphere of inuence reaches to the border of the netherworld, though probably—if we accept a 22. Cf. further with determination Neh 1:5; 9:32; Jer 32:18; Dan 9:4. 23. The greatness of God is praised in a similar way in Pss 40:17; 70:5; 71:19; 77:14; 86:10; 89:8; 104:1. 24. )J9= =<= (Pss 96:4; 97:9; 1 Chr 16:25, cf. )J9= 9=<>, Exod 18:11; 2 Chr 2:4; Ps 135:5; )= 3, Exod 15:11). 25. In most cases, besides Gen 1:10, the combination of )J and 93J hints at the Exodus tradition (see Exod 14:16, 22, 29; 15:19; Neh 9:11; Ps 66:6). 1
174
Psalms and Hebrews
post-exilic date for the psalm—this area is also to be included.26 The whole vertical and horizontal world is his, because he has made it. Rightly, Hossfeld therefore rejects the attempt of Hermann Spieckermann to disassociate vv. 4 and 5 diachronically: Eine literarkritische Abtrennung der V. 4–5, insbesondere von V. 5aß–b, wie bei Spieckermann empehlt sich nicht. Spieckermann möchte die Eigentumserklärungen von V. 4–5a als ältere Bestandsgarantie und Betonung der Erhaltung der Welt trennen vom Rekurs auf die prima creatio in dem Abschnitt V. 5aß–b.27
Beside the parallel structure, the main argument is the double axis of vv. 4–5, which describes consistently the territorial, and therefore cosmological, dominion of YHWH (cf. Neh 9:6). While v. 5, with its explicit creation theme, has come to a close, and while v. 6 starts anew with the imperative H 3, the creation theme is surprisingly brought into the psalm one more time with the last word in v. 6, H? . This term shifts the focus of creation from the cosmological to the anthropological and the covenantal dimension. The speaker thus takes the whole community, who were all prompted to worship (“let us…”), into an individual and personal relationship to YHWH as creator of humanity. Coevally, the collective dimension of this relationship, which is made explicit in the covenant-formula of v. 7, is insinuated. While the “who has made us” in v. 6b was an implicit rationale for the adoration of the kingly God, the rationale now becomes syntactically explicit with J<. The second justication clause is the climax of the rst part of the psalm. The narrow relationship between God and the addressee is maintained by way of the double enclitic and independent personal pronouns (H?I? H H?J9= ). As in other deuteronomistic texts, the covenant formula is bilateral, not unilateral as in priestly literature.28 There is no stronger tie between God and his people than that of the 26. Hossfeld, “Psalm 95”; ibid, “Psalmenauslegung im Psalter,” in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift (ed. R. G. Kratz, T. Krüger and K. Schmid; BZAW 300; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000); Hossfeld and Zenger (Psalms 2) date the psalm between the late exilic and the post-exilic period. The world-view and the supremacy over the other gods, the elaborate creation theology and the intertextual citation of the priestly Wilderness story, the reception of the almost nalized Pentateuch, and the mixed language argue for a clearly post-exilic date in the Second Temple period. In respect of the above-mentioned arguments, a pre-exilic dating between the rst and second deportation (Jeremias, Königtum, 113) does not seem convincing. 27. Hossfeld, “Psalm 95,” 35. 28. See Rolf Rendtorff, “Die Bundesformel”: Eine exegetische Untersuchung (SBS 160; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995). 1
FREVEL TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95
175
covenant formula, which is seldom attested to in the Psalter (Ps 110:3; and implicit in the beatitudes Pss 33:12; 144:15).29 The second part of the covenant formula is enhanced by extending the metaphor of the pasture with the ock. This aims to strengthen the relationship between God and his people, as Hossfeld has argued: “YHWH is both the owner and the creator of his ock.”30 “His hand” in v. 7 links up with the frame created by the use of “his hand” in vv. 4 and 5.31 At the end of v. 7a we have a romantic ambience, which seems to be completely in harmony. The relationship between God and his people seems to be intact. The breakdown, which comes in v. 7b, is unexpected and surprising: “In 7b fällt nun plötzlich der Hinweis auf eine prophetische Rede in das Huldigungsgeschehen ein.”32 The issue of whether a base of the psalm in vv. 1–7a was extended by adding vv. 7b–11 has to be left aside in the present study. I can only state briey that this is a question that has been discussed extensively,33 and is even now being debated. In agreement with W. S. Prinsloo, F.-L. Hossfeld has argued recently (against T. Seidl) for the unity of the psalm. Though I agree with E. Zenger that there are several reasons to see vv. 7b–11 as a redactional addition,34 but this is not relevant to the present study. For this we have to interpret the nal form of Ps 95. We can, however, look at the signicant change that occurs in v. 7b. G. Braulik states: “Aus einem statisch ausgewogenen Schema wird im Schlußstück ein massiver Unruheherd.”35 The change is experienced as abrupt because of the predominant, and somewhat mysterious, )HJ9 (“today”), which syntactically has no real linkage. Whether it be a current date, a special date, or the recurring date of a festival is unclear 29. See Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, “Bundestheologie im Psalter,” in Der neue Bund im alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (ed. E. Zenger; QD 146; Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 169–76. 30. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 461. 31. There seems no need to change the MT; cf. ibid., 458. 32. Kraus, Psalmen 60–150, 831. 33. Jeremias, Königtum, 111; Hossfeld, “Psalm 95,” 29–44; Theodor Seidl, “Scheltwort als Befreiungsrede: Eine Deutung der deuteronomistischen Paränese für Israel in Ps 95,7c–11,” in Das Volk Gottes—Ort der Befreiung (ed. H. Keul and H.-J. Sander; Würzburg: Echter, 1998), 107–20; Erich Zenger, “Theophanien des Königsgottes JHWH: Transformationen von Psalm 29 in den Teilkompositionen Ps 28–30 und Ps 93–100,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (ed. P. W. Flint and P. D. Miller; VTSup 99; London: Brill, 2005), 407–42 (429). 34. Zenger, “Theophanien,” 429–30. 35. Braulik, “Gottes Güte,” 38. 1
176
Psalms and Hebrews
(i.e. ambiguous). Yet the collective “us” diminishes as the collective is now addressed as “you.” This is somewhat comparable to the short imperatives in vv. 1 and 6, except for the fact that these imperatives were followed by cohortatives. It is clear that we have here a new situation of speech, one in which the speaker is clearly the opposite. The following ) -sentence begins like a conditional clause, yet since it is not followed by another conjunction, it expresses a wish of the speaker to listen to the voice of the aforementioned God. The =HB3 > is a typically deuteronomistic phrase (Exod 19:5; 23:21f.; Deut 4:30; 8:20; 9:23; 13:5, 19; 15:5; 26:14, 17; 30:2, 10, 20; Jer 7:23; 11:4, 7 etc.) usually meaning not an actual hearing, but obedience of the Torah. Contextually, most relevant is J=HB3 H > =H in Num 14:22, which goes back into the Wilderness. Because the Israelites refused the land they were sentenced by the Lord. Although God is forgiving of iniquity and transgression, he is not holding them guiltless (Num 14:18–20). Thus God refuses them access to the land (Num 14:23). The relevant keywords, next to J=HB3 H > = in v. 22, are 9 C, 9D? and C35>. In the deuteronomistic (or post-deuteronomistic) Jer 11 we nd another passage that combines covenant delity with the past. The people are disobedient, threatening the disruption of the covenant promise. If we look at v. 7b while considering these parallels we see on the one hand the oscillating position between the covenant formula in v. 7a and the citation in vv. 8–11, and on the other that more than one parallel aspect can be found between them: the combination of hearing the voice, the land theme and the expulsion from the land because of disobedience in the desert; the 9K9 )HJ9; the covenant theme, and so on. The )HJ9 H >E H=B3) therefore looks like the condensation of the deuteronomistic judgment theology. In the present text the phrase H=B3 has a double function: it encloses the question of obedience to the Torah on the one hand, as well as simultaneously introducing the speech of God in the following verses on the other, which Israel shall hear now. If this interpretation is correct, the speech of God in vv. 8–11 is not a current and direct revelation, though it seems to be cited directly by the speaker of vv. 1–7. This question, whether the word of God represents a currently spoken word or a quotation of an earlier revelation, is a crucial question when looking at the following verses. The setting of this discourse is the linchpin for the liturgical interpretation of the psalm. What are the institutional suppositions of the word of God? A cultic performance with a directly spoken oracle of God in the temple? A prophetic oracle (“cult prophecy” or “prophetic liturgy” [H. Gunkel]) which marks the climax 1
FREVEL TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95
177
of the feast-liturgy?36 A prophetic admonition (prophetische Mahnrede)? Or a “simple” theological reection and fallback on the Torah? First we should try to differentiate between the complex situations of the speaker, the addressee(s), and the direction of the speech. Verse 8 starts with a vetitive. The addressee is the same as in v. 7b: the present generation, of whom the speaker forms a part, up to v. 7. Neither the speaker, nor the addressee(s) seem to have changed. The reference is syntactically underlined through the enclitic personal pronoun in )<33=. They should not harden their hearts as at “Meribah” and as in the “day of Massah in the desert.” Here, the expected coherence seems to be broken, since the present generation had not been in the desert and had not hardened their hearts in the Wilderness. Yet, because the generation of Massah and Meribah will only be mentioned explicitly in v. 9, the two generations seem to be merged here into one. By a simple trick, namely the elision of an explicit “the generation of your fathers” in the comparison, the addressed generation seems to be admonished not to refuse again. Verse 9 switches to the Exodus generation, and ends any possible confusion with a relative clause which makes it clear that God is the speaker, and mentions the fathers as subject of 9D? and *I3. The enclitic personal pronoun in )<JEH3 is the last explicit presence of the addressee in the psalm. From now on all references mention the Exodus generation. The subject again changes in v. 10. The verse formulates the reaction of God to the testing and the trying of the Exodus generation with two verbs which have God as subject. The rst one expresses a very strong affect (HB ), and the second one refers to a speech act of God which expresses a bipartite judgment on the attitude of the Exodus generation. Regarding the tense and the discourse point in the “narrative,” this speech is in a completed past (even though it is formulated in wayyiqtol). The last sentence is once again joined with the relative particle, though now it has a causative meaning. God refers to an oath in which he swore his wrath, now applied to the Exodus generation, who shall not come into his 9I?>. Because a discourse cannot start with C , syntactically there is no other choice than to let the speech of God begin in v. 8. Thus God is clearly addressing the present generation, by admonishing them not to act like the Exodus generation. This parenetic goal is attained through a creative exegesis of the Wilderness period. The episode of Massah and Meribah is not the reason for the death of the Exodus generation in the
36. Cf. Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien (Psalmenstudien 3/6; Oslo, 1922; repr. Amsterdam: Schippers, 1966), 30–31. 1
178
Psalms and Hebrews
desert, nor is this verdict given at the end of the forty years. This is an arbitrary interpretation of the Pentateuchal tradition in Ps 95. Accordingly, we have to look deeper at the content of the discourse. In the Pentateuchal traditions the term 3= 9B is not related to the Wilderness period and the murmuring tradition. Though striking, 3= 9B is scarce (Exod 7:3; Prov 28:14; Ezra 3:7), while ,C 9B is more common. Most relevant is Ezek 3:7: “But the house of Israel will not listen to you, for they are not willing to listen to me; because all the house of Israel have a hard forehead and a stubborn heart.” In deuteronomistic, or deuteronomistically inuenced, texts 9B stands for the refusal of God’s will (Deut 10:16; 2 Kgs 17:14; Jer 7:26; 17:23; 19:15; Neh 9:16, 17, 29), and it is meant in the same way here. The place that is named rst, Meribah, is associated with the hardening of hearts. Also connected to Meribah is the story before Sinai in Exod 17:7—the striking of the rock after the death of Miriam in Kadesh (Num 20:13, 24; 27:14; Deut 32:51; 33:8; Ps 106:32; Ezek 47:19; 48:28 and indenitely in Ps 81:8). Massah, the second place named, is missing in Num 20 and is merely associated with the story in Exod 17. It is mentioned further in Deut 6:16; 9:22; 33:8. Both place names are combined only in Exod 17:7 and Deut 33:8. It seems that Ps 95:8 consciously combines the two names by adopting the end-compositional arrangement of the two quarrels in the whole extension of the Wilderness journey.37 This is further substantiated by the combination of the two verbs, 9D? and *I3, in v. 9, as well as the fortyyear span in v. 10. The interpretation of the quarrel as a test occurs rst in the question of Moses in Exod 17:2 (*HD?E9> J5> *H3JCE9> 9H9JE ), and is adopted in the commandment of Deut 6:16: “Do not put Yahweh your God to the test as you tested him at Massah.” While the Wilderness journey is often interpreted as a temptation of his people, the Psalms follow the line of Exod 17:2 in Ps 78:18, 41, 56 and 106.38 *I3 occurs in the Pentateuchal tradition and usually has God as subject. Only in Mal 3:10, 15 is YHWH, as object of a test, described with *I3. This relatively free reference to the Pentateuchal tradition is underlined 37. For interpretation of the arrangement, see Christian Frevel, “‘Jetzt habe ich erkannt, dass YHWH größer ist als alle Götter’: Ex 18 und seine Kompositionsgeschichtliche Stellung im Pentateuch,” BZ 1 (2003): 3–22, and Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern: Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift (HBS 23; Freiburg: Herder, 2000); Christian Frevel and Erich Zenger, “Die Bücher Levitikus und Numeri als Teile der Pentateuchkomposition,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers: Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense LV: 1.–3. August 2006 (ed. T. Römer; BEThL 215; Leuven, 2008), 35–74. 38. Besides Ps 26:2, all occurrences of 9D? are related to the challenge of God in the Wilderness. 1
FREVEL TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95
179
further with the deeds of God, which the Exodus generation has seen. The term = A seems to comprise not only the donation of water at Massah and Meribah, but also the whole Exodus tradition.39 Perhaps the J= A H C)8 takes into account the fact that the murmur begins immediately after the liberation (Exod 15–17). Yet it is possible, too, that the term includes all the deeds in the Exodus and the Wilderness tradition, or at least with reference to vv. 4 and 5, from creation onwards (the whole “Heilsgeschichte”). Verse 10 culminates in a judgment which takes into account the whole Wilderness tradition. That Israel’s behaviour was repellent for forty years, and that God is the subject of the verb HB, is unique in the Old Testament.40 Important to note is that it is not the Exodus generation’s behaviour that provokes disgust—rather, it is the whole generation, which is destined to die in the desert. A comparable situation can be found in the Deuteronomistic, or deuteronomistically inuenced, passages in Num 32:13; Deut 1:35; 2:14; and 32:20. The self-quotation in v. 10, )9 33= J E ) , is not used in the Wilderness context, but it reminds loosely of the phrase ,C 9B) (Exod 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Deut 9:6, 13), and the harsh prophetic critique, C9H3= EHCC, in Jer 16:12; 18:12. Verse 10bB picks up the 33= of v. 8. The Exodus generation was completely depraved, except for Caleb and Joshua and those who were under twenty years of age. 9 E is typical when expressing ethical deviation, an aspect highlighted by the second half of v. 10b, which begins with the last word of the rst half of v. 10b ()9). The people did not know God’s ways (cf. Exod 18:20; 33:13), meaning they did not obey his laws. The way metaphor symbolizes an ethical life and a legal context (Ps 103:7; cf. Deut 9:16; 28:9 et al.). (C5 is a synonym for Torah, with an emphasis on the deuteronomistic tradition and its successors. The Torah context of v. 10 ts well with the line coming from the rst part of the psalm. As in the motif of the pilgrimage of the nations (Isa 2; Mic 4), the adoration of the magnicent king has as a complement the praise of the Torah and its observance. Yet the discourse of God is not nished yet. The last sentence is part of the self-citation of God, and the oath mentioned is not attested in the Pentateuch literally, either. Again it is the deuteronomistic and priestly 39. Analogous is, for example, the term E =A? in the prayer of penitence in Neh 9:16–17: “But they and our ancestors acted arrogantly, grew obstinate and outed your commands. They refused to obey, forgetful of the wonders which you had worked for them; they grew obstinate and made up their minds to return to their slavery in Egypt” (NJB). 40. Cf. Ezek 6:9; 20:43; 36:31; Pss 119:158; 139:21; Job 10:1; comparable with Ps 95:10 is the attestation of #HB in Lev 20:23.
1
180
Psalms and Hebrews
spy story in Numbers and Deuteronomy which offers the factual and literal nearest parallels. First there is the retrospect in Num 32:10f., which cites the oath of Num 14:21–23: “And YHWH’s anger burned that day and he swore, saying: ‘None of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob; for they did not follow me fully.’ ” Also to be noted is Deut 1:34f.: “Yahweh heard the voice of your words and he got angry and swore: ‘Not one of these people, this evil generation, will see this good land I swore to give your ancestors.’ ” Though the differences between Ps 95 and these texts are obvious, these parallels do lead to the oath in Ps 95:11 being understood in the context of the land, and to the exclusion of the Exodus generation from the land. The land is not mentioned explicitly: H3, not 9 C follows the ) . It is generally noted that the nal phrase JEIH?>= *H 3J) (“they will not come to my rest”) has a parallel in Deut 12:9. Braulik has argued that here 9=I? and 9IH?> are not, in fact, synonyms, but are differentiating terms which see the land besides the temple as target. This is further substantiated by the rst part of the psalm and the context of the group of Royal Psalms: “Der Kontextbezug der JHWH-König-Psalmen votiert ebenso für einen Tempelbezug (vgl. Ps 93,5; [94,22?], 96,8f.; 97,8; 99,2; 100,4).”41 Then again, Hossfeld has rightly pointed out that 9IH?> can be understood as a metaphor, indicating the intact relationship between God and his people. The ambiguity at the end of the psalm is intended, as the end of the psalm has to be taken over into the present generation, who are admonished by this divine discourse. It is the land, the temple and the covenant coevally that Israel is in danger of losing if the present generation is as intractable as the Exodus generation.42 The present post-exilic Israel, coming into the temple with hymns of thanksgiving, is hereby confronted with the salvatory power of the King of the World, who has established a lively relationship with Israel in the land, updated and experienced in his temple. The most serious alteration made to the reception of the Wilderness tradition, as well as the judgment over the Exodus generation theme, is the chronological placement of the determination that “they will not come into my rest.” The wrath of YHWH, which causes the judgment, has grown in the forty years in the desert after the spy story. The 9? )J 3C are not the result, but only the precursors to the judgment. Only by these phrases, which determine the sense of the psalm, can one harmonize it with the Wilderness tradition. If there is any misunderstanding the 41. Hossfeld, “Psalm 95,” 39. 42. Ibid., 42. 1
FREVEL TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95
181
dependence of the psalm on its determining pretexts, the psalm becomes a harsh rupture of the land promise. But such a (mis)reading is only possible if one cuts off vv. 8–11 from the context of vv. 1–7. While Israel is rejoicing in the temple, it has come into “his rest,” meaning that v. 11 can only be understood in conformity with the Wilderness tradition being understood as a reference to the Exodus generation alone. This is one of the pivotal points in Heb 3 and 4, where the question arises: “Why is there no Israel in his rest after Joshua?” I want to summarize and continue the interpretation of Ps 95 without Hebrews in seven points, paying special interest to the function of vv. 8– 11, since these are of the most relevance to Heb 3 and 4: 1. The presumed date of composition for the nal form of Ps 95, based on vv. 7b–11, is certainly post-exilic, bevasue it presupposes late priestly and deuteronomistic texts. A late exilic or early post-exilic date is excluded because of the mixed language and the reception of the almost nalized Pentateuch. 2. It is by no means by chance that the Wilderness tradition is taken up in Ps 95—the whole fourth book of the Psalter has a concern for Moses. 3. Verses 8–11 are a sort of creative exegesis, an update of the revelation in the Wilderness. The addressee is the present Israel ()HJ9), which has come to the temple to worship YHWH in the original context of a now unidentiable festival. In its present context as part of the group of Royal Psalms, Ps 95 functions (together with Ps 100) as a frame and link between Israel’s adoration and the adoration of all the nations respectively the whole earth (Ps 100:1). 4. The speech of God is cited by the speaker of the psalm. Therefore vv. 8–11 should not be understood as a word of God revealed on the date of the festival. It is more likely that it is an update of the Wilderness tradition in the Israelite cult, a new application of the given Pentateuchal tradition in a creative way. The assumptions regarding scribal theology and festival practice do not exclude each other diametrically, but complement each other. Thus, we do not have to reinstall the employed “cult prophet” who annunciates his oracles to the festival community. 5. Verses 8–11 describe the whole Wilderness tradition as a time determined by quarrel and disobedience. The reference to Massah and Meribah serves to encompass the whole of those forty years. The framing water-related quarrels of Exod 17 and Num 20 are combined with the pivotal points, which are the spy story and the refusal of the land as the central promise and 1
182
6.
7.
Psalms and Hebrews
benefaction. Within the whole discourse it is clear that the exclusion of the 9IH?> was justied by, and limited to, the Exodus generation, and that the present generation has come into his rest. In this way the base line of the psalm can be described as grace, not punishment—as forgiveness, not wrath. The disgust at the people is an affective exaggeration which underlines the parenetical aim. The whole speech functions as an admonition that the given land and the nearness of God are revocable. Verses 8–11 are not meant as a threat, but hook up to the core of vv. 1–7—the hymnal praise of the Rock of Salvation. The election of Israel is imbedded in a cosmological dimension of creation and of the reign of the kingly God. The covenant with his people in v. 7 forms part of God’s cosmological power and of his dominion of the world. The goal of history is the salvation of Israel in his rest: the temple, the land and the presence. Thus the function of the citation is clearly positive and not negative. The term “Drohbotschaft” used by Grässer43 is missing the deeper sense of the admonition. The fact that the addressee of vv. 8–11 is the present Israel as God’s chosen, and not discarded, people, is a crucial point. Many of the older New Testament commentaries fail in this regard, insofar as they ascribe the wrath of YHWH not to the Exodus generation, but to the present Israel. Ernst Käsemann, Otfried Hous and others contrive to impose a substitution theology insofar as they do not admit the present addressee to have come into his rest. The use of terms such as “abolishment,” “cancelled promise,” “loss of salvation,” “failure,” “surpassing,” and so on are typical in this context. For example, Friedrich Delitzsch states: “Weil das Gottesvolk in der Wüste aufgrund seines Unglaubens nicht an den göttlichen Ruheort gelangen konnte, bleibt er sicher aufgespart für diejenigen, denen Gott mit dem neuen ‘Heute’ (4,7) eine bessere Chance eröffnet hat.”44 The differentiation between the present addressee, which has come into his rest, and the Exodus generation, to which YHWH swore that they would never come into his rest, is one of the crucial
43. Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer: 1. Teilband: Hebr 1–6 (EvangelischKatholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 17/1; Zurich: Benzinger, 1990), 203, cf. p. 211. 44. Franz Delitzsch, Die Psalmen: Biblischer Kommentar über das Alte Testament (5th ed.; Leipzig: Dörein & Franke, 1894; repr. Giessen: Brunnen Verlag, 1984), 133; cf. Käsemann, Gottesvolk, 19, and, with only slight differences, Grässer, Hebräer, 200–202. 1
FREVEL TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95
183
points in understanding Ps 95 without Hebrews. It is also one of the most important points when combining vv. 1–7 with 8–11. In the light of this, the intriguing question arises whether Hebrews interprets Ps 94 (LXX) in a substitutional way. 3. Psalm 94 LXX Before we continue with some observations on Ps 95 within the context of Hebrews, we have to look at any major changes made to the psalm in the LXX.45 There is no question as to the fact that the author of Hebrews is using text from the LXX, but which text is an issue currently under discussion in LXX research.46 There are minor changes of the LXX major text tradition which are represented in the Göttingen Septuagint in vv. 2, 6, 8, 10: LXX connects EHC>K3 95HE3 with a copula LBJ= in v. 2, and complements the absolute CH53 to UI] HFOFB]_ FLFJOI] in v. 10. Even though the question as to the Vorlage of Hebrews cannot be discussed here,47 there are some major changes of the MT in the LXX that are worth noting and discussing briey. 45. See, for the whole fourth book of the Psalter, Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, “Akzentsetzungen der Septuaginta im vierten Psalmenbuch: Ps 90–105 (Ps 89–105 bzw. 106 LXX),” in Der Septuaginta-Psalter: Sprachliche und theologische Aspekte (ed. E. Zenger; HBS 32; Freiburg: Herder, 2001), 163–69. 46. It is, of course, impossible to give an extensive bibliography for the treatment of LXX Psalms by Old and New Testament scholars. Worth consulting are: Ariane Cordes, “Theologische Interpretation in der Septuaginta: Beobachtungen am Beispiel von Psalm 76 LXX,” in Zenger, ed., Der Septuaginta-Psalter, 105–21; Albert Pietersma, “The Place of Origin of the Old Greek Psalter,” in The World of the Aramaeans. Vol. 1, Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (ed. P. M. M. Daviau, J. W. Wewers and M. Weigl; JSOTSup 324; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 2001), 252–74; Joachim Schaper, “Der Septuaginta-Psalter als Dokument jüdischer Eschatologie,” in Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum (ed. M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer; WUNT 1/72; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994), 38– 61; Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT 2/76; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995); “Der Septuaginta-Psalter: Interpretation, Aktualisierung und liturgische Verwendung der biblischen Psalmen im hellenistischen Judentum,” in Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum (ed. E. Zenger; HBS 18; Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 165–83; Stefan Seiler, “Theologische Konzepte in der Septuaginta: Das theologische Prol von 1 Chr 16,8ff. LXX im Vergleich mit Ps 104; 95; 105 LXX,” in Zenger, ed., Der Septuaginta-Psalter, 197–225. 47. Cf. Martin Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebräer: Kapitel 1,1–5,10 (Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament 20/1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2002); Beate Kowalski, “Die Rezeption alttestamentlicher Theologie im Hebräerbrief,” in Ausharren in der Verheißung: Studien zum Hebräerbrief (ed. R. Kampling; SBS 204; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 48–50, where 1
184
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Psalms and Hebrews
The most striking change is that of 9= *H 3J) , which is translated FJ FJTFMFV TPOUBJ FJK UI@O LBUB QBVTJO NPV, and the presence in the temple in vv. 1–6 is cut off. This facilitates the eschatological interpretation of the LBUB QBVTJK, which dominates Heb 4. The psalm undergoes a very important change with the superscription "J>OPK X] EI_K UX]_ %BVJE. In this way Ps 94 LXX (95 MT) forms part of the general tendency of the LXX Psalter, particularly explicit in the fourth book.48 The fourth book, Pss 90–106 MT
the slight differences between the LXX and Hebrews are noted (FO EPLJNBTJB] instead of FEPLJNBTBO in Heb 3:9; UBV UI]instead of FLFJOI]in 3:10;and an additional EJP in v. 10). Karrer votes in favour of a special branch of LXX tradition (Sonderstrang); Kowalski prefers to see the author of Hebrews as responsible for the changes. 48. See Hossfeld, Akzentsetzungen and further Albert Pietersma, “Exegesis and Liturgy in the Superscriptions of the Greek Psalter,” in X Congress of the 1
FREVEL TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95
6.
185
(89–105 LXX), has the greatest number of psalms without headings in the MT. Of the thirteen new David superscriptions in the LXX Psalter, nine are located in the fourth book. A short overview of the psalm group attests to this tendency. While we could speak of a strengthened mosaic accent in the headingless psalms following the only Mosaic Psalm (Ps 89 LXX [90 MT]), now the Davidization of the fourth book becomes dominant. Only Ps 89 LXX has preserved Moses in the superscription: 1SPTFVYI@ UPV .XVTI B ORSX QPV UPV RFPV . The same heading as in Ps 94 LXX (95 MT), "J>OPK X] EI_K UX]_ %BVJE, can be found in Ps 90 LXX (91 MT) and Ps 92 LXX (93 MT). In Ps 92 LXX (93 MT) it is only the second part after an enhanced superscription which attributes the psalm to the day before the Sabbath, PUF LBUX] LJTUBJ I HI . Within the Sabbatical-triad of Pss 91–93 LXX, Ps 92 LXX becomes an obvious reference to the creation. The psalm is attributed to the sixth day of creation and the rst habitation of the land.49 The background of this tendency to enhance the relation to the weekdays is the phrase E39 )HJ= CJ CH>K> in Ps 92 MT, which is preserved in Ps 91 LXX (:BMNP@K X ]EI K FJK UI@O I NFSBO UPV TBCCB UPV). This attribution is continued in Ps 92 LXX (93 MT) (&JK UI@O I NFSBO UPV QSPTBCCB UPV), and in Ps 93 LXX (94 MT) (:BMNP@K UX]_ %BVJE UFUSB EJ TBCCB UXO). It is essential to understand and keep in mind that the psalms preceding Ps 94 LXX (95 MT) have a Sabbath connection, one which corresponds to the creation story of Gen 1 in Ps 92. The linkage between creation and kingship is present in Ps 95 MT (94 LXX) as well, and is developed in the group of Royal Psalms as a whole.50 Supplementing the observations of the aforementioned Davidic switch in the fourth book, Ps 95 LXX (96 MT) has a connection with David and with the Second Temple. Psalm 96 LXX (97 MT (5X]_ %BVJE PUF I HI BVUPV LBRJTUBUBJ) connects the land explicitly to David and to Pss 97–98 LXX (98–99 MT), which are ascribed simply to David. Psalm 99 LXX (100 MT) has preserved this connection through the 95HE offering.
International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Oslo 1998 (ed. B. A. Taylor; SBLSCS 51; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 99–138, and “Septuagintal Exegesis and the Superscriptions of the Greek Psalter,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (ed. P. W. Flint and P. D. Miller, Jr.; Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature 4; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 443–75. 49. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 446. 50. Cf. ibid., 443–44. 1
186
Psalms and Hebrews
4. Psalm 95 (94 LXX) within Hebrews With regard to Ps 94 LXX within Hebrews, the change of superscriptions is important in two respects: the rst is simply the Davidic authorship, and the second is the Sabbatical air of Ps 94 LXX in its LXX context. This second aspect needs further explanation, after a quick look at the mention of David in Heb 3 and 4.51 Hebrews 4:7 mentions FO %BVJ=E MFHXO—the only reection on David in an introduction of a quotation or reference to a psalm in Hebrews. The rst introduction in Heb 3:7 attributes the quotation of Ps 94:8–11 LXX to the voice of the Holy Spirit (LBRX@K MFHFJ UP@ QOFV_NB UP= BHJPO), developed out of 2 Sam 23:2.52 On the one hand, the author of Hebrews has recognized the Psalter as a book wherein God speaks, while on the other hand he has identied it as a book that is attributed to David. Especially Ps 94 LXX is considered to be a Psalm of David, in conformity to the LXX Psalter. If one keeps in mind that the citation of Ps 94 LXX as the words of David would be the only passage in which scripture is uttered by, or attributed, to a human speaker, it seems quite possible to understand the FO %BVJ=E in Heb 4:7 as “in David” and not “through David,” that is, denoting particularly or merely the book of Psalms. The author of Hebrews uses the Psalms extensively, not only in allusions or phrase quotes. The Letter to the Hebrews has the greatest number of citations of contiguous psalm pieces. Following Karrer,53 the distribution of Old Testament quotations is signicant: Pentateuch (13); Psalms (14); and Prophets (7). It can be argued that the selection of the Psalms reveals the theological preferences of the author of Hebrews.54 51. What follows has beneted from several New Testament viewpoints which cannot be discussed in detail here. Most relevant are Peter Enns, “Creation and Recreation: Psalm 95 and its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1–4:13,” WTJ 54 (1992): 255–80, and “The Interpretation of Psalm 95 in Hebrews 3.1–4.13,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; JSNTSup 148; Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 5; Shefeld: JSOT, 1997), 352–63; Khiok-Khng Yeo, “The Meaning and Usage of the Theology of ‘Rest’ (,BUB QBVTJK and TBCCBUJTNPK) in Hebrews 3:7–4:13,” Asia Journal of Theology 5 (1991): 2–33; Dave Mathewson, “Reading Heb 6:4–6 in Light of the Old Testament,” WTJ 61 (1999): 209–25, together with the commentary of Karrer (Hebräer) and, in a more or less contrastive way, G. Schunack, Der Hebräerbrief (Zürcher Bibelkommentare; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2002); Hegermann, Hebräerbrief; Braun, Hebräer; and August Strobel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). 52. Karrer, Hebräer, 34, 60–61, 207. 53. Ibid., 62. 54. The following chart refers to the appendix in Nestle–Aland 27th ed. 1
FREVEL TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95 Ps 2:7 Ps 8:5–7 Ps 22:23 Ps 40:7–9 Ps 40:8–9 Ps 45:7–8 Ps 95:7–8 Ps 95:7–11
Heb 1:5; 5:5 Heb 2:6–7 Heb 2:12 Heb 10:5–7 Heb 10:9 Heb 1:8 Heb 3:15; 4:7 Heb 3:7–11
Ps 95:11 Ps 102:26–28 Ps 104:4 Ps 110:1 Ps 110:4 Ps 118:6 Ps 135:14
187
Heb 4:3, 5 Heb 1:10–12 Heb 1:7 Heb 1:3, 13; 10:12 Heb 5:6; 7:17, 21 Heb 13:6 Heb 10:30
To be expected are the “messianic classics” Ps 2 and Ps 110 MT (109 LXX), and the reception of Ps 40 MT (Ps 39 LXX), as well the prominence of Ps 8.55 Apart from these, there are the traditions of the kingship of God in Pss 45 and 95, conceptions of creation from Ps 102 MT (LXX 101), and a phrase from Ps 104 MT (LXX 103). The author of Hebrews was of course familiar with the Psalter as a whole, and he uses the Psalter not only as a supplier of phrases, but also in order to develop his theology in a psalms context. He was acquainted not only with the individual psalms, but also with their contextual integration. The haggadic pesher or (without dening a sharp contrast between pesher and midrash56) midrashic exegesis of Ps 94 LXX (95 MT) hints at the context of this psalm in the LXX. In the dashing exegesis (kühne Schriftdarlegung57) of ch. 4 we nd the rst combination of Ps 94:11 LXX (95:11 MT) with Gen 2:2. The exegetical literature correctly identies this passage as a gezera shewa, that is, an explanation of a verse of scripture by using analogy with another verse.58 Following the second quotation of Ps 94:11 LXX (95:11 MT) in Heb 4:3, the text continues: LBJUPJ UX_O FSHXO B QP= LBUBCPMI K LPTNPV HFOIRFOUXO (“though the works were [nished] from the foundation of the world”). Taking up the FSHB of Ps 94:9, and identifying them not with the deeds in Egypt or in the Wilderness, but with all the deeds of God, namely, the FSHB of the creation, v. 3 leads to the 55. See K. Backhaus, “Gott als Psalmist. Psalm 2 in Hebräerbrief,” in Gottessohn und Menschensohn (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 67; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004), 198–231; H. Löhr, “ ‘Heute, wenn ihr seine Stimme hört…’: Zur Kunst der Schriftanwen dung im Hebräerbrief und in 1 Kor 10,” in M. Hengel and H. Löhr (ed.), Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum (WUNT 74; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 226–48; G. Reim, “Vom zum Johannesevangelium, anhand der Psalmzitate,” BZ 44 (2000): 92–99. 56. For discussion, see Karrer, Hebräer, 20–21. 57. Ibid., 215. 58. Günter Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (8th ed.; Munich: Beck, 1992), 28–29, hints at the rhetorical parallel syncrisis pros ison. Because this rule is usually used only inside the Torah, Karrer speculates about the different position in Hebrews, which does not clearly concede priority to the Torah. 1
188
Psalms and Hebrews
reection on creational rest. This is a signicant change compared to the rst reference to Ps 94:11 LXX (95:11 MT) in Heb 3:9. Following some Greek manuscripts, the UFTTFSB LPOUB FUI is understood as an adverbial supplement to UB= FSHB NPV (“they have seen my deeds forty years”). The Hebrew word order allows for this reading, but the presupposition is to ignore the LBUB@ UI@O INFSBO in v. 8. Thus, Heb 3 underlines the abovementioned serious alteration of Ps 95, in contrast to the Pentateuchal pretexts. The judgment “you will not come into my rest” has moved from the spy story to the end of the Wilderness period. Yet the author of Hebrews was aware of this transformation. He understood Ps 94:8–11 and its core background in Num 14 very well. There are two lexematical hints at Num 14:29 that strengthen this assumption: (1) the word LX_MPOin 3:17 is used in Num 14:29 LXX, but is a hapax in the New Testament; (2) the use of QJQUX in 3:17 and 4:11 resembles Num 14:29. So, the author avoids uncoupling the oath completely from the spy story and the refusal of the land, yet follows Ps 94 in transposing the oath to the end of the forty years. His paradigm is not refusal of the land, or murmurings about the lack of water in Massah and Meribah, but B QJTUJB (Heb 3:19) and QJTUJK (Heb 4:2 and 3). The assumption of this line of thought is of course the uncoupling of the QFJSBTNPK from the linked stories in Exod 17 and Num 20. Now the temptation and reviling in the whole forty years moves more into the foreground. Even though the deeds of God in the Wilderness prevail in Heb 3:9, the interpretation is open to all deeds of God. This is made complete in Heb 4:3 in the LBJUPJ UX_O FSHXO B QP= LBUBCPMI K LPTNPV HFOIRFOUXO. The reference to the deeds of creation, which allow the cognition of God in his creational world, is by all means conforming to Ps 94 LXX, especially in the hymnic praise of the greatness of God in vv. 4 and 5. Yet in Ps 94 LXX there is no reference to the seventh day, which is established in the following text passage. Without giving an exact reference to the creation story, Heb 4:4 cites Gen 2:3: FJSILFO HB S QPV QFSJ= UI K FCEPNIK PVUXK LBJ= LBUFQBVTFO P RFP@K FO UI] I NFSB] UI] FCEPNI] BQP= QB OUXO UX_O FSHXO BVUPV (“he says somewhere about the seventh day as follows: ‘And God rested on the seventh day from all his works’ ”). This transformation or movement of theme from the land to the Sabbatical rest is a pivotal point for the eschatological redening of the LBUB QBVTJK. And yet, before explaining this crucial transformation, we have to ask: How does the shift to Gen 2 work? Of course, the gezera shewa needs a semantic hook that is next to the aforementioned reference to the FSHB. This can be found in the use of LBUBQBV X as verbal phrase 1
FREVEL TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95
189
in Gen 2:3 LXX, and of LBUB QBVTJKin Ps 94:11 LXX.59 If God speaks, LBUB QBVTJO NPV can be interpreted as his Sabbatical rest on the seventh day. My proposal is that this identication is further strengthened by the abovementioned Sabbatical context of the neighbouring psalms (Pss 91–93 LXX), which are connected with the Sabbath, as well as the sixth day and the fourth day, respectively. The psalm group was interpreted within a late post-exilic Sabbath theology, and the praise of creation in Ps 94 LXX may be interpreted in the context of Sabbatical theology. Creation theology comes to its climax in the Sabbath as the aim of all creation.60 Thus the author of Hebrews read the LBUB QBVTJO NPV in the Sabbatical context of the neighbouring psalms as reference to the creational Sabbath of God. This forces an eschatological interpretation of the LBUBQBVTJK, which seems to be in the background of Heb 4, and the word TBCCBUJTNPKin Heb 4:9.61 But this eschatological shift is already present in Heb 4:1. That seems clear from the programmatic LBUBMFJQPNFOIK FQBHHFMJBK FJTFMRFJ O FJK UI@O LBUB QBVTJO, already prepared in 3:14’s NFYSJ UFMPVK (“until the end”), which is the starting point for the interpretation of the quote from Ps 94 LXX. The rationale for this reading is the TI NFSPO, which is picked up from 3:7, in 4:7 and which is also present in 3:15. This logic has another presupposition: if the Sabbatical rest of all creation is the real content of the FQBHHFMJB in 4:1 (which is LBUBMFJQPNFOIK), then the promise is denitely still outstanding. This is, of course, the most crucial transformation, one which leads us to my nal question: Is there an actual place for Israel in Heb 4? While the author of Hebrews was certainly aware that Ps 94:8–11 was spoken to the Exodus generation, and that the oath was only cited to a present generation that had come into the temple, it is not by chance that vv. 1–6 are completely absent in Heb 3–4. In the understanding of the author of Hebrews, the hymnal praise will be the eschatological praise. Thus the admonition is linked to the B QJTUJB (Heb 3:19) and QJTUJK (Heb 4:2 and 3) paradigm which is determined christologically. In order to open the promise of the eschatological LBUB QBVTJKto his audience, the author has to detract the Joshua generation from the fullling of the promise. This is, of course, a violent reinterpretation, against the sense of his Pentateuchal and Psalmic pretexts. And it is this that becomes the author’s inexcusable hermeneutical sin, as it causes the exclusion of the present Israel from 59. For the discussion of LBUB QBVTJK in Hebrews, see especially Khiok-Khng, Meaning, 2–33. 60. Cf. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 640–42. 61. Cf. Karrer, Hebräer, 218–20. 1
190
Psalms and Hebrews
the line of promise. Thus, in order to achieve his intention, he runs a subtle play with the text. First, the Joshua generation is implicitly cut off in the absolute understanding of the FJ in the oath-citation of 3:11, 18; 4:3 and 3:16 (BMM PV QB OUFK PJ FDFMRPOUFK FD "JHV QUPV EJB@ .XV TFXK). Surely, the author of Hebrews knows all too well that there is a Joshua generation, one that is numerically not signicantly smaller than the Exodus generation (Num 26). Nevertheless, he reduces this possibility of LBUB QBVTJK in Deut 12:9 or 1 Kgs 8:56 in favour of the eschatological interpretation. The Joshua generation and the preceding Israel is therefore explicitly located outside the promised LBUB QBVTJK (4:8). The reversal of the generation scheme is obvious in the update of 4:3, &JTFSYP NFRB HB@S FJK [UI@O] LBUB QBVTJO PJ QJTUFVTBOUFK, which contrasts with the FJ FJTFMFV TPOUBJ FJK UI@O LBUB QBVTJO NPV. The present generation of “us”—the addressees of Hebrews—is supposed to come into his rest. While the post-Wilderness generation has entered the land and the temple (clear from the processional situation in Ps 94:1–7a LXX [MT 95:1–7a]), the eschatological interpretation qualies the LBUB QBVTJK as unattained. The anchor is TI NFSPO, assuring the update and developed further in vv. 7 and 8. The author again excludes the Joshua generation explicitly in v. 8, with a venturous conclusion which accepts logical and historical inconsistencies to maintain the line of argumentation. The validity of the oath that PJ QSPUFSPO FV BHHFMJTRFOUFKhave not entered his rest is afrmed with B QPMFJQFJO. This allegation contradicts biblical reality (because the promise is applied only to the Exodus generation and not to the Joshua generation), but not the author’s understanding of LBUBQBVTJK. Since the TINFSPO of the psalm citation is spoken after Joshua FO %BVJ=Eby God (4:7), Joshua could not have lead the people into God’s rest, because God would speak of a certain day after the point in time the people had come into his rest. The argumentation is logically circular, but rhetorically effective. The contemporaneous Israel sinks into the deep fosse between the addressees, “us,” who hear the psalm citation anew, and the bygone fathers, “they,” who had failed to believe. Verse 9 draws the conclusion that there remains a rest as TBCCBUJTNP@K UX_] MBX_] UPV_ RFPV_. There can be no doubt, that MBPK UPV_ RFPV_is the admonished Christian community. While rst the text takes the land from them (Israel), now the Sabbath is taken semantically, too. In my view, the argumentation implies substitution in its pure form. To sum up: because of the eschatological interpretation of the LBUB QBVTJK (vv. 1, 8, 9), and the connection to the QJTUJK (v. 2), there is no place for Israel. Within the time, TINFSPO, there is no present or relevant 1
FREVEL TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95
191
Israel who can hear the FO %BVJ@E as addressee. The living word (cf. 4:12) is only FQBHHFMJB of a TBCCBUJTNP@K (4:9) for the MBP K UPV_ RFPV_ (4:9), who are the congregation of Christ (cf. 1:1). 5. Concluding Remarks Finally, I want to summarize the reception of Ps 94 LXX within Hebrews: 1. The author of Hebrews resumes and updates Ps 94 LXX in order to develop his theology in a psalm context. He uses Ps 94 because it is in line with his argumentation. The distance regarding the Wilderness tradition; the missing localisation of the Wilderness quarrel; and the movement from the disobedience to a general attitude of the people of Israel t perfectly into his concept. 2. Via the Davidization and the Sabbathization, Heb 3–4 strengthens the tendency of the LXX. Psalm 94 is understood now as a promise of a creation-theological and eschatological perfection. 3. The hermeneutical problem of Israel’s existence in the Promised Land, which results from the aforementioned reinterpretation of Ps 94, is solved with a substitutional theology. In doing so, illogical arguments (cf. Heb 4:8) will be accepted. In the end we have to return to our hermeneutical presuppositions. Christian interpretation of scripture has to avoid disinheritance and antiJudaism. There is no way to distinguish a specic Christian theology by denying the salvation of Israel, the everlasting covenant, and the mercy of God. If our interpretation is correct, the Letter to the Hebrews reserves no place for contemporary Israel, respectively, contemporary Jews, in the salvation plan of God. They are discarded because they refuse. The continuous debate surrounding anti-Judaistic sentiment in scripture suggests the problematical, and in some ways anachronistic, use of the term anti-Judaism; as well as the fuzzy criteria for “anti-Judaism.”62 62. See, for example, William Klassen, “To the Hebrews or against the Hebrews? Anti-Judaism and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Separation and Polemic. Vol. 2, Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity (ed. S. G. Wilson; Studies in Christianity and Judaism/Études sur le Christianisane et le judaïsme; Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1987), 1–16; Franz Mussner, “Das innovierende Handeln Gottes nach dem Hebräerbrief und die Frage nach dem Antijudaismus des Briefes,” in Im Spannungsfeld von Tradition und Innovation (ed. G. Schmuttermayer; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1997), 13–24, as well as the more recent commentaries. See also the debate surrounding the document in the Pontical Biblical Commission’s The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002). 1
192
Psalms and Hebrews
There have been ample attempts at justifying the use of scripture in Hebrews by, for example, the Ponticial Biblical Commission: Although it never explicitly afrms the authority of the Jewish Scriptures, the Letter to the Hebrews clearly shows that it recognises this authority by repeatedly quoting texts to ground its teaching and exhortations. It contains numerous afrmations of conformity to prophetic revelation, but also afrmations of conformity that include aspects of non-conformity as well… The Letter to the Hebrews shows that the mystery of Christ fulls the prophecies and what was pregured in the Jewish Scriptures, but, at the same time, afrms non-conformity to the ancient institutions: the gloried Christ is at one and the same time in conformity with the words of Ps 109 (110):1, 4, and in non-conformity with the levitical priesthood (cf. Heb 7:11, 28).63
In the range of fullment and preguration we cannot expect a serious confession of anti-Judaistic implications in the theology of the Letter to the Hebrews: Neither does the Letter to the Hebrews mention “the Jews” or even “the Hebrews”!… The author points out the deciencies of Old Testament institutions, especially the sacricial cult, but always basing himself on the Old Testament itself, whose value as divine revelation he always fully recognises. With regard to the Israelites of the past, the author’s appreciation is not one-sided, but corresponds faithfully to that of the Old Testament itself: that is, on the one hand, by quoting and commenting on Ps 95:7–11, he recalls the lack of faith of the generation of the Exodus, but on the other hand, he paints a magnicent fresco of examples of faith given throughout the ages by Abraham and his descendants ([Heb] 11:8– 38). Speaking of Christ’s Passion, the Letter to the Hebrews makes no mention of the responsibility of the Jewish authorities, but simply says that Jesus endured strong opposition “on the part of sinners.”64
That the Letter to the Hebrews recalls the lack of faith of the Exodus generation is only one side of the coin. The implication of Israel without allotment of the rest on the one hand, and the history of reception on the other, is more precisely expressed by Martin Karrer: Obwohl er seine Theologie seinem Verständnis nach innerjüdisch entwirft, entsteht ein Graben zu jedem Judentum, das Aaron durch die Weichenstellungen der Tora zum primären kultischen Orientierungspunkt gemacht sieht und die Tora ohne Christologie liest. Das bahnt christlichen Widersprüchen gegen das Judentum unter Vereinnahmung der Tora die Bahn.65 63. The Pontical Biblical Commission, Jewish People, B.3.8. 64. Ibid., C.79.2. 65. Karrer, Hebräer, 91. 1
FREVEL TI NFSPO—Understanding Psalm 95
193
Hebrews does not provide a conscious and affective anti-Judaism, but an implicit substitution, and therefore a sort of anti-Judaism, one which has to be corrected by a focus on the remaining promises of the Torah. The hermeneutically postulated canonical dialog of Heb 3 and 4 is a tough act to follow. More explicitly, F. Mussner states: “Christliche Theologie darf sich, was ihr Verhältnis zum Judentum angeht, nicht einseitig und oft mißverstehend an einer neutestamentlichen Schrift wie dem Hebräerbrief…orientieren.”66 The only possible conclusion is to discuss the implications of the theological presuppositions of the Letter to the Hebrews, and to adjust them within an inner-canonical dialogue and in the light of a recent dabru emet with respect to Jewish faithfulness to their revelation. As Karrer puts it, “Hermeneutisch ist das Gespräch, das in ihm (scil. the Letter to the Hebrews) abbricht und die Gemeinsamkeit mit Israel gegen jeden Antijudaismus zu suchen.”67
66. Mussner, “Handeln Gottes,” 22–23. 67. Karrer, Hebräer, 91. 1
THE RECEPTION OF PSALM 95(94):7–11 IN HEBREWS 3–4 Gert J. Steyn
1. Introduction The Psalms have a prominent place in the New Testament. This is not strange when one keeps in mind the place that they have in Israel, with its liturgical use in the temple and in the synagogues. No wonder that the Psalter has been the hymnbook and prayerbook of the Christian Church from the earliest times.1 Focusing on Hebrews, this prominence can be seen from the fact that it is the New Testament book which quotes the most from the Psalms—as becomes clear from the following graph. 20 15 10
Psalms
5 0
Mark Ma tt Luke Acts John Rom 1 Cor 2 Cor Eph
Heb 1 Pet
Matt (8); Mark (5); Luke (7); Acts (10); John (8); Rom (13); 1 Cor (3); 2 Cor (2); Eph (2); Heb (16); 1 Pet (2).
About half of all the Old Testament quotations in Hebrews are taken from the Psalms. In fact, there is a case to be made that all the explicit quotations in the rst half of Hebrews were taken from hymnic texts. Furthermore, the very rst quotation in Hebrews is taken from a psalm (Ps 2), as is the very last quotation (Ps 118). It is thus no wonder that the treatment of the Psalms in Hebrews has received particular attention in such studies as those by Kistemaker (see n. 1) and Rüsen-Weinhold, 1. Cf. Simon Kistemaker (The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews [Amsterdam: Wed. G. van Soest, 1961], 114): The “knowledge of sacred history was stimulated, kept alive, and augmented by the use of the psalms in Synagogue and Church.” 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
195
among others.2 This author, too, has also dealt with some of Psalms quotations before, particularly regarding their Vorlage in Hebrews (notably Pss 2;3 8;4 45;5 1186). One of the occurrences in Hebrews where a psalm is quoted and fairly extensively interpreted and commented upon is that of Ps 95(94):7–11 in Heb 3–4. Relatively few of the quotations in the New Testament are fairly long. Most of the lengthy Old Testament quotations are to be found in Luke–Acts and in Hebrews. The quotation from Ps 95(94):7–11 in Heb 3:7b–11 is the second longest in Hebrews7 and probably the third longest in the New Testament.8 The quotation from Ps 95(94) is thus, with the quotations from Pss 16(15), 34 and 40(39), one of the longest Psalms quotations in the New Testament. Furthermore, the author does not only present this long quotation, but also continues with a midraschartige exposition and application of the Psalms passage within his argument. The author himself refers explicitly at least four more times back to the same quotation. This makes it, with Ps 110, one of the two passages that are the most frequently quoted and referred to by the author of Hebrews. It is also the only place where Ps 95(94) occurs in the New Testament, and there are no references to it in the Church Fathers.9 The Psalms quotation and its application by the author of Hebrews should therefore serve as an appropriate example of the reception of a psalm by a New Testament author.
2. U. Rüsen-Weinhold, “Der Septuaginta-Psalter in seinen verschiedenen Textformen zur Zeit des Neuen Testaments,” in Der Septuaginta-Psalter: sprachliche und theologische Aspekte (ed. E. Zenger; HBS 32; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 1–87, and Der Septuagintapsalter im Neuen Testament. Eine textgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004). 3. Gert J. Steyn, “Psalm 2 in Hebrews,” Neot 37, no. 2 (2003): 262–82. 4. Gert J. Steyn, “Some Observations about the Vorlage of Ps 8:5–7 in Heb 2:6– 8,” Verbum et Ecclesia 24, no. 2 (2003): 493–514. 5. Gert J. Steyn, “The Vorlage of Ps 45:6–7(44:7–8) in Heb 1:8–9,” HTS 60, no. 3 (2004): 1085–103. 6. Gert J. Steyn, “The Occurrence of Ps 118(117):6 in Heb 13:6: Possible Liturgical Origins?,” Neot 40, no. 1 (2006): 119–34. 7. Exceeded only in length by that of Jer 31(38):31–34 in Heb 8:8–12, which is the longest in the New Testament. 8. The quotation from Joel 2 in Acts 2 takes its second place between the quotations from Jer 31(38) and Ps 95(94) in Hebrews. Other long quotations are: Isa 42:1– 4 (Matt 12:18–21); Isa 6:9 (Matt 13:14–15; Acts 28:26–27); Isa 40:3–5 (Luke 3:4– 6); Isa 61:1 (Luke 4:18–19); Ps 16(15):8–11 (Acts 2:25–28); Ps 34:13–17 (1 Pet 3:10–12) and Ps 40(39):7–9 (Heb 10:5–7). 9. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 35. 1
196
Psalms and Hebrews
Apart from evidence of existing combinations of texts prior to Hebrews (e.g. Ps 2 + 2 Sam 7; Ps 110 + Ps 8; etc.), an extremely interesting phenomenon seems to be the fact that the author himself connects all his quoted texts in pairs around a particular theme.10 The same is also true here, where the author deals with the motif of rest and uses the two texts from Ps 95 and Gen 2:2 to make his point. The motif of rest is also found in 4QFlor with a quotation of 2 Sam 7:11 as well as in 4Q372. 2. The Reception of Psalm 94:7–11 (LXX) in Hebrews 3:1–4:13 It is interesting to note, according to Attridge, that Heb 3:1–4:11 parallels the rst section of Hebrews, 1:5–2:18: “Both begin with a contrast between Christ and some other agent of God’s dealings with humanity. Both proceed, in slightly different fashions, to exegesis of a scriptural text and to exhortation. In each section the terms of the initial contrast lead gradually into a soteriological reection.”11 The section 3:1–4:13 is a cohesive unit12 that deals mainly with the issue of belief–unbelief by means of the motif of rest. The unit has a clear Narratio, Amplicatio with its Hypodeigma, and closes with a Peroratio.13 It starts with (A) a prelude (Heb 3:1–6), the Narratio. Then it moves to (B) an example from Scripture, the Hypodeigma (cf. 4:11), which is already the beginning of his Amplicatio14 and where the author presents his introductory formula with a long explicit quotation from Ps 95(94):7–11 (Heb 3:7–11). Hereafter follows (C) the author’s own interpretation of the quotation
10. G. van den Brink also observed this: “…(het) valt ons op dat de schrijver meerdere keren twee of meer teksplaatsen aanhaalt om zijn uitspraak te bewijzen.” He reckons that the technique of using a combination of passages was probably developed on the principle of Deut 19:15, which points to the conrmation of an issue by two or three witnesses (“De schrift zegt of de Schrift fantaseert? Het gebruik van het Oude Testament in Hebreeën,” in Verkenningen in de katholieke brieven en Hebreeën [ed. G. van den Brink et al.; Theologische Verkenningen 7; Kampen: Kok Voorhoeve, 1993], 211–17 [211]). 11. Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 114. 12. So also, among others, Peter Enns, “The Interpretation of Psalm 95 in Hebrews 3.1–4.13,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; JSNTSup 148; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1997), 352–63. Kistemaker calls it “an interlude of nearly two chapters” (Psalm Citations, 85). 13. So also Martin Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebräer. Kapitel 1,1–5,10 (ÖTBKNT 20/1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 2002), 205. 14. Attridge refers to this section as “a lengthy meditation” (Hebrews, 114). 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
197
from Scripture, which is the rest of his Amplicatio and where the author presents an even longer exposition and application (Heb 3:12–4:11). The little pericope (D) about the Word of God (Heb 4:12–13) is a reection on the role of the author’s previous involvement with Scripture and is the closing part of the unit, the Peroratio.15 It serves, in turn, as a hinge between the motif of rest and the motif of Jesus as High Priest16 that follows. The reception of Ps 95(94):7–11 in Heb 3–4 will be discussed on the basis of these four consecutive sections. 3. Prelude (3:1–6): The Narratio This section bridges the Christological foundation of salvation in 2:5–18 and the exhortation of 3:7–4:11.17 The author of Hebrews addresses his audience in 3:1 as “holy brothers who share in the heavenly calling” and appeal to them to “x your thoughts on Jesus”—who is called “the apostle and high priest of our profession.” The issue of faithfulness is then introduced, which seems to be the overall theme for the discussion in Heb 3–4, starting in 3:2 with QJTUPO18 and ending in 4:11 with BQFJRFJBK. In his prelude to this theme of faithfulness, the author presents Jesus and Moses as two role models. This connection is reinforced later in the author’s exposition of his quotation in Heb 3:11–14.19 Here, though, the faithfulness of Jesus is compared with that of Moses:20 “just as Moses was faithful in all his house” (3:2). The author of Hebrews probably alludes in 3:2 to Num 12:7 which is again alluded to (but not quoted as some scholars state21) in 3:5.22 However, “Jesus has been found
15. Paul Ellingworth also takes it to be a “concluding comment” (The Epistle to the Hebrews [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 213). 16. Jesus is referred to as High Priest at key points in the structure of Hebrews: 3:1; 4:14; 8:1; 9:11; 10:21. 17. G. Schunack, Der Hebräerbrief (Zürcher Bibelkommentare; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2002), 43. 18. Cf. Karrer (Hebräer, 189): “Pistos, ‘zuverlässig’, wird zum Schlüsselmotiv…” 19. Also Attridge, Hebrews, 115. 20. Ellingworth pointed out that “Moses holds a particularly high place in the thought of Philo, who repeatedly calls him ‘high priest’ (Rer. Div. Her. 182; Sacr. 130; Vit. Mos. 1.334; 2.2–7, 66ff., 153–158, 187, 275) and more than once RFP K (Vit. Mos. 1.158; Somn. 2.189)” (Hebrews, 194). A similar tradition existed in Palestinian Judaism (e.g. the Assumption of Moses) and rabbinic tradition “provides ample evidence for the belief that Moses was held to be higher than the angels” (Ellingworth, Hebrews, 194). 21. Nestlé–Aland 27th ed.; Karrer, Hebräer, 188, 195ff.; Attridge, Hebrews, 108. Ellingworth, though, calls it a “fullest reference” (Hebrews, 206). 1
198
Psalms and Hebrews
worthy of greater honour (EPDIK)23 than Moses” (3:3). Then follows the metaphor of the house: “the builder of a house has greater honour than the house (UPV_ PJLPV) itself.24 For every house (PJ>LPK) is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (3:4). The house metaphor stands in the centre of the ring compositional argument.25 “House” could be understood to be either a community26 or a structure27 here. A little bit further on, however, it is specied as a community (3:6).28 This argument leads to the fact that Moses was faithful “in” (FO) God’s house as/like a servant (XK RFSBQXO), whereas “Christ” (the rst time the term is used in Hebrews) is faithful “over” (FQJ) God’s house as/like a son (XK VJPK, 3:5–6).29 This reminds the reader of the second quotation (2 Sam 7:14 / 1 Chr 17:13), at the beginning of the book, where God proclaimed Jesus as his Son (1:5), and the statement in 2:10 where Jesus brought “many sons” (QPMMPV=K VJPVK) to glory—an idea that continues again in 12:5. The author then indicates that “we are his house” (PJ>LPK FTNFO INFJ_K) and that they “hold on to the promise and the hope of which they boast” (UI=O QBSSITJBO LBJ= UP= LBV=YINB UI_K FMQJEPK LBUBTYXNFO, 3:6). The term RFSBQXO was used for the servants of the Temple of Asclepius,30 the servants of the Pharaoh and also applied to Moses.31 It 22. Attridge, Hebrews, 108. W. L. Lane makes the interesting observation that Ps 94 is presented in the LXX as a meditation on Num 14 (Hebrews 1–8 [WBC 47A; Dallas: Word, 1998], 85). 23. Cf. Heb 1:3; 2:7, 9, 10; 9:5; 13:21. 24. Cf. Heb 8:5 where Moses is referred to as “building the tabernacle.” 25. Similarly also Ellingworth: “The key term in this section is clearly PJ>LPK” (Hebrews, 196). 26. Ellingworth pointed out that “The Qumran community frequently describes itself as a ‘house’ (e.g. 1QS 5:6; 8:5ff.; CD 3:19), but this is a natural development from Old Testament and orthodox Jewish usage, and there is no reason to suppose direct inuence on Hebrews” (Hebrews, 196–97). 27. See ibid., 197. As structure, the idea is widespread in the New Testament. The use of LBUBTLFVB[X in 3:3 suggests, according to Ellingworth, “a live spatial metaphor.” Furthermore, PJ>LPKRFPV_ is freely used of the sanctuary in the LXX (p. 197). 28. See also Heb 10:21. 29. There seems to be a progression in the author’s reference to Jesus as God’s Son. Heb 1 refers merely to “the son.” Here in Heb 3 Christ is faithful “as/like a son.” Heb 4:14 states though explicitly that Jesus is God’s Son: ’*ITPV_O UP=O VJP=O UPV_ RFPV_. See also Heb 10:29. 30. W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 359. 31. The term is a common term in the LXX. It is particularly applied to Moses in Exod 4:10; 14:31; Num 12:7, 8; Josh 9:2 and 1 Chr 16:40. 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
199
seemed to have combined cultic and prophetical elements in its serving role. According to Ellingworth, “RFSBQXO means a free man offering personal service to a superior.”32 Attridge conrms that it “does not have the same pejorative connotations of forced servitude as does EPV_MPK… Yet the distinction cannot be pressed, since the choice of terminology here is governed by scripture.”33 The allusion to Num 12:7 in Heb 3:5 is striking,34 although the author of Hebrews takes it “out of its context and accords a very different sense to its key term.”35 Nonetheless, Ellingworth is of the opinion that the section 3:1–6 “is essentially a midrash on Num 12:7, with special reference to the adjective QJTUPK, which forms a point of comparison between Moses and Jesus, and the preposition FO, which the author understands as a point of contrast between them.”36 Karrer, among other scholars, points also to the inuence of 1 Kgdms (LXX) 2:35 and states: “Das Haus von LXX 1 Kön (1 Sam) 2,35 hat seine Mitte im Priesterhaus, das Gott sich schaffen wird, das haus von Num 12,7 in Israel. Beides geht in den Hebr ein.”37 The author presents this prelude in a ring compositional structure38 that has at its core the metaphor of the house. His argument develops schematically as follows: a.
Jesus the apostle and high priest (was faithful) 5P=O BQPTUPMPO LBJ= BSYJFSFB UI_K PNPMPHJBK INX_O *ITPV_O (3:1) b.
Moses—just as he was faithful in all his house QJTUP=O .XVTI_K FO PMX] UX_] PJLX] BVUPV_ (3:2) c.
b’.
House building metaphor 1B_K HB=S PJ>LPK LBUBTLFVB[FUBJ VQP= UJOPK P EF= QBOUB LBUBTLFVBTBK RFPK (3:4) Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant .XVTI_K NF=O QJTUP=K FO PMX] UX_] PJLX] BVUPV_ XK RFSBQXO (3:5)
a’. Christ (is faithful) as a Son over his house 9SJTUP=K EF= XK VJP=K FQJ= UP=O PJ>LPO BVUPV_ (3:6)
32. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 207. 33. Attridge, Hebrews, 111. 34. Cf. also the discussion by Karrer in this connection (Hebräer, 188, 195ff.). 35. Attridge, Hebrews, 111. 36. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 194. 37. Karrer, Hebräer, 198. So also Ellingworth, Hebrews, 201; Schunack, Hebräerbrief, 45. 38. Also Karrer points to a similar structure, calling it “einen kunstvollen Chiasmus” (Hebräer, 190). 1
200
Psalms and Hebrews
Picking up on the issue that the author and his audience are (FTNFO INFJK)39 metaphorically the house of God,40 he states that they hold on to the promise and the hope of which they boast (3:6). The same idea resurfaces later again in Heb 10:23: “Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.” This leads the author of Hebrews to proceed to his introductory formula and to present his long quotation from Ps 95(94):7–11. In contrast to the QJTUPK (Heb 3:2, 5) stands the BQJTUJB (3:12, 19) of the section that follows.41 Accordingly to Kistemaker, “It is this thought of belief and unbelief which is the basis of the exegetical discourse upon which the structure of the promise of God is built, entailing eternal rest.”42 Karrer reminds us that this is rhetoric for a Narratio, which is the point of departure for this section of 3:1–6: “Antike Leserinnen und Leser erwarten die actualisierende Mahnung und die mit einem Beispiel (Para- oder Hypodeigma; Begriff 4,11) arbeitende Amplicatio (Ausweitung) von einem Redeschlussteil (der Peroratio…).”43 4. Quotation (3:7–11): The Hypodeigma In order to gain some understanding of the reception of Ps 95 by the author of Hebrews, it will be important to address a number of questions. It should be asked, rst, what place this psalm had within the tradition of history. Secondly, the critical work on the text ought to be carried out here. It would be important to determine, as far as is possible, the particular Vorlage that was used by the author of Hebrews. Before this is done, it would be risky to establish which changes were made by the New Testament author and which might be accounted for by the textual variants available from our extant traditions. Once we have some understanding of these, then we could nally move to the New Testament author’s reception of Ps 95 within his context and as part of his argument. Here the author’s application of the psalm, his methodology in using it, and his hermeneutics as revealed by his own interpretation of the psalm would become clear.
39. Ellingworth points out the emphatic function of INFJ_K and to Hebrews’ use of it in “a fortiori arguments comparing the old and the new dispensations (2:3; 12:25)” (Hebrews, 210). 40. This is the introduction of a new “Leitmotiv” (Karrer, Hebräer, 192). 41. So also Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 108. 42. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 111. 43. Karrer, Hebräer, 205. 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
201
4.1. Tradition History of Psalm 95(94) 4.1.1. Background regarding Psalm 95. Different scholars connected Ps 95 with the liturgical traditions44 of early Judaism and early Christianity. Braulik sees the psalm addressed to all Israel, who live in the Promised Land and who are gathered at the temple in Jerusalem for a feast.45 Mowinckel considers particularly the rst part46 of Ps 95 as having all the characteristics of, and belonging to, the “Enthronement Psalms” (Pss 93; 96–99).47 The second part—from which Hebrews quotes—“expresses an idea other than the mere enthronement,” so that the psalm can be considered as a “liturgical composition.”48 Psalm 95 had clear connections to the harvest and new year’s festival,49 according to Mowinckel, who adds that“…it has the conception of Yahweh’s appearance and the revelation of his nature (‘name’) and will—the epiphany concept—also the renewal of the covenant, and an admonition to faithfulness thereto….”50 Mowinckel further expands on the characteristics of these feasts, saying, Just as the harvest feast was ‘Yahweh’s festival’, so new year’s day on the 1st of Tishri was the special festal day of Yahweh… New Year’s day is the day for the ‘sounding of horns’ (yom haššôphr), a rite characteristic of the festal enthronement procession of Yahweh (Pss. 47.6; 98.6; cf. 81.4). It is also called the ‘day for the cry of homage’ (yom hattrû!â); the cry of homage (trû!â) is at the same time characteristic of the psalms and the day of enthronement (47.2, 6; 98.6); the cry of homage means ‘royal homage’, ‘homage to the king’ (trû!ath melekh) for Yahweh; when this cry is heard in Israel it is evidence that ‘Yahweh her God is with her’ (Num 23.21).51 44. Prinsloo reckoned that although there is fair agreement (“redelike sekerheid”) that Ps 95 functioned in the cult, there is doubt about its precise cultic Sitz im Leben; see Willem S. Prinsloo, “Ps 95: As julle maar na sy stem wou luister!,” in Die lof van my God solank ek lewe. Verklaring van ‘n aantal psalms deur Willem S. Prinsloo (ed. W. Beuken et al.; Pretoria: Medpharm, 2000), 155–67 (158) (English version published in M. D. Carroll, D. J. A. Clines and P. R. Davies, eds., The Bible in Modern Society [JSOTSup 200; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1995], 393–410). 45. Georg Braulik, “Gottes Ruhe—Das Land oder der Tempel?,” in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn. Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen. Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag von Heinrich Groß (ed. E. Haag and F.-L. Hossfeld; SBB 13; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986), 33–44 (43). 46. Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, vol. 1 (trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 106, 122, 156. 47. Ibid., 32. 48. Ibid., 106. 49. Ibid., 122. 50. Ibid., 121–22. 51. Ibid., 122. 1
202
Psalms and Hebrews
The Mishnah also supports this Jewish tradition and links New Year’s day with the day of creation—on a par with the feast of tabernacles and the Enthronement Psalms, which also have a special connection with creation.52 Johnson53 and Weiser54 strongly argued in favour of a New Year festival that accompanied the Feast of Booths, while De Vaux55 rejected this. Assuming the existence of the New Year feast, Baly states: “The Creation and Exodus themes are tied together in a number of psalms, which were probably used at this festival (Pss. 74:12–17; 89:1– 18; 95; etc).”56 This is important to remember when considering Hebrews’ use of Ps 95, its reinterpretation of the motif of rest and its connection with Gen 2:2 and creation. 4.1.2. The use of Psalm 95 in the early Jewish and Christian traditions. Although it has been observed before that there are no explicit quotations from Ps 95(94) in our existing corpus of early Jewish and Christian literature, there seems to be at least some possible allusions to Ps 95(94). It is in particular the motifs of rest and of testing as found in this psalm that were part of a number of familiar and recurring motifs in early Judaism and early Christianity. It is therefore not surprising that traces of the section quoted from Ps 95:7–11 by the author of Hebrews are thus to be detected as allusions in 1QS 5:26 (Ps 95:7); 1QH 1:22; 1QS 5:4; Barn 8:5 (Ps 95:10); Odes Sol. 20:8 (Ps 95:11).57 The motifs of rest and testing surfaced also at Qumran. In 4QFlor 1:7 (4Q174) the motif of rest (from enemies) picks up from 2 Sam 7:11. It is also referred to in 4QapJosepha (4Q372), frag. 1, I:5b–6 and reads: “They did not enter] (v. 6) Israel. And he uprooted them from the land [ ] [from the place to him; they did not allow them to rest].” The motif of the testing at Massah and Meribah surfaces in 4QTest (4Q175) v. 15 in a quotation from Deut 33:8–11 and reads: “(whom) you tested at Massah, and with whom you quarrelled about the waters of Meribah….” Familiarity with Ps 95 in liturgical settings can be accepted. Psalms 95 and 96 were apparently “known as the psalms of the invitation for 52. Ibid. 53. Aubrey R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1955). 54. Artur Weiser, The Psalms (Philadelphia: SCM, 1982), 35–52. 55. Roland De Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1980), 502–6. 56. D. Baly, The Geography of the Bible (London: Harper & Row, 1974), 86. 57. Cf. B. H. McLean, Citations and Allusions to Jewish Scripture in Early Christian and Jewish Writings through 180 C.E. (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1992), 75. 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
203
worship.”58 According to Kistemaker, Ps 95 was “regarded as a preamble of services on Friday evening and Sabbath morning” and the “practice undoubtedly stemmed from the Temple ritual which in later years was gradually taken over in the Synagogue.”59 Goulder holds a similar view about the function of Ps 95, though he allocates it as part of the morning liturgy in churches from early times: The psalms in Book IV are numbered 90–106, and we should therefore have the same mnemonic as with the Songs: if they were a festal sequence, evening and morning, the even-numbered psalms would have to fall in the evening and the odd numbers in the morning. This time we have three probable morning psalms, 95, 97 and 101. Psalm 95, the Venite, has been used as a morning psalm in churches from early times: its challenge, ‘Today, if ye hear his voice, Harden not your heart’, seems appropriate in the morning, when there is time for such resolutions (95.7).60
Gzella pointed out the interesting similarities between this passage and Joseph and Asenath: In dem frühjüdischen, hellenistisch geprägten Roman Joseph und Aseneth (die Datierung ist eine crux, man wird wohl von irgendeinem Zeitpunkt zwischen 100 v.Chr. ausgehen können?) bittet weiterhin Joseph für Asenath, sie möge in die LBUBQBVTJK Gottes eingehen (8,9). Der sehr enge sprachliche Anklang an die Septuaginta-Fassung von Ps 95 (94), 11 (die Formulierung FJTFSYFTRBJ FJK UI=O LBUBQBVTJO kommt nämlich nur noch dort und in Dtn 12, 9 vor) dürfte zweifelsohne für ein eschatologisches Verständnis der Psalmenstelle zumindest zur Abfassungszeit des Romans sprechen. Zusammen mit Hebr 3, 7ff bezeugt dies eine verbreitete eschatologische Rezeption des Ruhemotivs im griechischen Psalter, an dem sich die Verfasser dieser Texte orientiert haben.61
4.2. Text Variants and Vorlage 4.2.1. Alternative readings of Psalm 95:7–11. The text traditions that might represent the Vorlage used by the author of Hebrews for his quotation from Ps 95(94) could be divided into the Hebrew and Greek traditions. Turning to the Hebrew textual traditions, it should be noted that some fragments were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) that contain parts of Ps 95:7–11: 4Q94 (4QPsm) and has the text of Ps 95:3–7,
58. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 35. 59. Ibid. 60. Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107–150) (JSOTSup 258; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1998), 109. 61. H. Gzella, Lebenszeit und Ewigkeit. Studien zur Eschatologie und Anthropologie des Septuaginta-Psalters (BBB 134; Berlin: Philo, 2002), 165. 1
Psalms and Hebrews
204
whilst 1Q10 (1QPsa)62 contains Ps 95:11–96:263 and 11QPsa contains Ps 95:11.64 This covers at least the beginning and the end of the section used by the author of Hebrews for his quotation. The fragmentary 1Q10 contains only the last two words in Hebrew (regarding this quotation) and it agrees exactly with the reading of the MT. No evidence, however, of explicit quotations to Ps 95 were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves.65 The closest is the reference to the “forty years” of Ps 95:10 which occurs also in CD 20:14. However, this motif was so widely spread in antiquity that any analogy between these two texts would be impossible to prove.66 When comparing the evidence from the Hebrew traditions as found in the DSS and the MT, the readings which have survived are identical: Ps 95:7 (4QPsm)67 H?I? H H?J9= H9 J< )HJ9 H5J* 4H HEJ C> ) H >E H=B3 )
Ps 95:11 (1QPsa)68
JEIH?> = [
Ps 95:7–11 (MT) H?I ?2 ;H2 H?J9 =@ G H9 J2 ) 2 H >7 E: H+=B@3 ) : 937JC&> <: )<63 32= HB E2= 2 C375 >:32 9D7>2 )H+J< )<6JE H+3 ; J?&HD?& C6 ; J=: A7 H C%)8" J?&H?I73 CH+53 HB 7 9?%% )J :37C 2 )9 H )9 337= J E@ ) 2 C>2 @H% J<7C%5 H 5 J% = JA: 23 JE: 32 ?&C6 ; JE:I7H?> = 6 *H 3@J ) :
62. Cf. D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave I (DJD I; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 69. 63. For the texts, cf. F. García Martinéz and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Vol. 1, 1Q1–4Q273 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 5–6, 283. 64. U. Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Frühjudentum. Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPsa aus Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 65. See J. Maier, Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer. Vol. 2 (UTB 1916; Munich: Reinhardt, 1996). 66. So also H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament (Tübingen: Mohr, 1966), 2:312–13. 67. Cf. A. Lehnardt, Bibliographie zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistischrömischer Zeit (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1999), 6:202. The text is taken from E. Ulrich et al., eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XI. Psalms to Chronicles (DJD 16; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 132. 68. Cf. the catalogue compiled by James A. Sanders, “Pre-Masoretic Psalter Texts,” CBQ 27 (1965): 114–23 (114). Text taken from Barthélemy and Milik, Qumran Cave I, 69. 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
205
When turning to the Greek textual traditions of Ps 94 LXX, the rst striking difference with that of the Hebrew is the presence of the superscription—one of many in the Greek Psalter. Dines describes the superscription here as of a “historicizing or exegetical kind.”69 Comparing now the particular passage of Ps 94:7–11 (LXX), which is quoted here in Heb 3, it is clear that a large part of the text from the quotation reads exactly the same in both the MT and LXX (the latter mostly followed by New Testament). The differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts are mainly to be found in Ps 95(94):8–10. x In v. 8, the singular for “heart” + the plural sufx ()<63 32= ) is replaced in the LXX by the plural for “heart” + the plural personal pronoun (UB=K LBSEJBK VNX_O). x Also in v. 8, attention has been drawn to the interesting phenomenon that the LXX translator of Ps 95 interpreted a noun with an initial > as though this was the rst radical and the Hebrew C>2 was translated with 1BSBQJLSBTNPK.70 When this translation equivalent is compared with the Hebrew 937JC&>, then, according to Walters, one “…cannot even be sure whether the translator, at this rst occurrence of the phrase, did not have in mind instead (J36JC> part. Hiph., cf. 1 Sam. 2:10; Hos. 4:4….”71 1BSBQJLSBTNPK is a hapax legomenon in the LXX, but resurfaces later in the translations of Aquila (1 Chr 15:23), Symmachus (Job 7:11) and Theodotion (Prov 17:11).72 The verb QBSBQJLSBJOFJO, however, occurs fairly frequently in the LXX as a translation for D 2<7 (“provoke”); CC">7 (“be bitter”); 9C%>7 (“be refractory, obstinate”) and CC"D7 (“be stubborn”). x In v. 9b the LXX reads FEPLJNBTBO (without NF) for the Hebrew hapax legomenon J?&H?I73 . The LXX also reads UB= FSHB (plural) for the singular J=: A7 of the MT. x In v. 10a the MT has no demonstrative as in the LXX UI_] HFOFB_] FLFJOI]. x In v. 10c BFJ is added in the LXX.
69. J. M. Dines, The Septuagint (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 49. 70. Cf. P. Walters: “It is obvious that in the Ps. Passage we must spell placenames, FO UX_] 1BSBQJLSBTNX_] and UPV_ 1FJSBTNPV_ = 9D7>2” (The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and their Emendation [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], 151). 71. Ibid., 152. 72. Cf. E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint. Vol. 1, A–I (Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1975), 1063. 1
206
Psalms and Hebrews
Hebrews seems not only to be closer to the LXX in these instances, but almost identical.73 First, it is clear that Hebrews follows a LXX74 text which has already translated the names Meribah (93JC>) and Massah (9D>) with QBSBQJLSBTNPK and QFJSBTNPK.75 Attridge formulated this observation as follows: “The LXX translates these names abstractly, imitating the etymological play in Hebrew, but obscuring the geographical reference.”76 Second, his reference later in 4:7 to David who foretold these words of Ps 94 (LXX) (the only reference in Hebrews to a human author), probably also points to his knowledge of this psalm in the LXX which has David’s name in the heading to the psalm but which lacks in the Hebrew version.77 Third, Hebrews also differs at some of the same points where the LXX differs with the Hebrew. Nonetheless, it reads slightly differently from the LXX as well: FJEPTBO (LXX) became FJ>EPO in Heb 3:9. Some scholars are of the opinion that there might even have been a textual error in the LXX tradition here, which is why FO EPLJNBTJB] is not as close to J?&H?I73 as is the LXX FEPLJNBTBO.78 However, FO EPLJNBTJB] might have been an alternative LXX reading, as testied by P.Bod. XXIV. The reconstructed reading of Ps 94 (LXX) is close to that found in P.Bod. XXIV (Ra 2110), dated in the middle of the second century or in the fourth century C.E.79 None of the additions or omissions, as suggested among the variants of the LXX, are attested by P.Bod. XXIV. The LXX reads: x VNX_O (as in Hebrews)—instead of VNJO in P.Bod. x FEPLJNBTBO instead of FO EPLJNBTJB of P.Bod. (as in Hebrews). 73. Schunack, Hebräerbrief, 48. 74. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 35; Enns, “Interpretation,” 353; D. Moody Smith, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New,” in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring (ed. J. M. Erd; Durham: Duke University Press, 1972), 3–65 (59). 75. Cf. Rüsen-Weinhold, Septuagintapsalter, 202; Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 35; E. Grässer, An die Hebräer. 1.Teilband. Hebr 1–6 (EKK 17/1; Zurich: Benzinger Verlag, 1990), 176; H.-F. Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 259. 76. Attridge, Hebrews, 115. 77. According to Ellingworth, the author follows “Jewish tradition in attributing Ps. 95 to David” (Hebrews, 217). 78. Cf. G. L. Archer and G. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (Chicago: Moody Bible, 1983), 79; Attridge, Hebrews, 115. 79. Cf. D. Fraenkel, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments von Alfred Rahlfs, Vol. I,1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 58–60. 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
x x x
FJEPTBO (FJ>EPO in Hebrews) instead of J EPTBO of P.Bod. UFTTFSBLPOUB (as in Hebrews)—instead of NÐ of P.Bod. LBUBQBVTJO (as in Hebrews)—instead of LBUBQBVTPOUBJ of P.Bod.
Ps 94:7–11 LXX80 TINFSPO FB=O UI_K GXOI_K BVUPV_ BLPVTIUF 8 NI= TLMISVOIUF UB=K LBSEJBK VNX_O XK FO UX_] QBSB QJLSBTNX_] LBUB= UI=O INFSBO UPV_ QFJSBTNPV_ FO UI_] FSINX] 9 PV< FQFJSBTBO PJ QBUFSFK VNX_O FEPLJNBTBO LBJ= FJEPTBO UB= FSHB NPV 10 UFTTFSBLPOUB FUI QSPTXYRJTBUI_] HFOFB_] FLFJOI] LBJ= FJQB BFJ= QMBOX_OUBJ UI_] LBSEJB] LBJ= BVUPJ PVL FHOXTBO UB=K PEPVK NPV, 11 XK XNPTB FO UI_] PSHI_]NPV FJ FJTFMFVTPOUBJ FJK UI=O LBUBQBVTJO NPV 7
207
P.Bod. XXIV (Rahlfs Ra 2110)81 [TINFSPO FBO UIK GXOIK BVUPV BLPVTIUF] [NI TLMISVOIUF UBK LBSEJBKVNXO XK FO] [UX QBSB QJLSBTNX LBUBUIO INFSBO UPV] QFJSBTNPV] FO UI FSINX PV FQ[FJSBTBO PJ QÐSÐFÐKÐ V]NJO FO EPLJNBTJB : LBJ J[E]PTB[O UB FSHB NPV] NÐ FUI QSPTXYRJTB UI HF[OFB FLFJOI LBJ FJQ]B BFJ QMBOXOUBJUI LBSEJB : [LBJ BVUPJ P]VL FHOXTBOUBK PEPVK NPV : XK X[NPTB FO UI PSHINPV FJTFMFVTPOUBJ FJK UI[O LBUBQBVTPOUBJ NPV
4.3. Introductory Formula The introductory formulae of the New Testament quotations contain important information regarding the author’s use and interpretation of Scripture. It serves often to express the authority of a quotation. Introductory formulae were widely used by Judaism82 and there is a clear overlap between the New Testament introductory formulae and those employed at Qumran and by Philo of Alexandria. The author of Hebrews prefers to introduce his explicit quotations with verbs of saying rather than verbs of writing.83 Using forms of MFHX, the author links every quotation to God, the Son or the Holy Spirit.84 The quotation from 80. A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vol. 10, Psalmi cum Odis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 246. 81. Cf. R. Kasser and M. Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer XXIV. Psaumes XVII-CXVIII (Cologny-Geneve: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1967), 189–90; A. Pietersma, “Ra 2110 and the Text of the Greek Psalter,” in Studien zur Septuaginta. Festschrift für Robert Hanhart (ed. D. Fraenkel, U. Quast and J. W. Wevers; MSU 20; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 262–86. Also http://ccat.sas.upenn. edu/rs/rak/earlylxx/earlypaplist.html. 82. E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 79. 83. Cf. Plato’s Phaedrus (274b–77) where he warned that written words are dead and cannot answer back. True philosophy, however, is a live activity. 84. See also Heb 10:15. 1
208
Psalms and Hebrews
Ps 95:7–11 is introduced in Heb 3:7 as if it is an utterance of the Holy Spirit. This is probably done from the tradition that the Spirit spoke through David,85 creating a link with David (cf. 4:7 and the heading of Ps 94 LXX) and 2 Kgdms (LXX) 23:2.86 It was not an unknown practice to quote Old Testament statements that were not made by God in their original contexts, as if they were indeed utterances of God.87 Verbs of saying in introductory formulae were usually used in the prophetic circles of the Hebraists, while verbs of writing were usually used in the prophetic circles of the Hellenists. The author’s consistency in using a form of the verb MFHX in Heb 3–4 is striking. Compare: MFHFJ (3:7); MFHFTRBJ (3:15); FJSILFO (4:3); FJSILFO (4:4); MFHXO (4:7); QSPFJSIUBJ (4:7); FMBMFJ (4:8). 4.4. Alternative Readings of Hebrews 3:7–11 The following variant readings exist among the New Testament manuscripts regarding the text of Ps 95(94):7–11 in Heb 3:7–11: (1) The inclusion of NF between FQFJSBTBO and PJ QBUFSFK VNX_O by a2 2 D Y 0243. 0278. 1739. 1881 M lat sy bo. Some later LXX traditions also support the inclusion, cf. R88 Aug Ga L89 1219 = å. However, there is not enough convincing evidence to assume that NF was part of the original text of either the LXX or of Hebrews.90 (2) The substitution of FO EPLJNBTJB] by either FEPLJNBTBO (v vg; Ambr) or by FEPLJNBTBO NF (a2 D2 Y 0278. å a vgmss sy(p)). These substitutions were most probably made later on the basis of the knowledge of LXX text traditions. The LXX manuscripts, in turn, all read FEPLJNBTBO, but later LXX traditions started to add NF, as in the latter case: Ga(sub *) L A = å. This inclusion by the later LXX traditions was possibly done on the basis of knowledge of the New Testament quotation. In the light of the discussion above regarding the differences between P.Bod. XXIV and the LXX witnesses, there might be a case to be made that a LXX textual version existed that read FO EPLJNBTJB], as the New Testament does, which means that great care should be taken not to ascribe this alternative read85. See also Acts 1:16. 86. Karrer, Hebräer, 208. 87. Cf., for instance, Matt 19:4 which cites Gen 2:24, and Acts 13:34 which cites Isa 55:2. 88. Greek–Latin Psalter of the sixth century. 89. Lucian recension—possibly late third century by the elder Lucian in Antioch. 90. So also E. Ahlborn, “Die Septuaginta-Vorlage des Hebräerbriefes” (Ph.D. diss.; Göttingen: Georg-August-Universität, 1966), 118; and Karrer: “…erkennbar sekundär” (Hebräer, 203). 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
209
ing to the hand of the Hebrews’ author.91 Attridge is also of the opinion that “the original reading was no doubt FO EPLJNBTJB],”92 and so thinks Rüsen-Weinhold too.93 %PLJNBTJB is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament and occurs only twice in the LXX: Pss. Sol. 16:14 and Sir 6:21. (3) The substitution of UBVUI] with FLFJOI] by C D2 Y 0278. å a vgmss sy bo. All the LXX witnesses read FLFJOI]. The combination HFOFB_] UBVUI] is more frequent in the New Testament, but is found only once in the LXX.94 The combination HFOFB_] FLFJOI], however, is limited only to the LXX.95 One can thus assume that the readings in both the reconstructed versions of the LXX and the New Testament are the closest to the original. If that is the case, then this change ought to be ascribed to the author of Hebrews. (4) The substitution of UI_] LBSEJB] BVUPJ= EF with FO UI_] LBSEJB] BVUX_O EJP only by ¸13. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 657 (¸13), dated in the third to fourth century C.E., contains Heb 2:14–5:5; 10:8–22; 10:29–11:13 and 11:28–12:17 with a large number of minor lacunae. P.Oxy 657 is the most extensive papyrus outside the Beatty and Bodmer collections and contains presumably the original, whole of Hebrews. It aligns frequently with ¸46 and with B for the portions of Hebrews where both exist. It is an extremely important witness that has not, so far, received sufcient attention.96 Head and Warren suggested that a re-inking of the scribe’s pen was responsible for this change. This is, according to them, one of four passages that are “of particular interest due to the fact that in these places evidence of re-inking coincides with singular readings (readings attested in no other Greek manuscript) in P. Oxy. 657.”97 There are no LXX witnesses that support either reading. The change should also be 91. This reading exists in P.Bod. XXIV and thus contra E. Ahlborn, who wrote: “So liest kein Zeuge der Septuaginta. Es gibt keine andere Lösung, als daß diese Lesart auf den Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes selbst zurückgeht.” See his lengthy discussion that the author of Hebrews made this change on the basis of stylistic grounds (“Septuaginta-Vorlage,” 118–19). Also Ellingworth sees this reading as one “probably made by the author”—“perhaps to avoid the unusual idea of human beings testing God” (Hebrews, 218). Similarly Enns, “Interpretation,” 353, 356ff. 92. Attridge, Hebrews, 113. 93. “Der Hebr hat jedenfalls diese Lesart, ein Hapax legomenon im Hebr, in seiner Vorlage gefunden, wie sie durch P.Bodmer (2110) bezeugt ist” (RüsenWeinhold, “Septuaginta-Psalter,” 204). 94. New Testament: Matt 12:45; Mark 8:12 (2×); Luke 11:30; Heb 3:10. LXX: Gen 7:1. 95. Exod 1:6; Judg 2:10; Ps 95(94):10. 96. Cf. http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/ManuscriptsPapyri.html#P13. 97. P. M. Head and M. Warren, “Re-inking the Pen: Evidence from P.Oxy 657 (P13) Concerning Unintentional Scribal Errors,” NTS 43 (1997): 466–73. 1
210
Psalms and Hebrews
treated as one which was made by the author of Hebrews. The question is: Which one of these two alternatives is the most authentic one? Attridge argued in favour of the reading of P.Oxy 657 (¸13): “Although P13 may display a simple idiosyncratic corruption, it is likely that the process of making the text of the psalm conform to the LXX was operative and that the unusual wording is original”98—an opinion which can be supported by the fact that scribes often conformed their New Testament text to readings they knew from the LXX.99 However, as the research of Head and Warren on the re-inking of the scribe’s pen indicated, the readings of P.Oxy 657 might in fact have resulted from “a simple idiosyncratic corruption”—“supported by the observation that the relevant line of script in P.Oxy 657 contains two clear cases of re-inking which relate to the singular readings” and, therefore, “the implied exemplar for P. Oxy 657 would not necessarily have reected the text represented by NA27.” They conclude: P. Oxy. 657’s FO UI LBSEJB BVUXO (cf. NA27: UI ] LBSEJB] "VUPJ=) is not a simple alteration but a re-organisation of the thought of the verse, so that the pause for re-inking corresponds precisely with the end of the clause (for P. Oxy 657 although not for NA27). One might argue that, having made that alteration, EF would no longer make sense and so EJP is substituted by the scribe. But such a view would necessarily attribute the text of P. Oxy 657 to the conscious activity of the scribe; if the variants reect deliberate alteration this would strengthen the argument that conscious assimilation towards the text of the LXX is more likely than otherwise inexplicable conscious departure from it, and thus strengthen Attridge’s case.100
4.5. Differences between Psalm 94:7–11 (LXX) and Hebrews 3:7–11 Having worked our way through the text-critical aspects of the Hebrew and Greek textual traditions of Ps 95(94):7–11 and through the possible variant readings of Heb 3:7–11, it becomes clear that the author of Hebrews used a Greek Vorlage for his quotation with very close similarities to that of the LXX. These few deviations might actually represent another LXX Vorlage which is lost to us today. Attridge thinks in the same direction, although his reason for this assumption cannot be accepted when he says: “These all may simply be due to a different LXX text, since they do not seem to serve any particular purpose in Hebrew’s 98. Attridge, Hebrews, 113. 99. This has been demonstrated in the case of Old Testament citations in Hebrews by A. H. Cadwallader, “The Correction of the Text of Hebrews towards the LXX,” Novum Testamentum 34 (1992): 257–92 (see n. 40 on pp. 264f. for a discussion of this passage). 100. Head and Warren, Re-inking, 466–73. 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
211
application of the psalm.”101 Two changes do indeed serve a very particular purpose in the application of Ps 94 (LXX), as will be discussed below. Closer to the truth might be the answer found in Kistemaker’s conclusion, namely, that “the various textual divergencies are not so much the work of the author, but most likely have been brought about by constant usage in places of worship. It appears plausible that the writer has taken the quotation in its present form out of the ritual of worship services conducted in the Greek tongue.”102 However, due to the lack of such evidence, the following changes between the two versions could alternatively be ascribed very cautiously to the hand of the author of Hebrews: 4.5.1. Linguistic adaptations towards Attic Greek. The substitution of FJ>EPTBO (Ps 94:9 LXX) with FJEPO (Heb 10:9): The form FJ>EPTBO is not to be found in the New Testament at all, but is fairly common in Hellenistic Greek and in the LXX—the latter where it occurs 28 times. The form FJEPO in turn, is closer to Classical (Attic) Greek. This change should thus be treated as a mere linguistic alteration and one that is probably made on the basis of our author’s Greek abilities. The change is of no theological value. The substitution of FJQB (Ps 94:10 LXX) with FJ>QPO (Heb 10:3): The LXX uses here the more common Hellenistic rst aorist indicative form of MFHX (FJQB), whereas the author of Hebrews prefers again—as with FJEPO above—the Classical (Attic) Greek second aorist indicative form, FJ>QPO. Ahlborn pointed out that the author’s use of the Attic aorist forms here, is in line with his practice in the rest of Hebrews where there is a preference for Attic forms.103 4.5.2. Contextual adaptations for the readers of Hebrews. The substitution of UI_] HFOFB]_ FLFJOI] (Ps 94:10 LXX) by UI_] HFOFB_] UBVUI] (Heb 10:3): The author of Hebrews adapted his quotation from the original reference in his Vorlage, “that generation,” to now referring to “this generation”— “thus preparing the way for the psalm to be reapplied to his own readers.”104 This coincides with the fact that the phrase UI_] HFOFB_] FLFJOI] does 101. Attridge, Hebrews, 115–16. 102. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 36. 103. “Wenn richtig ist, daß der Verfasser, wie wir annehmen, hellenistische Aoristbildungen in seiner Vorlage hatte, so steht fest, daß er diese selbständig durch attische ersetzte” (Ahlborn, “Septuaginta-Vorlage,” 119). 104. C. Spicq, L’épître aux Hebreux (Etudes Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1953), 74; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 218; Enns, “Interpretation,” 357. Contra Attridge, who sees this as a “minor variation” (Hebrews, 115). 1
212
Psalms and Hebrews
not occur in the New Testament and the author replaces it with the more common UI_] HFOFB_] UBVUI].105 In light of the fact that the quotation is presented as “the Holy Spirit (who) says”—note the present tense, MFHFJ—it is clear that the author intended this quotation to be the current living words of God which are directed to his current audience. Substitution of LBJ= BVUPJ (Ps 94:10 LXX) by BVUPJ= EF (Heb 3:10): The difference between using LBJ and EF is that LBJ would function more as a copulative particle whereas EF “is used to connect one clause with another when it is felt that there is some contrast between them, though the contrast is often scarcely discernible.”106 The number of sequential vowels in the phrase LBJ= BVUPJ= PVL would probably also read easier in the alternative BVUPJ= EF= PVLThis may well be, again, a linguistic adaptation by the author of Hebrews due to his own stylistic preferences. The inclusion of EJP between FUI and QSPTXYRJTB in Heb 3:10: The particle EJP that occurs here in Hebrews is absent in both the MT and the LXX and there is no manuscript evidence for this variant.107 The author made an alternative division in the text of Ps 94 (LXX) with this inclusion. This inferential conjunction results in an important point in the quotation and has shifted the emphasis and changed the meaning signicantly. The period of forty years is no longer associated with God’s wrath, but with the period of God’s activity in the desert when the Israelites tested God’s works.108 Similarly, Num 14 and Ps 95 attest a negative perception about the forty years in the desert. Whereas the MT and the LXX is interpreted that God was angry for forty years, according to Hebrews God was active in the desert for forty years and his anger follows after that period. In the words of Enns: “It seems that he is concerned to portray the wilderness period in a positive light—one that is not characterized by wrath.”109 The difference between the interpretation 105. Ahlborn, “Septuaginta-Vorlage,” 120; Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 35–36; K. K. Yeo, “The Meaning and Usage of the Theology of ‘Rest’ [katavpausi~ and sabbatismov~] in Hebrews 3:7–4:13,” Asia Journal of Theology 5 (1991): 2–33 (5). 106. Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, Greek–English Lexicon, 171. Similarly Ellingworth: “The main effect of reading BVUPJ= EF is to suggest a contrast” (Hebrews, 218). 107. Enns, “Interpretation,” 353. 108. Attridge, Hebrews, 115. Following Hous, Attridge reckons that “it is possible that the author conceived of two periods of forty years, one of disobedience and one of punishment.” Similarly Ahlborn: “Nach dem Hebräerbrief gehören die UFTTFSBLPOUB FUI zum vorausgehenden Passus; die Septuaginta (=Mas) hatte die Zeitbestimmung zum folgenden gezogen” (“Septuaginta-Vorlage,” 120). Also Ellingworth, Hebrews, 218; Schunack, Hebräerbrief, 48; Enns, “Interpretation,” 353; Rüsen-Weinhold, “Septuaginta-Psalter,” 205. 109. Enns, “Interpretation,” 354. 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
213
of the two texts, the LXX and Hebrews, can clearly be seen in the author of Hebrews’ commentary on this in 3:17. There he interprets it, without the EJP, in the part of his exposition which refers to the original context of the Exodus generation. The author of Hebrews made very few changes to this long quotation when citing it here. No drastic insertions or omissions occur. Neither are there many substitutions. Those that do occur open the possibility to interpret Ps 94 (LXX) with slightly different theological foci. Two kinds of changes do occur, though: (a) a few basically minor linguistic adaptations that resonate the author’s preference for Attic Greek, and (b) two alterations within the quotation itself by which the author adapts his quotation as a current appeal to the audience of his time: “that generation” became “this generation,” and the addition of EJP points to the reason (“therefore”) for God’s anger with this generation. These alterations bring the quotation in line with the author’s approach to, and theological application of, Scripture as living, spoken and authoritative Word of God which is normative for his generation. 4.6. Remarks Regarding the Vorlage of the Quotation Not one of the verses of this psalm is anywhere else explicitly quoted by any of the New Testament writers, as is the case with Pss 40, 45 and 102 in Hebrews. Looking at the extensive manner in which Ps 95(94) is quoted here, referred to and explained by the author of Hebrews, one could fairly safely assume that the author himself was responsible for nding and applying this quotation within his argument. The chances are therefore good that the author of Hebrews was himself responsible for the identication and application of this psalm. In this sense, the identication and application of the quotation from Ps 95 should not only provide valuable insight into the author of Hebrews’ knowledge and use of his Scriptures, but also insight into his hermeneutical integration of his Scriptures into the context of his argument. This leaves us with the interesting question of how he found it and in what version. 5. Interpretation: Exposition and Application (3:12–4:11): The Amplicatio After presenting the quotation from Ps 94:7–11 (LXX) in Heb 3:7–11, the author moves to an exposition and contemporary application of the psalm for his readers110 which highlights his actual purpose with the 110. Kistemaker reckons that the long quotation “stand separate from the foregoing and is quoted for the sake of exposition and application” (Psalm Citations, 85). 1
214
Psalms and Hebrews
quotation.111 The “brothers” are exhorted to ensure that an attitude of unbelief does not germinate in their midst and that they do not “turn away from the living God” (Heb 3:12). What is at stake is their faith in Christ (cf. 3:14), but the author of Hebrews argues that they would actually become unfaithful to the living God himself. This unfaithfulness to the living God is a strong reminder about the covenant that God entered into with his people when he led them out of Egypt. He would give them the Promised Land and they had to worship and obey him and never forget him. The exodus motif is thus interwoven into the author’s argument. (He probably also ends his book with this motif in Heb 13, where he quotes from Ps 118, which was used as part of the Great Hallel of the festival of the Passover, during which the Exodus from Egypt was celebrated.) The idea of a new exodus in the existence of the Early Church was not a foreign concept during New Testament times. The suffering of Christ himself was linked to the Passover by John. Scholars have also pointed out that this new exodus motif was also common in some Jewish sectarian groups, such as the Essenes. 5.1. The Structure of the Author’s Commentary Moody Smith already made reference to “the complex patterns of exegetical discussion in Hebrews.”112 The argument in which Ps 94 (LXX) is used starts at Heb 3:1 and runs through to Heb 4:13. It ends in an important remark regarding the author’s opinion of the P MPHPK UPV_ RFPV_ in Heb 4:12. It is important to take note of three important ways in which the author of Hebrews deals with this quotation. First, he quotes fairly substantially from this psalm. Secondly, he also presents a commentary, or explanation, on the psalm in a midrashic manner, similar to the pesher style to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls113 “in which a particular passage is given an eschatological interpretation.”114 Thirdly, he refers four times 111. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 219. 112. D. Moody Smith, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New,” in Erd, ed., The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays, 3–65 (59). 113. Attridge calls this a “little homiletic midrash” (Hebrews, 114), while Karrer talks of “Impulsen von Pesher und Midrasch” (Hebräer, 206) and Rüsen-Weinhold sees it to be “midraschartig” (Septuagintapsalter, 202). Similarly Enns: “His exegetical technique is similar to what we nd, for example, in the commentaries of the Qumran community” (Interpretation, 362); and D. Flusser: “In this case, therefore, the Essene exegesis and the rabbinic midrash do not represent two different worlds—both belong together” (“ ‘Today if you will listen to his voice’: Creative Jewish Exegesis in Hebrews 3–4,” in Creative Biblical Exegesis: Christian and Jewish Hermeneutics Through the Centuries [ed. B. Uffenhemer and H. G. Reventlow; JSOTSup 59; Shefeld: JSOT, 1988], 55–62 [57]). 114. Enns, “Interpretation,” 352. 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
215
back to the explicit quotation (repetition) in a ring compositional manner. He picks up the rst verse quoted (Ps 94:7), then the last (Ps 94:11), again the last (Ps 94:11) and then again the rst (Ps 94:7).115 The two references from Ps 94:11 are presented before and after a reference to Gen 2:2, which stands in the centre of the ring composition. Structurally, it can be illustrated as follows: Quotation: Commentary:
Ps 94:7–11 (Heb 3:7–11) a. Ps 94:7 (Heb 3:15) b. Ps 94:11 (Heb 4:3) c. Gen 2:2 (Heb 4:4) b’. Ps 94:11 (Heb 4:5) a’. Ps 94:7 (Heb 4:7)
The train of thought develops in a circular fashion rather, than in a linear manner.116 Just before he quoted the passage from Ps 94:7–11 (LXX), he referred in 3:6 to the fact that they are holding on to “the courage and the hope.” Then follows the introductory formula introducing the reason why they hold on to this courage and hope, beginning with “therefore.” Immediately following his quotation, the author uses CMFQFUF (imperative) as an attention marker for his readers, who are addressed again as BEFMGPJ (vocative). He now picks up on a number of points in the quotation as key aspects that he wants to draw their attention to. He does this by switching between the contexts of the current readers (this generation) and that of the exodus generation (that generation) to which the quotation actually refers.117 He sides himself now and then with his current readers, talking about “we” (rst person plural), while at other times addressing them as “you” (second person plural). These current readers are then reminded that they should be cautious not to commit the same acts of unfaithfulness and disobedience as “they” (third person plural), i.e. their ancestors, did. Karrer aptly summarises the structural ow by saying that the author “verschmilzt…seinen rhetorischen Duktus (den Weg vom Imperativ [3,8.12] über rhetorische Fragen [3,16–18] zur Selbstaufforderung [4,1.11]) und jüdische Schriftdarlegung.”118 Attridge noted that the exposition of the psalm, which is marked by an inclusio, develops in three segments (3:12–19; 4:1–5, 6–11), of which each, in 115. Cf. also Schunack: “Das Schwergewicht in der Auslegung des PsalmTextes liegt auf der Anfangs- und der Schlussaussage” (Hebräerbrief, 47). 116. Attridge, Hebrews, 124. 117. Flusser reckons that “in the whole of the epistle to the Hebrews there is no contrast between Israel and Christianity, but an essential gradation” (“Creative Jewish Exegesis,” 60). 118. Karrer, Hebräer, 206. 1
216
Psalms and Hebrews
turn, has an inclusio and quotes a part of the psalm.119 Within Attridge’s scheme, the middle segment would then actually contain both the quotations from Ps 94:11 (LXX), with the quotation from Gen 2:2 embedded between them. The rst segment (3:12–19) deals with the quotation in the light of Num 14, concentrating attention on the past historical situation with a predominant note of warning.120 The second and third segments (4:1–11) relate the quotation to Gen 2:2, concentrating attention on the application of Scripture to the readers’ situation with a predominant note of promise.121 5.2. Application to the Current Readers (Hebrews 3:12–15)—“We” or “You.” It cannot be agreed with Kistemaker that the author of Hebrews “begins with a few sweeping statements in which he reveals the heart of the matter.”122 It is a well-planned and well thought through exposition. The rst part of the commentary makes it clear that here are two distinct generations: “we” and “they.” The author starts with his current readers and picks up on three key terms at the beginning of the quotation: LBSEJB, TINFSPO and NI= TLMISVORI_]. He appeals to his readers to take heed of their attitude, so that none of them should have “a sinful, unbelieving heart (LBSEJB QPOISB= BQJTUJBK) that turns away from the living God” (3:12). The references in the quotation, “not to harden their hearts” (NI= TLMISVOIUF UB=K LBSEJBK VNX_O, 3:8) and “their hearts are always going astray” (BFJ= QMBOX_OUBJ UI_] LBSEJB], 3:10), would still have echoed in their minds. The command to reprove one another probably stems from Lev 19:17.123 The urgency of their commitment and perseverance is pointed out by linking back to TINFSPO, the word with which he started his quotation. They should “encourage each other daily as long as it is called ‘today’ (TINFSPO)” (3:13)—a similar idea that resurfaces again in Heb 10:24.
119. Attridge, Hebrews, 114. 120. H. Löhr labels 3:12–14 “Mahnung” (“Heute, wenn ihr seine Stimme hört…”: Zur Kunst der Schriftanwendung im Hebräerbrief und in 1 Kor 10, 226– 248, in Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum [ed. M. Hengel and H. Löhr; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994], 226–48 [229]). 121. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 237. 122. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 111. 123. Flusser, “Creative Jewish Exegesis,” 56. The motif of reproving each other is to be found in Ben Sira 19:13–17. Josephus too, mentions that the Essenes “are obliged ‘to be forever lovers of truth and to reprove and expose liars’ ” (Bell. 2.141). Cf. CD 7:2–3; 9:2–8; 1QS 5:25–6:1. 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
217
The reason why (JOB) they should encourage each other is that sin’s deceitfulness would not harden them (NI= TLMISVORI_], 3:13)—which is the warning at the beginning of the quotation: NI= TLMISVOIUF (3:8). Yet again, he refers now back to the opening part of the quotation (3:7b–8a) and does so by means of explicitly quoting it again with its own introductory formula. This would be the third time that the readers have heard the same words: rst in the initial quotation itself, then in the exposition, now in the re-quoting (3:15). 5.3. Explanation of the Original Context (Hebrews 3:16–18)—“They” Moving back to the original context in which the quoted passage refers, the author of Hebrews approaches his text by posing a number of questions (ve in total).124 He does this in three sets of questions and answers—of which the rst two sets of answers are also presented in question form by means of rhetorical questions. Each of the three sets focuses on the identity of the original group. Each set starts with an interrogative: UJOFK (who, 3:16); UJTJO (with whom, 3:17); UJTJO (to whom, 3:18).125 Kistemaker points to the importance of this: “Because the word UJOFK species in this lesson from church history those that provoked, sinned, died, and did not enter into the promised rest, the interrogative pronoun is of great importance in this pericope.”126 Each of the three sets picks up again some key phrases from the original quotation which were not yet commented upon in the previous part: BLPVTIUF…FO UX_] QBSBQJLSBTNX_] UFTTFSBLPOUB FUI…QSPTXYJTRB and XNPTB…FJTFMFVTPOUBJ FJK UI=O LBUBQBVTJO NPV. The author reminds his readers about the unfaithfulness of the people of God during the time of their exodus from Egypt. Who was the group that rejected the rest? The subject that rejected this rest is identied: QBOUFK PJ FDFMRPOUFK FD "JHVQUPV (v. 16); UPJ_K BNBSUITBTJO (v. 17). The original exodus generation was intended for God’s rest. But because of their disobedience to God and to Moses, they did not succeed in achieving this rest. Now, through the call of Christ, a new generation is called to this rest.127 The quotation referred to the exodus generation that was called to “hear” (BLPVTIUF, 3:7) but they were “in 124. Attridge points to a very similar feature in Philo’s expositions (Hebrews, 120). 125. Cf. also 3:12 (UJOJ VNX_O), 13 (UJK FD VNX_O); 4:1 (UJK FD VNX_O), 6 (UJOBK). 126. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 109. 127. Cf. G. Reim: “Der Kyrios Jesus ist der große Hirte für diese Schafe (13,20)” (“Vom Hebräerbrief zum Johannesevangelium, anhand der Psalmzitate,” BZ 44 [2000]: 92–99 [93]). 1
218
Psalms and Hebrews
rebellion” (FO UX_] QBSBQJLSBTNX],_ 3:8). The author of Hebrews asks now (3:16): “Who were they who heard (BLPVTBOUFK) and rebelled (QBSFQJLSBOBO).” The answer is given by means of a rhetorical question, starting with BMM PV: “Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt?” The quotation in 3:10 referred to the forty years that the Exodus generation spent in the desert (UFTTFSBLPOUB FUI) and that God was angry (QSPTXYRJTB) with them. It was pointed out above that a shift in emphasis took place from the forty years being a period of testing for the exodus generation in the desert, to being a period now of God’s wrath. Now, in his second set of questions and answers, the author of Hebrews poses his third question: “With whom was he angry (QSPTXYRJTFO) for forty years (UFTTFSBLPOUB FUI)?” He answers again by means of a rhetorical question, starting with PVYJ (3:17): “Was it not with all those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert?” This quotation refers to the fact that God took an oath (XNPTB)128 that they shall never enter his rest (FJTFMFVTPOUBJ FJK UI=O LBUBQBVTJO NPV, 3:11). In his third set, the author of Hebrews asked the next question (3:18): “And to whom did God swear (XNPTFO) that they would never enter his rest (NI= FJTFMFVTFTRBJ FJK UI=O LBUBQBVTJO BVUPV_) if not to those who disobeyed?” The use of FJ and FJTFMFVTPOUBJ in the ow of the argument also needs to be noted here: FJ FJTFMFVTPOUBJ (3:11);129 NI= FJTFMFVTPOUBJ FJ NI= UPJ_K BQFJRITBTJO (3:18); FJ (4:3, 5); PVL FJTI_MRPO (4:6). The author responds again, though not this time by means of a rhetorical question, but by means of a concluding statement: “So we see (CMFQPNFO; cf. 3:12) that they were not able to enter (FJTFMRFJ_O), because of their unbelief (BQJTUJBO)” (3:19). 5.4. The Motif of “Rest”: ,BUBQBVTJK and 4BCCBUJTNPK (Hebrews 4:1–11) The author starts this next section with the remark that the promise (FQBHHFMJB)130 about entering into God’s LBUBQBVTJK131 still stands (4:1). He picks this issue up from 3:6, where he stated that the believers are holding on to courage and hope. The term, LBUBQBVTJK, becomes a new “Leitthema” that is to be found eleven times exclusively here between 3:11 and 4:11.132 The believers are exhorted to “be careful that none of 128. Cf. 7:21. See also Acts 2:30. 129. A strong negation and a Hebraism here and in 4:3, 5 (Karrer, Hebräer, 203). 130. A specically Jewish-Christian term (ibid., 211). 131. For a comprehensive discussion of this term, see O. Hous, “Katapausis”: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT 11; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1970); Attridge, Hebrews, 126–28. 132. Karrer, Hebräer, 205. 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
219
them (‘you’) be found to have fallen short of it.” The author now sides him with his readers when he refers to “we” (4:2, 3); he calls them PJ QJTUFVTBOUFK (4:3). He continues thus with his comparison of the two groups—“we/you” and “they” (LBRBQFS LBLFJ_OPJ, 4:2). That generation’s exposure to the message and their reaction to it is compared with this generation: “we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard (P MPHPK UI_K BLPI_K FLFJOPVK) was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith” (NI= TVHLFLSBTNFOPVK UI_] QJTUFJ UPJ_K BLPVTBTJO, 4:2). There is a connection between BLPI_K and BLPVTBTJO here in 4:2 and BLPVTIUF in the quoted psalm (Heb 3:7b). God’s promise and the people’s response to it by faith go hand in hand. The difference with that generation was, then, that they merely heard the message, but did not blend it with faith. They are contrasted with the group to which the author of Hebrews also belongs: “Now, we who have believed enter that rest” (4:3).133 The bridge has been built for a new group who could claim the very same promise.134 The promise thus remains the same but the previous group did not succeed in entering God’s rest. The current group has access to it because they believe, blending the hearing of the promise with faith. The element of faith becomes now a prerequisite for entering into the “rest”135 and he contrasts warning and promise with each other.136 The author now re-quotes part of the initial quotation for a second (Heb 4:3) and a third time (Heb 4:5). Both these are taken from Ps 94:11. Between these two recurrences of Ps 94:11 stands the quotation from Gen 2:2. The author uses Scripture here to explain Scripture by means of the rabbinical gezera shewa midrash technique.137 It is on the basis of the combined strength of the two Scripture passages (Ps 94:11 LXX and Gen 2:2) that the author draws the conclusion that those who believe shall enter God’s rest.138 The reference to Gen 2:2 is dealt with again later in Heb 4:9. It is at this point, at the core of his ring compositional argument, 133. In the words of Attridge: “…delity is stressed as the way to attain the goal of divine ‘rest’ ” (Hebrews, 104). 134. Attridge calls Ps 95 “the hinge in the development of the argument” between the rst phase where the old and new recipients of the promise are contrasted, and the where the second phase begins (Hebrews, 126). 135. Similarly Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 109. 136. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 219. 137. So also Karrer, Hebräer, 216; Attridge, Hebrews, 128–29; A. Lincoln, Hebrews: A Guide (London: Continuum, 2006), 71; H. Weiss, “Sabbatismos in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” CBQ 58 (1996): 674–89 (681). 138. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 110. He states that Hebrews employs the word “rest” sensu pleniore by combining the two passages (on p. 113). 1
220
Psalms and Hebrews
in quoting Gen 2:2, where the transition from LBUBQBVTJO as the promised land of that generation, to LBUBQBVTJO as a Sabbatical period for this generation, takes place.139 By using Gen 2:2 the author reinterprets his key term LBUBQBVTJK in Ps 94 (LXX) in terms of the Sabbath.140 Kistemaker identies a “threefold rest” of which Ps 95 speaks: “God’s rest after creation, Israel’s rest in Canaan, and the true rest for the people of God.”141 Acknowledging such a threefold rest, one could actually connect God’s creation rest with the quotation from Gen 2:2, Israel’s Canaan rest with the quotation of Ps 94:11 just prior to Gen 2:2, and the true rest of God’s people with the second quotation from Ps 94:11. The motif of rest is rmly rooted in the importance of the Sabbath as such and substantiated on the basis of God who rested on the seventh day after he created everything.142 This same motivation—that God rested on the seventh day—is to be found in the quotation from Gen 2:2,143 presented by the author as the centre of his commentary on Ps 94:7–11 (LXX). “(T)he sabbath is the symbol of eschatological salvation.”144 Bauernfeind too highlights the role of Gen 2:2 in this regard, saying, “As the Old Testament promise points beyond Moses to Christ, so the rest of God in Gen. 2:2 points beyond Joshua and David (4:7–8) to the nal rest to which believers in Christ will attain if they hold fast to their faith.”145 The fact that the author mentions that “it is said somewhere” (FJSILFO HB=S QPV) when introducing this quotation, is most probably an indication that he consciously refers here to the relevant passage but that he does so from memory. 139. Kistemaker already pointed out that in Heb 4:4 the concept of rest is placed in the realm of spiritual things (Psalm Citations, 110). So also Attridge who mentions that in the author’s suggestion in 4:4–5, “the term ‘rest’ has a different sense from that accorded in the psalm, where it refers primarily to the resting place of Canaan” (Hebrews, 116). Similarly Enns: “By citing Gen. 2.2, our author is arguing that the rest that is the reward to the faithful new exodus community is to be understood not as physical land, but as an eschatological rest; specically the rest God has enjoyed since the completion of his creative work” (“Interpretation,” 359). 140. Karrer states: “Die Ruhe, die Gottt den Vätern ihrer Anmaßung wegen versagte, ist deshalb weit mehr als die Ruhe eines verheißenen irdischen Landes um den irdischen Ruheort Gottes (den Tempel in Jerusalem)” (Hebräer, 216). 141. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 132. 142. Attridge reminds about the fact that “in some apocalyptic texts, and particularly in Philo, it is ultimately the primordial sabbath of God’s own rest that is in view” (Hebrews, 129). 143. Cf. Gert J. Steyn, “A Note on the Vorlage of the Citation from Gen 2,2 in Heb 4,4,” Ekklesiastikos Pharos 84 (2002): 43–50. 144. Attridge, Hebrews, 129. 145. O. Bauernfeind, “LBUB QBVTJK,” TDOT 3:628. 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
221
From the preceding exposition (3:16–18), LBUBQBVTJK would seem, then, to refer to the Promised Land146 during the times of the exodus generation, although it might have been used by the worshiper in Ps 95(94) in terms of the temple as the resting place.147 The author is at least aware of the original context of the Promised Land, as his exposition shows here in 3:16–18. However, as his exposition develops, the term is being reinterpreted in terms of a Sabbatical period148 that does not need to be detached necessarily from a temple context. The noun LBUBQBVTJK is used in the LXX for the Promised Land (Deut 12:9), when the Ark of the Covenant came to rest (Num 10:35/6; 1 Chr 6:31; 2 Chr 6:41), for the Sabbath (Exod 34:21; 35:2) or for the Jubilee (Lev 25:28). An interesting passage which also refers to LBUBQBVTJK is 3 Kgdms 8:56149: FVMPHIUP=K LVSJPK TINFSPO PK FEXLFO LBUBQBVTJO UX]_ MBX_] BVUPV_ *TSBIM LBUB= QBOUB PTB FMBMITFO. Both the motifs of “rest” and of “today” are combined here with “his people Israel” (cf. 4:9: UX_] MBX]_ UPV_ RFPV_) and with his promise. It is clear that God’s people already received the LBUBQBVTJK here in 3 Kingdoms.150 So, why would the author of Hebrews state that they have not received it? In Heb 4:8 the author refers to the fact that “if Joshua ( *ITPV_K) had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day” (BMMIK INFSBK, 4:8). Is he now referring to another LBUBQBVTJK—perhaps rather a Sabbatical period— than the land itself? Does he imply, then, that this “Joshua” (Jesus) would be able to lead them to this “rest” (a Sabbath period)? Attridge nds the “key to understanding how it is that the promise remains open [is] to see that God’s promised ‘rest’ is not the earthly land of Canaan but a heavenly reality, which God entered upon the completion of creation (vv. 3b–5).” Furthermore, “…it remains open for those who currently hear the psalm to join in the festive sabbath rest that God enjoys (vv. 9–10).”151
146. Karrer writes: “Er ‘geht ein’ in die ‘Ruhe’ wie ein gelobtes Land” (Hebräer, 205). 147. Cf. Braulik, Gottes Ruhe, 43. Also Karrer: “Sie werden anders als die jetzigen Beter des Psalms nicht zu seiner Ruhestätte, dem Tempel kommen” (Hebräer, 210). 148. “Die Verheißung ist…verblieben. Sie bestimmt für das Volk Gottes die Ruhe des siebten Schöpfungstages, die Sabbatruhe und Sabbatfeier Gottes” (Karrer, Hebräer, 218). 149. An “association of the temple with the divinely provided LBUBQBVTJK” is probably to be found here in 3 Kgdms 8:54–56 (Attridge, Hebrews, 126). 150. See also Josh 1:13, 15; 21:44; 22:4; 23:1. 151. Attridge, Hebrews, 123. 1
222
Psalms and Hebrews
Slightly different is the theory of Käsemann,152 who wanted to emphasize a “wandering motif”153 of God’s people (“das wandernde Gottesvolk”) from the earthly world to the heavenly as the underlying motif of Hebrews. He based his argument on Heb 3:7–4:13 and on Heb 10:19ff. and understands the “rest” as the “Gott verheißenen himmlische Heimat.” “Das Gottesvolk verlasse die irdische Welt und wandere der himmlischen Heimat zu.”154 Gäbel quite rightly pointed out that there is no reference to a “wandering people of God” in Hebrews, but rather to an “addressed people.”155 It is the faithful listening to the divine speech that becomes the prerequisite for the entry into the heavenly “rest” at the end of time.156 It is therefore, in this sense, a “gegenwärtige Teilnahme am himmlischen Kult.” Gäbel makes it clear that one ought to distinguish here between the following: “Eines ist die Rede von dem von Gott angeredeten Israel der Wüstenzeit, ein anderes die Rede vom himmlischen Vaterland, ein anderes das gegenwärtige Hinzugetreten-Sein der Adressaten zum himmlischen Kult.”157 The suggestion of Hous, of entry into the eschatological temple (i.e. that God’s LBUBQBVTJK is identical with the heavenly sanctuary), would perhaps make sense within the broader context and theology of Hebrews—a viewpoint similar to that of Gäbel: “Eintritt in die LBUBQBVTJK (4,1.11) bzw. in das himmlische Allerheiligste in der Folge des Eintretens Christi (6,19f).” Do we have here a connection between the rich cultic imagery of the temple, sacrices and the high priest that will be discussed later in Hebrews on the one hand, and the author’s understanding of a Sabbath period with its liturgical setting, on the other hand? It was stated in Heb 2:17 that Jesus became “a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God” and that he makes atonement for the sins of the people. Attridge reminds us that: “In Jewish tradition generally the sabbath was not simply a time of quiet and 152. Ernst Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk. Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), 5. 153. Enns holds a similar view: “In the same way that the original exodus community, which rebelled at Meribah and Massah, was a community wandering through the wilderness, so too is the church a community of wilderness wanderers living between Egypt and Canaan with the ever present possibility of rebellion” (“Interpretation,” 352). 154. The position of Käsemann as summarised by G. Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebr äerbriefes (WUNT 2/212: Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 427. 155. Gäbel (ibid.) writes “…es müsste nach Maßgabe der Einleitung dieses Abschnitts (Hebr 3,7–11) mit dem Zitat aus Y 94(Ps 95),7 nicht vom ‘wandernde[n]’, sondern vom angeredeten Gottesvolk gesprochen warden.” 156. Ibid. 157. Ibid., 428. 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
223
inactivity but of festive praise and celebration. Similarly, as noted already, descriptions of heavenly or eschatological rest in Jewish sources often depict it in terms of such ‘sabbatical’ activity as praise and thanksgiving directed toward God.”158 There are indeed some indicators that conrm this change from LBUBQBVTJK as the Promised Land to a Sabbath period: (a) the application of Gen 2:2, which clearly refers to the Sabbath day (FO UI_] INFSB] UI_] FCEPNI]) in 4:4; (b) the identication of this rest as “rest from work” (UX_O FSHXO) in 4:3, 4; (c) God’s setting of a “certain day” (UJOB= INFSBO) in 4:7; (d) the reference to “another day” (BMMIK INFSBK) in 4:8 and then (e) the sudden use of TBCCBUJTNPK in 4:9. Hous pointed out that “The New Testament offers in Heb 4:9 the oldest documentation of the noun TBCCBUJTNPK, which occurs several times in post-New Testament early Christian writings independently of Heb 4:9.”159 According to Hous, the word should neither be seen as “identical in meaning nor interchangeable with LBUBQBVTJK (3:11, 18; 4:1, 3, 5, 10f.); it designates more closely what the people of God should expect when they enter the LBUBQBVTJK of God (cf. 4:9 with v. 6a).” “Accordingly, the author of Hebrews understands by TBCCBUJTNPK the eternal Sabbath celebration of salvation, i.e. the perfected community’s worship before God’s throne.”160 The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrices, or Angelic Liturgy, that was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QShirShab), with a fragment also found at Masada, comes to mind here. Here, we learn that the worshiping community would proceed in a liturgical procession, reaching a point in their liturgy at which they believed themselves to be worshiping with the angels in heaven before God’s throne (cf. Heb 12:22ff.). When looking at Heb 3:7–4:11 and the prominence of the motif of “rest” or “resting place” (UI=O LBUBQBVTJO, Heb 3:18; TBCCBUJTNPK, Heb 4:8), one becomes aware of the possibility that the author and his readers might have been converts from a group that held the Sabbath in high regard. The two keywords used by the author of Hebrews within this motif of rest are TINFSPO and LBUBQBVTJO. It is thus noteworthy that the 158. Attridge, Hebrews, 131. 159. Cf. Justin, Dial. 23:3; Origen, Orat. 27:16; Epiphanius, Haer. 30.2.2; 66.85.9; Acts (Martyrdom) of Peter and Paul 1; Apostolic Constitutions 2.36.2; pseudo-Macarius (Symeon), Homily 12.2.4. The only non-Christian occurrence is in Plutarch (ca. 46–120 C.E.), Superst. 3 (Moralia 166a) (see O. Hous, “TBCCBUJTNPK,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament [ed. H. Balz and G. Schneider; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 3:219). 160. Hous, “TBCCBUJTNPK,” 219. Attridge (Hebrews, 130) refers to the term as “sabbath observance.” 1
224
Psalms and Hebrews
author’s delimitation of the quoted section, i.e. the beginning and end of the section that he quotes, is probably chosen on the basis of the fact that it starts with TINFSPO (Ps 94:7) and ends with LBUBQBVTJO (Ps 94:11). Both these terms are also playing a prominent role in Deuteronomy. For TINFSPO compare, for instance, Deut 11:2, 8; 29:9, 14, and for LBUBQBVTJO compare Deut 12:8–9. It is clear that one cannot argue in favour of the author’s reliance on Deuteronomy here for these motifs in the light of his use and application of Ps 94 (LXX). What is clear, though, is that Deuteronomy equates the promise to “rest” with the “inheritance of the promised land.”161 There are many indicators pointing to Egypt (Alexandria?) as a possible context for the author of Hebrews and/or the group to whom he writes. The good Greek, the overlap between the readings of the Torah quotations of Philo, the close connections with the Alexandrian textual traditions and the use of the LXX are but some of the clues that support this theory—although they are not unique to Alexandria only. Yet if it is assumed, as a working hypothesis, that this group is situated in Egypt, and that they are to be identied with converts to Christianity from a group similar as the Therapeutae about whom Philo wrote in his De Vita Contemplativa162 (remember the connection Moses—RFSBQXO above), and if it is further assumed that they share a similar theology as that of the Qumran community (as Philo’s Therapeutae did also), then certainly they are not sharing in the “rest” of the Promised Land. That land is far away and they are still in Egypt, descendants of the diaspora. The Sabbath and the sabbatical periods, though, were central to their theology. 5.5. The Importance of “Today” (4INFSPO) Another keyword in the author’s argument is the word “today” (TINFSPO). Already at the beginning of his book (Heb 1:5) the author quoted Ps 2:7, where the word occurs. It was applied there in terms of God who instituted Jesus as his Son. The author starts his quotation here with the same word in Heb 3:7b and picks it up again in 3:13 and 3:15 when he comments on the quotation and in 4:7 when he re-quotes a fourth time from Ps 94 (LXX). His discussion on this psalm also nds its conclusion with the focus on this word and an appeal to his readers to grasp “today” as “it still remains that some will enter that rest” (4:6). The
161. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 115. 162. Quite interestingly, R. T. Beckwith independently came to the same conclusion as I did (Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Intertestamental and Patristic Studies [Leiden: Brill, 2001], 44). 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
225
eschatological tone that was set in 1:2 continues here and resurfaces again later when the author begins in 8:8 the longest quotation, taken from Jer 31(38), with the words that “the time is coming.” By using and applying Ps 94 (LXX), Moses and the people of God (that generation) are compared with the new dispensation in Christ (this generation), who share in the promise of God’s rest—today. So when should this rest be pursued? The time is identied as “today” (TINFSPO). There is a sense of urgency in “the present time”—a phrase used in 9:9. A denite appeal is made to his readers at this point— something that was already touched upon in 4:1b. Some scholars suggest that the author of Hebrews probably counted forty years after the death of Jesus as similar to the period that Israel was journeying through the desert, which brings the author to the urgency of this second opportunity—“today.” A forty-year typology certainly existed in the Dead Sea Scrolls (CD 20:15; 4QpPs 37:1, 6). However, Attridge quite rightly pointed out that there is no evidence that the author of Hebrews “attaches any typological signicance to the gure of forty years as indicative of the period between Christ’s exaltation and parousia.”163 According to Flusser, there is an eschatological aspect164 in this “today,” both according to Hebrews and the rabbinic sources. He refers to the famous legend165 regarding Rabbi Joshua ben Levi who asked the messiah when he will come, upon which the latter answers “today.” He did not come that day and the prophet Elijah explained to the rabbi that it means in the mouth of the messiah “today—if you listen to his voice” (Ps 95:7). The idea is connected with the day of the Sabbath by Rabbi Levi, quoting Exod 16:25 and Isa 30:15 in connection with it. This illustrates then, that the concept of “today” is connected with repentance and with the Sabbath.166 6. Reection (4:12–13): The Peroratio The Peroratio starts in an emphatic manner about the author’s perception of Scripture, which for him is the spoken word (singular) of God. This sections opens with P MPHPK and ends with it as the very last word (pun noted!)—thereby forming an inclusio. The nature of God’s word is
163. Attridge, Hebrews, 115. 164. Flusser’s point makes sense as the book opens already on an eschatological note in Heb 1:2 (“Creative Jewish Exegesis,” 59). 165. See b. Sanh. 98a. 166. Flusser, “Creative Jewish Exegesis,” 59. 1
226
Psalms and Hebrews
described rst, highlighting three elements: it is a living word (the sentence starts with [X_O), it is active and it is sharper than a double-edged sword. Then follows the function or effect of God’s word, on three levels: it divides soul and spirit, bone and marrow, and judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 7. Conclusion 7.1. The Author’s Approach to Psalm 95(94) Introducing the quotation as the words that the Holy Spirit spoke and with clear signs of following the text as closely as possible, the author’s approach to Ps 95(94) is that it is authoritative and normative. Using MFHX in the introductory formula corresponds with the author’s view that this is God’s living word, which is still valid. “Simply by quoting this psalm, the author is making a statement regarding the continuity between Israel and the church…”167 7.2. The Author’s Method of Using Psalm 95(94) The author quotes extensively from Ps 94 (LXX), presenting the latter half of the whole psalm as the third longest quotation in the New Testament. No evidence exists that Ps 95(94) has been quoted before the time of Hebrews in early Judaism or early Christianity and no explicit quotations of it are thus to be found in any of the other New Testament documents.168 This points to the author of Hebrews for its identication, selection, presentation, exposition and application. Given his argumentation and the contrast between the exodus generation and the author’s generation, he could just as well have used another passage from the Torah. Yet he chose to use Ps 95(94). Why? According to Ellingworth, “(t)he author appeals, not to the exodus as a bare fact of history, but to a tradition in which its permanent signicance had been mediated through Jewish, and doubtless also Christian, worship.”169 His Vorlage clearly follows a LXX text that already provides the author with a more general text that adapts easier to the context of his readers. The key words TINFSPO and LBUBQBVTJK determined the delimitation of the quotation for our author. There are very few changes to the text of the psalm itself and it might actually represent an existing but lost Vorlage. If not, then the quotation displays the author’s preference for Attic above 167. Enns, “Interpretation,” 355. 168. The only possible allusions are to be found regarding Ps 95:7 in John 10:3 and Rev 21:3. 169. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 214. 1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4
227
Hellenistic forms, and small adaptations to highlight the contrast between that generation and this generation.170 A lengthy midrash171 on the quotation follows in which the author requotes the beginning and the end of the initial quotation twice each, strategically placing the quotation from Gen 2:2 in its centre. By using this second passage, he follows the rabbinic method of a gezerah shawah argument.172 Although there are clear signs of typology173 (Moses–Jesus, and the Exodus generation–this generation), the spiritualization of “rest” with its cultic and eschatological connotations cannot be denied either. Lincoln recently summarised the author’s typological exposition as follows: (It) can be seen, for example, in 3.7–4.13, where the resting place of the land becomes, via a link with God’s sabbath rest, a type of the rest of eschatological salvation inaugurated by Christ in God’s new ‘today’ (cf. 3.13, 14). Since the consummation of the rest is still future, there is a continuity because Christian believers need to be exhorted to make every effort to enter the rest, lest they fall through the same sort of disobedience that aficted the wilderness generation (4.11). But there is also a discontinuity, because such believers can also be said to be already in the process of entering the rest (4.3). The interplay between continuity and discontinuity essential to typology is also what contributes to the effectiveness of the writer’s paraenesis. The fullment in the antitype raises the stakes for Christian believers. As a result of God’s oath, the wilderness generation fell by the sword (cf. Num. 14.43), but Hebrews’ addressees face something more fearful than any two-edged sword, the lethal weapon of God’s word of judgment, which will expose the intentions of their heart and render them defenceless before the consuming gaze of the one to whom account must be given (4.11–13).174
7.3. The Author’s Purpose of Using Psalm 95(94) Psalm 95(94) is used as an exhortation to remain faithful to God, which is a reminder about God’s covenant with the Exodus generation, though 170. Cf. Enns: “We might say that in wishing to make this psalm more relevant to his readers, he says things about Psalm 95 that are not actually found in Psalm 95” (“Interpretation,” 353). 171. From all those commented upon in Hebrews, this is “the most extensive piece of continuous exposition of an Old Testament text” (Ellingworth, Hebrews, 214). 172. Cf. Flusser: “This is the way of creative Jewish exegesis and it ts also the method and the spirit of rabbinic Judaism” (“Creative Jewish Exegesis,” 59). 173. So also Ellingworth, Hebrews, 215; Moody Smith, “Old Testament in the New,” 59–60. 174. Lincoln, Hebrews, 73. 1
228
Psalms and Hebrews
the word “covenant” is not yet used here (cf. Heb 8–10). They were not able to enter “God’s rest,” according to the author, because of their unbelief. They did not combine the message with faith. “With the aid of the Scriptures he wishes to prove that the promise to enter into God’s rest remains for those who believe.”175 This generation should, therefore, hold on to courage and hope—a shift in the interpretation of Ps 95(94), which is visible between his contrasting of the warning for that generation and the promise of this generation. The author understands this promise as a repetitive one. After initially being offered to the exodus generation, it is repeated in Ps 95(94), and again to this generation “so long as it is called today (3:13)—this promise is extended, so that ‘there remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God (4:9).”176 Ellingworth aptly sums the argument up as follows: “(1) The wilderness generation was ‘unable to enter’ God’s resting-place ‘because of unbelief’ (3:19); (2) ‘There remains a sabbath rest for the people of God (4:9); (3) ‘Let us therefore strive to enter that rest’ (4:11). The primary Old Testament reference throughout is Ps. 95:7–11. This is predominantly a warning… But the warning conceals an element of promise.”177 Building on an existing tradition that links the creation and the exodus themes, a transition is made in the interpretation of LBUBQBVTJK from referring to the Promised Land, to now referring to a sabbatical period. The Sabbath is the symbol of eschatological salvation. The promise of rest remains open because Ps 95(94)—actually, “God”—speaks about “another day.” Just as the rst “Jesus” (Joshua) led them to the Promised Land, so this Jesus (the Son of God) would lead them to a sabbatical rest. The eschatological tone is strengthened with the emphasis on, and urgency of, TINFSPO.
175. 176. 177. 1
Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 110. Ibid. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 215.
FROM PRIEST-KING TO KING-PRIEST: PSALM 110 AND THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF HEBREWS Gert J. C. Jordaan and Pieter Nel
Introduction A very prominent and frequently investigated feature of the book of Hebrews is its numerous quotations from, and allusions to, Old Testament passages. Since almost thirty percent of the Old Testament quotations and allusions in Hebrews come from the Psalms,1 scholarly attention during the last few decades was drawn increasingly to the relation between Hebrews and the Psalms.2 Of all the Psalms quoted in Hebrews, Ps 110 is the most popular case by far.3 In fact, this psalm is quoted or alluded to no fewer than twenty times in Hebrews.4 The quotations or allusions, in all of these twenty instances, come from either v. 1 or from v. 4.5 The above statistics gave good enough reason for Buchanan to introduce his commentary on Hebrews as follows: “The document entitled ‘To the Hebrews’ is a homiletical midrash based on Psalm 110.”6 As far as we could detect, Buchanan was the rst to propose the theory that Hebrews is an early Christian homiletical midrash on Ps 110. This 1. Of the probable 104 Old Testament quotations and allusions, more than 80 come from the Psalms. 2. Cf. George W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation, Comments and Conclusions (AB 36; New York: Doubleday, 1972), xxi–xxiv; D. R. Anderson, The King-priest of Psalm 110 in Hebrews (SBL 21; New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 134ff. 3. Edwin D. Freed, The New Testament: A Critical Introduction (London: SCM, 1994), 359; Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation, Past and Present (Leicester: Apollos, 1996), 71. 4. David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (Tennessee: Parthenon, 1973), 163–66; Anderson, The King-priest of Psalm 110, 137–38. 5. Ps 110:1 in Heb 1:3, 13; 2:9; 8:1; 10:12–13; 12:2, 22 (7 times); Ps 11:4 in Heb 2:17; 3:1; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:3, 11, 17, 21, 24, 25, 28; and 10:21 (13 times). 6. Buchanan, To the Hebrews, xix. 1
230
Psalms and Hebrews
theory, of course, is a narrowed-down version of the widely accepted view that Hebrews is a written sermon or homily.7 Buchanan’s theory departs from the general view in as far as its focus is not as much on the homiletic nature of Hebrews as on its interpretative (midrashic) nature. Bailey and Van der Broek8 explain midrash as a comprehensive interpretative methodology which can be characterized as follows: it is an oral or written report (in homiletic or exegetical form), based on the exposition of a specic passage, which is frequently alluded to or quoted. It seems that the literary form of Hebrews complies to the above description of a homiletic midrash, as follows: x Hebrews is a written report of an oral homily or MPHPV UI_K QBSBLMITFXK9 x Hebrews is characterized by exposition of Old Testament passages, which are quoted, explained and followed by an exhortation.10 In the exposition of a text, the author of Hebrews frequently turns to other Old Testament passages that are dealing with the same theme to clarify the basic text or to elaborate his argument.11 The result is a frequently repeated pattern in Hebrews, one which runs more or less as follows12: A. The basic text (quotation or allusion); B. A cluster of other Old Testament quotations and allusions; C. The basic text (quotation or allusion).
The specic passage which is thus explained in Hebrews is predominantly Ps 110, more specically vv. 1, 4. Hence the theory that Hebrews is an early Christian midrash (search, investigation) of Ps 110:1, 4 seems
7. Cf. Werner G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (London: SCM, 1972), 279; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Illinois: Intervarsity, 1990), 714. 8. James L. Bailey and Lyle D. van der Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 42. 9. Buchanan, To the Hebrews, xx; Freed, The New Testament, 359. 10. Cf. Bailey and Van der Broek, Literary Forms, 191. 11. Frederick F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), l–li. 12. Edward Earle Ellis, “How the New Testament Uses the Old,” in New Testament Interpretation (ed. I. H. Marshall; Kent: Paternoster, 1992), 119–219 (204); B. W. Holtz, Back to the Sources: Reading the Classical Jewish Texts (New York: Summit, 1984), 198; G. Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 357. 1
JORDAAN AND NEL From Priest-King to King-Priest
231
quite feasible. The manner in which this midrash is presented in the book is homiletical, that is, an exposition followed by exhortation, so that Ps 110:1, 4 can indeed be regarded as Hebrews’ central text. Saldarini13 agrees that Hebrews complies to the general denition of a homiletical midrash as far as it is a work built around a central text or texts. Yet he does not agree with Buchanan that particularly Ps 110 is the central text of Hebrews. Saldarini’s viewpoint can be summarized as: Hebrews a homiletical midrash?—Yes! But Ps 110 the central text of the midrash?—No! According to this objection, Hebrews should rather be regarded as a combination of midrashim of various Old Testament texts, of which Ps 110 is, albeit very prominent, only one such text. Saldarini’s argument seems to be that if Ps 110 had been the basic or central text of Hebrews, it would have had a much more prominent inuence on the form and structure of the book. But on the contrary, he says, “Psalm 110 does not control the whole of Hebrews’ structure.”14 It is exactly on this last objection of Saldarini that the present study wants to focus. Buchanan did not reply to Saldarini in defense of his theory. The only reection by Buchanan on the inuence of Ps 110 upon the structure of Hebrews seems to be the following: “The midrash on Ps 110 is limited to the rst twelve chapters of Hebrews. It is well organized; it includes many passages of scripture…and it is logically sound.”15 Since these remarks are obviously insufcient, the present study is an attempt to provide better grounds towards countering Saldarini’s allegation that Ps 110 does not control the structure of Hebrews. This attempt is focused on two matters: rst, on the place of Ps 110 in the thoughtstructure of Hebrews, and secondly, on a comparison between the structure of Hebrews and Ps 110. Psalm 110 in the Thought-structure of Hebrews Commentaries dealing with the structure (or thought-structure) of Hebrews generally concentrate on the logical progress of the book’s argument.16 Most commentators present the thought-structure of Hebrews in broad terms (with minor variations) as follows: 13. A. J. Saldarini, “Judaism and the New Testament,” in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. E. J. Epp and G. W. Macrae; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 27–54. 14. Ibid., 41. 15. Buchanan, To the Hebrews, xxii. 16. E.g. Bruce F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), xlviii–l; Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, lxiii–lxiv; Simon Kistemaker, 1
232 1:1–4 1:5–14 2:1–4:16 5:1–7:28 8:1–10:18 10:19–12:29 13:1–25
Psalms and Hebrews Introduction Jesus superior to the angels Jesus, our High Priest, became less than angels so that he could bring about a rest superior to that of Moses and Joshua Jesus, High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, superior to Aaron Jesus as superior High Priest, was also superior in his ministry of the covenant by his perfect and nal offering Exhortation to persevere in faith Conclusion
Nel,17 however, suggests that the quotations from and allusions to Ps 110, occurring in a regular pattern throughout the book, should be taken as structural markers in Hebrews. The following table provides a picture of Ps 110 as a structural marker in Hebrews: Pericope contents Heb 1:1–14. Jesus at God’s right hand is superior to the angels
Heb 2:1–4:16. Jesus left his glory to lead us into true rest
Quote/allusion from Psalm 110 which serves as structural marker Heb 1:3 > (Ps 110:1). He sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high18 Heb 1:13 > (Ps 110:1). To which of the angels did God ever say: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool”? Heb 2:9 > (Ps 110:1). We see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honour Heb 2:17 > (Ps 110:4). That he might become a high priest Heb 3:1 > (Ps 110:4). Jesus, the apostle and high priest… Heb 4:14–15 > (Ps 110:1, 4). Since we have a high priest who has gone into heaven…
Structural place in Hebrews Introduction to entire book and Pericope 1 Conclusion to argument in Pericope 1 Introduction to argument in Pericope 2 Introducing Ps 110:4 in Pericope 2 Conclusion of argument in Pericope 2
Hebrews (New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 18; Hugh Monteore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Black’s New Testament Commentaries; London: Black, 1964), 31; George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-linguistic Analysis (NovTSup; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 144. 17. Pieter Nel, “Die rol van Psalm 110 in Hebreërs” (M.A. diss., North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, South Africa, 2004), 67. 18. English translations come from the NIV, unless stated otherwise. 1
JORDAAN AND NEL From Priest-King to King-Priest Heb 5:1–7:28. Jesus, high priest in the order of Melchizedek, is superior to Aaron
Heb 5:6 > (Ps 110:4). He says in another place: “You are priest for ever, in the order of Melchizedek.”
Heb 5:10 > (Ps 110:4) …Designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek Heb 6:20 > (Ps 110:4). Jesus has become high priest for ever, in the order of Melchizedek Heb 7:11 > (Ps 110:4). Why was there still need for another priest to come— in the order of Melchizedek? Heb 7:17 > (Ps 110:4). God said to him: “You are priest for ever, in the order of Melchizedek” Heb 7:21 > (Ps 110:4). God said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, You are priest for ever” Heb 8:1–10:18. Heb 8:1 > (Ps 110:1, 4). We have a Jesus as superior high priest who sat down at the right high priest is hand of the throne of the Majesty also the superior in heaven Minister of Heb 10:12 > (Ps 110:1). When Christ the covenant had offered a sacrice for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of God Heb 10:13 > (Ps 110:1). Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool Heb 10:19–12:29. Heb 10:19–21 > (Ps 110:1, 4). Since we have condence to enter the Exhortation to persevering faith sanctuary…and since we have a great priest over the house of God… in Jesus Heb 12:2 > (Ps 110:1). Jesus, the Pioneer and Perfecter of our faith… sat down at the right hand of the throne of God Heb 12:22–23 > (Ps 110:1). You have come to Mount Zion…the city of the living God… You have come to God… Heb 13:1–25 None
1
233
Quotation introducing 110:4 into argument in Pericope 3 Allusions to 110:4 as part of argument in Pericope 3
Quotations as part of the argument conclusion in Pericope 3
Introduction to argument in Pericope 4 Conclusion of argument in Pericope 4
Introduction to argument in Pericope 5 Conclusion of argument in Pericope 5
Conclusion of book
Psalms and Hebrews
234
The table above emphasizes the following features of the use of Ps 110 in Hebrews: First, quotations and allusions from the psalm are spread throughout almost the entire book (Heb 1–12). Only the last chapter (Heb 13) does not contain any quote from, or allusion to, the psalm. The obvious reason for this absence is that Heb 13, as the conclusive chapter, does not continue the main argument of the book but contains some nal practical exhortations. Second, a denite pattern of quotations and allusions from Ps 110 can be observed in Heb 1–12: x Heb 1 has one quotation and one allusion from Ps 110:1. x Heb 2:1–4:14 contain some allusions to Ps 110:1, but gradually switches to allusions to Ps 110:4. x Heb 5–7 have numerous quotations from Ps 110:4. x Heb 8:1–12:29 contains various allusions, both to Ps 110:1 and to Ps 110:4. Thus a certain pattern in the use of Ps 110 seems to unfold already: Heb 1: Ps 110:1
Heb 2–4: Ps 110:1, 4
Heb 5–7: Ps 110:4
Heb 8–12: Ps 100:1, 4
Third, each pericope is introduced by a quotation from, or allusion to, Ps 110:1 or Ps 110:4 and is again concluded by a similar quotation/ allusion. The result is a kind of inclusio, which is repeated almost unfailingly in each pericope. Also quotations from other parts of the Old Testament in Hebrews seem to fall into this pattern. Within each inclusio the author of Hebrews makes use of quotation clusters from other Old Testament passages19 in order to clarify or comment on either Ps 110:1 or Ps 110:4, or both. This is in accordance with the typical midrash style.20 Each quotation cluster is presented within an inclusio pattern. The result is a thought-structure which looks as follows: Heb 1:1–14. Jesus superior to the angels at the right hand of God Heb 1:3 > Ps 110:1 (allusion) Heb 1:5–12 > Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14; Pss 97:7; 104:4; 45:6–7; 102:25–27 Heb 1:13 > Ps 110:1 (quotation) 19. Cf. A. Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Rome: Editrice ponticio institution biblicio,1989), 20ff.; Nel, Die rol van Psalm 110 in Hebreërs, 68–70. 20. Cf. E. E. Ellis, “How the New Testament Uses the Old,” 204; Holtz, Back to the Sources, 198; Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, 357. 1
JORDAAN AND NEL From Priest-King to King-Priest
235
Heb 2:1–4:16. Jesus, our high priest, became less than angels to bring about a rest superior to that of Moses and Joshua Heb 2:8–9 > Ps 110:1 (allusion) Heb 2:6–13 > Pss 8:5–7; 22:22; Isa 8:17–18; 2 Sam 22:3 Heb 2:17–3:1 > Ps 110:4 (allusion) Heb 3:7–4:7 > Ps 95:7–11; Gen 2:2; Ps 95:7–11 Heb 4:14 > Ps 110:1, 4 (allusion) Heb 5:1–7:28. Jesus, high priest to the order of Melchizedek, superior to the priesthood of Aaron Heb 5:6, 10 > Ps 110:4 (quotation and allusion) Heb 5:5–7:10 > Ps 2:7; Gen 22:17; 14:18; Num 18:21 Heb 7:17, 21 > Ps 110:4 (quotation) Heb 8:1–10:18. Jesus as superior high priest also superior minister of the new covenant by his perfect and nal offering Heb 8:1 > Ps 110:1, 4 (allusion) Heb 8:5–10:17 > Exod 25:40; Jer 31:31–34; Exod 24:8; Ps 40:7–9; Jer 31:31, 34 Heb 10:12–13 > Ps 110:1 (allusion) Heb 10:19–12:29. Exhortation to persevere in faith Heb 10:19–21 > Ps 110:1, 4 (allusion) Heb 10:30–12:26 > Deut 32:35–36; Hab 2:3, 4; Gen 5:24; 21:12; 47:31; Prov 3:11, 12; Exod 19:12, 13; Deut 9:19; Hag 2:6 Heb 12:2, 22–23 > Ps 110:1 (allusion)
The above considerations (especially the last schematic presentation above) indicate that the quotations and allusions from Ps 110 are not randomly scattered throughout Hebrews but present a specic pattern. Although this pattern as such does not answer Saldarini’s doubt that Ps 110 controls the whole of Hebrews’ structure,21 it at least supports Buchanan’s theory that the rst twelve chapters of Hebrews constitute a well-organized midrash on Ps 110, which “includes many passages of scripture and is logically sound.”22 21. Saldarini, “Judaism and the New Testament,” 41. 22. Buchanan, To the Hebrews, xxii. 1
236
Psalms and Hebrews
The Structure of Hebrews and Psalm 110 Compared A more decisive piece of evidence comes from a comparison between the above structure of Hebrews and the structure of Ps 110. The analysis by Anderson23 can be taken as point of departure. Anderson describes the structure of Ps 110 as an expanded chiasm, in which v. 4 forms the pivoting verse, surrounded by a series of inclusios. This structure of Ps 110 can be adjusted and appears opposite.24 Before continuing with the structure of the psalm as such, a brief remark about the concluding verse of the psalm (“He will drink from a brook beside the way; therefore he will lift up his head”) is needed. In the structural schema above the verse is seen as describing the appointed king in his triumph. Commentators agree that “therefore he will lift up his head” (EJB=UPV_UPVZXTFJLFGBMIO) refers to a gesture of triumph, so that this verse can be regarded as the triumphant climax of the psalm.25 However, the verse begins with a somewhat bafing phrase: “He will drink from a brook beside the way.” Within the context of a victorious triumph, these words do not seem to make sense at all. Therefore some scholars have tried to sidestep the problem by suggesting an alternative vocalization of the Hebrew text. Instead of the Masoretic reading =I2?!">: 9E6 J: (C$5!$3!2 (“he will drink from a brook beside the way”) the Hebrew is vocalized as H!9E :J (C$5!$3!2 =I:? >2, which can be translated as “an inheritance on the way he makes it…”26 or “the bestower will set him on a seat.”27 The suggested vocalization presents an attractive option for the analysis of the psalm’s structure, since it perfectly ts into the structural framework as suggested above. However, it has to be kept in mind that the author of Hebrews probably knew the psalm not from the Hebrew text, but from the Greek text of the Septuagint.28 Hence it can be assumed that he would have followed the interpretation of the Septuagint. 23. Anderson, The King-priest of Psalm 110, 281. 24. Cf. also Jasper J. Burden, Psalms 101–119 (Cape Town: N. G. Kerk, 1991), 125–26. The Greek LXX text comes from the 1935 edition by Rahlfs. 25. Cf. Charles A. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976), 2:379; Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150 (WBC 21; Nashville: Nelson, 2002), 82. 26. Cf. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 379. 27. Mitchell J. Dahood, Psalm 101–150 (AB 17A; New York: Doubleday, 1970), 119–20. 28. Cf. Willem Vorster, “Hebreërs: Inleiding tot Hebreërs,” in Handboek by die Nuwe Testament (ed. Andrie B. Du Toit; Pretoria: NG Kerkboekhandel, 1988), 6:73–88 (85); Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 721; Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 63. 1
JORDAAN AND NEL From Priest-King to King-Priest v. 1 THE LORD APPOINTS THE KING FJ>QFO P LV SJPK UX_] LVSJX] NPV LB RPV FL EFDJX_O NPV FXK B!O RX_ UPV@K F YRQPV K TPV V QPQP EJPO UX_O QPEX_O TPV The LORD said to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”
237
A
vv. 2–3 THE PROMISE OF VICTORY OVER ENEMIES ON THE DAY OF BATTLE S B CEPO EVOB NFX K TPV F DBQPTUFMFJ LV SJPK FL 4JXO LBJ= LBSBLVSJFVF FO NF TX] UX_O FYSX_O TPV NFUB@ EPV I B SYI@ FO I NF SB] UI_K EVOB NFX K TPV FO UBJ K MBNQSP UITJO UX_O B HJXO FL HBTUSP@K QSP@ FXTGPSPV FDFHFOOITB TF The LORD will extend your mighty sceptre from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies. Your troops will be willing on your day of battle; arrayed in holy majesty, from the womb of the dawn you will receive the dew of your youth.
B
v. 4 THE LORD BY OATH APPOINTS THE KING AS PRIEST FOR EVER XNPTFO LVSJPK LBJ= PV NFUBNFMIRI TFUBJ TV= FJ> JFSFV=K FJK UP@O BJX_OB LBUB@ UI@O UB DJO .FMYJTFEFL The LORD was sworn and will not change his mind: “You are priest for ever, in the order of Melchizedek.”
C
vv. 5–6 THE PROMISE OF VICTORY OVER ENEMIES ON THE DAY OF WRATH LVSJPK FL EFDJX_O TPV TVOFRMBTFO FO I NF SB] PSHI_K BV UPV_ CBTJMFJ KLSJOFJ FO UPJ K FROFTJO QMISX TFJ QUX NBUB TVORMB TFJLFGBMB@KFQJ= HI_K QPMMX_O The Lord is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. He will judge nations, heaping up the dead. and crushing the rules of the whole earth. v. 7 THE APPOINTED KING IN HIS TRIUMPH FL YFJNB SSPV FO PEX_] QJFUBJ EJB@ UPV_UP V ZX TFJ LFGBMI O He will drink from a brook beside the way; therefore he will lift up his head.
1
B1
A1
Psalms and Hebrews
238
The Septuagint translation (FLYFJNBSSPVFOPEX_]QJFUBJ) evidently followed the Masoretic vocalization. So, the author of Hebrews probably also took Ps 110:7 in the sense of “he will drink from a stream on his way.” Amidst a variety of suggestions commentators are still struggling to make real sense of these words within the context of the psalm. A rather feasible suggestion comes from Noordtzij,29 who says that drinking water from a brook is an indication that the long and tiring battle is over and that nally the priest-king can take the luxury of taking refreshment. Thereafter he can lift up his head in triumph. It should also be noted that the psalm begins with the feet resting on the footstool of the enemies (Ps 110:1) and ends with the head being lifted up (Ps 110:7), both metaphorically referring to victory. In this way Ps 110 forms a very interesting inclusio whereby the victory of the priest-king is emphasized and is presented as central motif of the entire psalm. In the light of these considerations it seems that the psalm ends with the same motif with which it started, containing an expansion in the intermediate verses. In v. 1 the Lord is appointed as king to be victorious over his enemies. In Ps 110:2–6 it is explained how he will become victorious: by being priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek. And nally, in v. 7, this king-priest is portrayed as the one who lifts up his head in triumph. Thus the structure of the psalm can be presented in the form of a diamond pattern:
v.4: v.1: the Lord appointed as King to conquer
v. 2,3:
the King
v. 5,6:
the day of appointed as the day of battle
his enemies
Priest for
wrath
v. 7: the Priest will be a victorious King
ever
Thus the development of thought in the psalm is that the appointed king is also appointed as priest according to the order of Melchizedek, that is, a priest-king; and as priest he will become a priest-in-glory who will triumph over his enemies, i.e. a king-priest. Furthermore, it seems that the king is appointed to combat his enemies in the day of battle so that 29. A. Noordtzij, De Psalmen (3 vols.; Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift; Kampen: Kok, 1964), 181. 1
JORDAAN AND NEL From Priest-King to King-Priest
239
his rule may be restored (Ps 110:2–3); but as priest-king he will conquer his enemies in the day of wrath to bring about the judgment of the Lord (Ps 110:5–6). When this structure of Ps 110 is compared to the basic structure of Hebrews, it seems that there is indeed a parallel development of thought: 1. Ps 110 begins in v. 1 with the Lord that takes his place at the right hand of God to be king. Likewise Hebrews (1:1–14) begins with Jesus that takes his exalted place at the right hand of God, superior even to the angels. Jesus is the undoubted king. 2. Ps 110:2, 3 continues with the promise that the king will be victorious over his enemies in the day of battle. Parallel to this is the second section of Hebrews (2:1–4:16), which deals with Jesus who came to suffer (battle) as apostle and high priest in order to bring about the glory of eternal rest to God’s children. 3. The parallel between the central verse of Ps 110 (v. 4) and the middle section of Hebrews (5:1–7:28) is obvious. Both deal with the king being appointed by God as high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews makes it clear that Jesus is the priest-king of whom Melchizedek in the Old Testament was a preguration. 4. Then follows Ps 110:5, 6, in which the promise of victory is repeated, though now it will be in the day of wrath. The parallel to this is found in Heb 8:1–10:18, the section dealing with Jesus as Minister of the new covenant, who gave himself as nal offering as atonement for the wrath of God over all our sins. Christ’s victory in this respect is exclaimed in the quotation from Jer 31:34 in Heb 10:17: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” Jesus died to bring about God’s judgment for all believing sinners. In Heb 10:26–31, those who refuse to hold on to Christ and who persevere in their sins are warned that they will be counted with the enemies of God (Heb 10:27). Therefore God’s judgment still awaits them, as is said in Deut 32:35–36: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay, says the Lord; and: The Lord will judge his people” (Heb 10:30). 5. Ps 110 is concluded in v. 7 where the king is again the centre of attention, but now as the king who has completed the battle and returns in triumph. The parallel to this seems to be Heb 12:1–29. It develops as follow: in Heb 12:1–3 the believers are exhorted to x their eyes on Jesus who, having endured the cross, sat down in glory at the right hand of the throne of God. Jesus is the ultimate king-priest. In itself the exhortation to x the eyes on the triumphant Jesus is already paralleled in Ps 110:7. 1
Psalms and Hebrews
240
The parallel is taken even further, however, in Heb 12:22–24. Jesus as pioneer and perfecter of their faith takes the believers to Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, where they will be with God in glory forever. Thus ch. 12 becomes Hebrews’ counterpart of Ps 110’s “he will lift up his head.” Thus it seems that Heb 1–12 can be placed in the same structural framework as Ps 110, as follows:
Jesus the
Ch 1: Ch 2-4: Ch 5-7: Ch 8-10 Ch 11-12 Jesus in Jesus Jesus the Jesus the
appointed King
battle for
appointed as
atonement for
the victorious
superior even
eternal rest
Priest-King
God’s wrath to
King-Priest
to angels
believers
for ever
believers
in glory
Conclusion By way of conclusion we return to Saldarini’s challenge that Hebrews cannot be regarded as a homiletical midrash on Ps 110, inter alia because “Psalm 110 does not control the whole of Hebrews’ structure.”30 The above considerations, however, provide good reason to believe that the author of Hebrews not only took the central verses for his sermon from Ps 110, but also used the thought-structure of the Psalm as blueprint for the broad structure of his sermon. The implication is that Hebrews thereby complies with an important requirement of a typical midrash:31 the Old Testament passage which it takes up for exposition (Ps 110:1, 4) remains the basic text throughout the document. The author of Hebrews constantly returns to Ps 110:1, 4 as the basic text, although the expounding process requires other Old Testament passages to be quoted. Finally, contrary to what Saldarini postulated, there is good reason to believe that the structure of Hebrews as a whole was molded to the basic form of Ps 110.
30. Saldarini, “Judaism in the New Testament,” 41. 31. Bailey and Van der Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament, 42. 1
PSALM 109(110):1–3 IN THE SEPTUAGINT: ITS TRANSLATION-CRITICAL, TRADITION-HISTORICAL, AND THEOLOGICAL SETTING Evangelia G. Dafni
Introduction The author of Heb 1:13 asks: “To which of the angels had God ever said: Take your seat at my right hand till I have made your enemies your footstool?”And according to Matt 22:45//Mark 12:34 and Luke 20:40, Jesus himself wonders: “If David calls him Lord, how then can he be his son?” In these cases, the New Testament, following rabbinic-exegetical conventions, quotes LXX Ps 109(110) in order to provide answers to typical hermeneutical questions regarding theology, messianism and angelology of the Holy Scriptures in their Hebrew/Aramaic and Old Greek form.1 The New Testament authors raise questions on how the identication of the monotheistic image of God in Ancient Israel, with the triune God of the Early Christian Community, as well as the identication of the Old Testament concept of the Messiah, is to be legitimated with the incarnated Jesus Christ. Today, these questions could receive various answers from Old Testament2 as well as New Testament scholars3 as a result of their different historical, ideological and theological 1. See, e.g., Gerhard Bodendorfer, “Abraham zur Rechten Gottes. Der Psalm 110 in der rabbinischen Tradition,” EvTh 59 (1999): 252–66. Cf. Hans Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjüdentum (WUNT 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1951). 2. Eberhard Bons, “Die Septuaginta-Version von Psalm 110 (Ps 109 LXX)— Textgestalt, Aussagen, Auswirkungen,” in Heiligkeit und Herrschaft. Intertextuelle Studien zu Heiligkeitsvorstellungen und zu Psalm 110 (ed. D. Sänger; BThSt 55; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 122–45; Miriam von NordheimDiehl, Geboren von der Morgenröte? Psalm 110 in Tradition, Redaktion und Rezeption (WMANT 117; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008). 3. Terrence Callan, “Psalm 110 and the Origin of the Expectation that Jesus will Come Again,” CBQ 44 (1982): 622–36; Martin Karrer, Der Gesalbte (FRLANT 151; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990); Martin Hengel, “Psalm 110 und die Erhöhung des Auferstandenen zur Rechten Gottes,” in Anfänge der Christologie 1
242
Psalms and Hebrews
presuppositions.4 Modern theoretical edices, unlike the christological interpretation of the ancient Israelite Scriptures, are based on the assumption that for the Christian self-awareness the identication of the Lord in question with the expected Messiah and Jesus Christ is a given fact, but for the critical Old Testament scholarship this is the question it has to seek an answer to. As we know, there are currently two main approaches to decoding the message of the Old Testament according to the LXX. On the one hand, the so-called Helsinki School works translation-technically and operates mainly on grammatical and syntactical basis in order to explain how linguistic phenomena have been transmitted from the Hebrew to the Greek linguistic system.5 On the other hand, several scholars—especially in the last two decades—have pursued a sort of translation criticism with emphasis on the signicance of the Septuagint’s religious and cultural environment for the understanding of the ideological and theological orientation of the translator of a single book or literary unit, without agreeing on integrated methodological principles.6 Of course, it is not my (ed. C. Breytenbach and H. Paulsen; FS Ferdinand Hahn; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 43–73; Gerhard Dautzenberg, “Psalm 110 im Neuen Testament,” in Studien zur Theologie der Jesustradition (SBAB 19; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995), 63–97. 4. Cf., e.g., Emanuel Tov, Die Griechischen Bibelübersetzungen (ANRW II 20.1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987), 121–89; Julio Trebolle Barrera, The Jewish and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998); Robert Hanhart, Studien zur Septuaginta und zum Hellenistischen Judentum (FAT 24; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999); Johan Lust, Messianism and the Septuagint (BETL 178; Leuven: Peeters, 2004). Cf. Edward Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957), and The Old Testament in Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991); Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New Testament (JSNTSup 189; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 2000); Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). 5. Anneli Aejmelaeus and Udo Quast, eds., Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Symposium in Göttingen 1997 (MSU 24; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000); Frank Austermann, Von der Tora zum Nomos. Untersuchungen zur Übersetzungsweise und Interpretation im Septuaginta-Psalter (MSU 27; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003). Cf. Ulrich Rüsen-Weinhold, Der Septuaginta-Psalter im Neuen Testamen. Eine Textgechichtliche Untersuchung (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004). 6. Joseph Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT 2/76; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995); Christoph Rösel, Die messianische Redaktion des Psalters (CThM.BW 19; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1999); Erich Zenger, ed., Der SeptuagintaPsalter. Sprachliche und Theologische Aspekte (HBS 30; Freiburg: Herder, 2001); Holger Gzella, Lebenszeit und Ewigkeit. Studien zur Eschatologie und Anthropologie 1
DAFNI Psalm 109(110):1–3 in the Septuagint
243
intention to resolve here the methodological problem in its entirety. My objective is to discuss the meaning of deviations in the text transmission of the LXX Ps 109(110), as well as to give some examples of interpretative and hermeneutical guidelines and perspectives on the basis of intended word-choices, as found mainly in vv. 1–3, which, in my view, are constitutive for the tradition-critical and theologico-historical setting of the whole psalm.7 Textual and Translatio-Critical Remarks Psalm 109(110), in its Septuagint and Masoretic form, is clearly divided into two parts, vv. 1–3 and vv. 4–7, which have traditionally been understood as two oracles of a Royal Psalm with many linguistic and theological resemblances to other messianically interpreted psalms, especially to Ps 2 and 88(89). Both parts picture Yahweh, the God of Israel, revealing himself majestically in human history for the sake of a second lord addressed by him in this psalm. It is remarkable that David appears here as the author of the psalm, distinguishing clearly between himself and the other lord. The main emphasis of the rst part is the qualities of the other lord in relation to Yahweh. The second part hints at his historical mission, victorious actions, and glorious exaltation. Psalm 109(110) According to the LXX and the MT 1a b c d 2a b
Rahlfs 5X_] %BVJE ZBMNP K &J>QFO P LV SJPK UX_] LVSJX] NPV ,B RPV FL EFDJX_O NPV F XK B!O RX_ UPV@K F YRSPV K TPV VQPQP EJPO UX_O QPEX_O TPV S B CEPO EVOB NFX K TPV F DBQPTUFMFJ LV SJPK F L 4JXO LBJ@ LBUBLVSJFVF F O NF TX] UX_O F YRSX_O TPV
LXX
BH t
! "#$ %
& '
des Septuaginta-Psalters (BBB 134; Berlin: Philo, 2002); Ariane Cordes, Die Asafpsalmen in der Septuaginta. Der griechische Psalter als Übersetzung und theologisches Zeugnis (HBS 41; Freiburg: Herder, 2004). 7. Cf. Evangelia G. Dafni, Von Angesicht zu Angesicht. Prolegomena zum Thema “Gottschauen” im hebräischen und griechischen Exodusbuch, 1. Exodus 33,11.12– 23 übersetzungs- und wirkungskritisch (EM 2; Athens: Etaireia ton Filon tou Laou, 2001), and “Psalm 150 According to the Septuagint: Integrating Translation- and Tradition-Criticism into the Modern Septuagint Exegesis,” VeE 27, no. 2 (2006): 431–54. 1
244 3a b 4a b c 5a 6a b c 7a b
Psalms and Hebrews NFUB@ TPV I B SYI@ F O I NF SB] UI K EVOB NFX K TPV F O UBJ K MBNQSP UITJO UX_O B HJXO F L HBTUSP@K QSP@ FXTGP SPV F DFHF OOITB TF
a b
X NPTFO LV SJPK LBJ@ PV NFUBNFMIRI TFUBJ 4V@ FJ> JFSFV@K FJK UP@O BJ X_OB LBUB@ UI@O UB DJO .FMYJTFEFL LV SJPK FL EFDJX_O TPV TVOF RMBTFO F O INF SB] P SHI K BVUPV CBTJMFJ K LSJOFJ FO UPJ K F ROFTJO QMISX TFJ QUX NBUB TVORMB TFJ LFGBMB@K F QJ@ HI K QPMMX_O FL YFJNB SSPV FO P EX_] QJFUBJ EJB@ UPV UP VZX TFJ LFGBMI O
( % ' & ' % ) %
'
% * " + , & - . /
a b
0% + 1 ' 2
' " # ' 0 0% , 3 / ' % *
".
The Hebrew form of Ps 109(110) has been understood and explained differently by modern Old Testament scholars, as well as by the ancient translators of the Septuagint. The translator of Ps 109(110) seeks to nd the original meaning and sense of his Vorlage, changing Hebrew words into Greek equivalents. A careful comparative reading of the Hebrew and Greek text form makes it clear that it was his main intention to provide the translation word for word, so to speak, an isomorphic translation. Nevertheless, in the present critical text forms, as depicted in BHS, and in both the large and the small LXX edition by Rahlfs, signicant quantitative and qualitative differences, resulting from the course of the texttransmission, are attested. At rst sight, the quantitative differences, except for the Masoretic additions in v. 3, seem to be rather of stylistic nature, while the qualitative deviations are causally related to the prevailing vocalization of the Hebrew consonantal text and have more or less an inuence on the text’s understanding. The present critical form of the LXX Ps 109(110), edited by Rahlfs, is based on Vaticanus. In the critical apparatus, Rahlfs lists mainly deviations between the great codices. When comparing the citation of the text variants in the apparatus of the large and small LXX edition, one becomes aware that there is quite a difference in the way they are cited. Without getting lost in such details, I will rst give some examples of relatively 1
DAFNI Psalm 109(110):1–3 in the Septuagint
245
simple quantitative and qualitative obscurities in the textual transmission of vv. 2 and 4–7, and will second shift the focus to v. 3, which is shrouded in exegetical and hermeneutical mystery. Quantitative and Qualitative Obscurities in the Textual Transmission of LXX Psalm 109(110):2, 4–7 In clause 2a, instead of S B CEPO EVOB NFX K TPV Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus offer simply S B CEPO EVOB NFXK, a generalizing reading, not necessarily referring to the second Lord. A further quantitative deviation from the MT is located in clause 2b. Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus join clause 2a to 2b through the conjunction LBJ, seemingly a semantically unnecessary addition to the following imperative, LBUBLVSJFVTF— . In clause 4a, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus add the verbal form FJ> By contrast, Alexandrinus gives preference to a nominal formulation, which corresponds to the Hebrew nominal phrase, and omits the unnecessary FJ>
, which means to say Furthermore, in clause 4a the Hebrew / “according to my word” or “according to my promise,” is transformed in the LXX into LBUB@ UI@O UB DJO, “after the order of” or “according to the way of” or “on the model of.”8 The word UB DJK in combination with the following F XTGP SPK recalls the poetic-mythological connotation of LXX Job 38:12. In clause 6c, the MT reads a singular following Ps 68:22(LXX 7:21): 0% 4
3 5 (LXX: QMI@O P RFP@K TVORMB TFJ LFGBMB@K F YRSX_O BV UPV ). In both cases, the LXX offers the plural LFGBMB K—seemingly a harmonization to the previous plural QUX NBUB—# —which expresses divine anger and punishment reecting language and images of the so-called ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf-Mythos. Vaticanus and Alexandrinus join LFGBMB@K to the closing word of the sentence ' . Accordingly, both codices mention LFGBMB@K QPMMX_O, and allow the associative reading of this verse with Ps 73(74):13–14 and its Old Testament and Ugaritic parallels, especially Isa 27:1 and KTU 1.5 I 1–3 // I 27–30, where trails of the so-called Chaoskampf-Mythos are visible, and its protagonists, Yahweh and Leviathan, the seven headed dragon, are almost explicitly mentioned.9 Sinaiticus, as opposed to Vaticanus and 8. Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150 (WBC 21; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983), 81. 9. Evangelia G. Dafni, I? – . Genesis 3 und Jesaja 27,1 auch im Lichte von IKön 22,19-23, Hiob 1,6-12; 2,1-7 und Sach 3,1-2. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Sprache und der Theologie des Alten Testaments aus der Sicht des Masoretischen Textes und der Septuaginta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000 [original Greek version with German summary Athens, 1998]), 102–31. 1
246
Psalms and Hebrews
Alexandrinus, prefers the renderings QUX_NB instead of the plural QUX NBUB and F QJ@ HI O QPMMI@O instead of FQJ@ HI K QPMMX_O. In the rst case, QUX_NB seems to be used as a collective term. In the second case, while Vaticanus and Alexandrinus put the main stress on the heads of the countries (LFGBMB@K…QPMMX_O), who will be executed (cf. Isa 10:12ff.; 14; Ezek 28:1–19; 29; 31; 32; Dan 7), Sinaiticus shifts the emphasis to all the countries, that will be punished. It is obvious that Sinaiticus here tends to generalize, while Vaticanus and Alexandrinus prefer talking about individual punishment of the leaders of the countries, in accordance to v. 5, which refers to the execution of the earthly kings on the day of his wrath (cf. Isa 24:23), namely, the wrath of the second Lord. In clause 7, unlike Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus lls the logical gap of the Hebrew source text with the addition of V EXS In this way, language and images of the book of Jeremiah arise as well, according to which God is really the source of the water of life (Jer 2:13). This image of God stands in sharp contrast with the primordial water as a symbol for evil and the internal and external enemies of the chosen people (THAT, ThWAT, DDD). Deviations in the LXX Codices Regarding Verse 3 Clause 3a, according to Sinaiticus, omits the article of the phrase NFUB@ TPV I B SYI and offers the variant NFUB@ TPV B SYI , which seems to t better with the MT version. This leaves open the following questions: What kind of B SYI is meant here? The beginning, the rst principle or the power and sovereignty? Hereafter, Sinaiticus offers, instead of MBNQSP UITJO the singular MBNQSP UJK, transforming the phrase F O UBJ K MBNQSP UITJO UX_O B HJXO into F O UI] MBNQSP UIUJ UX_O B HJXO. It is remarkable that the plural formulation of Vaticanus and Alexandrinus corresponds to the unique Hebrew phrase & ' , which has been interpreted by modern scholars in various ways. Moreover, Alexandrinus completes the expression with the addition of the personal pronoun TPV after B HJXO and explains that the question here is about the MBNQSP UIUFK of the saints who sit enthroned on the right of the Lord, with whom, according to Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, is authority and sovereignty in the day of his power. In clause 3b the MT offers the variant ) (“to you dew”), which is not translated in the LXX. There are three possibilities: (1) the words were not attested in the Vorlage of the LXX and are a later addition in the MT, which wanted to avoid a specic interpretation of the verse and imply another one, perhaps with respect to MT Hos 6:2ff. or Joel 2:2 and Ps 133(132):3. (2) They were attested, but omitted by the translator, who 1
DAFNI Psalm 109(110):1–3 in the Septuagint
247
did not understand his source text, but in any case wanted to portray a certain meaning through this word. Allen10 suggests that the missing translation is due to “the translator’s inability to understand the words in their context, which was aggravated by construing ‘your youth’ as a verbal form.” Allen,11 however, understands the lexeme as basically an abstract nominal form, vocalizing it respectively. But the LXX as well as Peshitta, its Syriac re-translation, and many Hebrew manuscripts testify to the vocalization , (“I have begotten you”), which corresponds to Ps 2:7 (LXX HFHF OOILB TF) and builds a mental bridge to Ps 88(89):28 (LB HX@ QSXUP UPLPO RI TPNBJ BV UP O—6 , +' 7 ) and to the predominant relationship between father and son, God and his Anointed One. Alexandrinus prefers the verbal form F HF OOITB instead of F DFHF OOITB. In this way, the father–son relationship between the two lords is emphasized and the intension to read the psalm in connection with Ps 2:7ff. and 88(89):27ff. and to interpret them messianically, is made quite clear. More than Vaticanus, the basis text of Rahlfs’ edition, Alexandrinus offers meaningful additions, giving to the psalm a harmonic linguistic and theological structure. It focuses on the father–son relationship between the two lords, talks about the saints of the second lord, and individualizes the punishment. By contrast, Sinaiticus reads the text with the tendency to generalize. Traditio-Critical and Theological Remarks On the basis of the theologically intended word choice in the LXX, the following examples are given regarding the identity of the second Lord and his relationship to the Morning-star: Verse 1b—LV SJPK UX_] LVSJX]
and are translated in the LXX into a single standard equivalent,
namely, LV SJPK, which might lead us to confuse the identity of the two lords addressed. But the given word constellation LV SJPK UX]] LVSJX] is very rare in the LXX, with a contextual meaning characterized by transparency. We encounter it for the rst time LXX 2 Kgdms 4:8, F EXLF LV SJPK UX] LVSJX] CBTJMFJ F LEJLITJO UX_O F YRSX_O BV UPV … (“and the Lord has given to the lord the king vengeance on his enemies…”), and in reverse order in LXX 2 Kgs 24:22, -BCF UX LBJ@ B OFOFHLF UX P LV SJPK NPV P CBTJMFV@K UX] LVSJX] UP@ B HBRP@O F O P GRBMNPJ K BV UPV (“Let my lord the king take and offer to the Lord that which is good in his eyes”) The rst 10. Allen, Psalms 101–150, 81. 11. Ibid. 1
248
Psalms and Hebrews
expression ascribes to David the function of a king, the second the function of a priest. In both cases, a clear distinction has been made between the divine and human lord. God is the Lord without any other explication. The human one is the lord and the king of the narrator. However, this is not the case in v. 1b. The superscription of the psalm already indicates clearly that David addresses somebody else by “Lord” and not himself (cf. Pss 15:2; 139:7). The expression FJ^QFO P LV SJPK UX_] LVSJX] NPV creates an ideological ambience comparable to LXX Exod 33:11a: LBJ@ F MB MITFO LV SJPK QSP@ .XVTI O F OX QJPK F OXQJX]. The phrase FOX QJPK FOXQJX] (accusative + dative of the same word)12 explains how LV SJPK QSP@K .XVTI O must be understood, namely, as a friend to his friend, and gives rise to the assumption that the second lord fulls the function of a mediator between God and the people. Now, if the second lord in Ps 109(110) used to be King David, how is it possible to suppose that a king will be deied by God, since all the kings of the earth will be punished on the day of the wrath of the second lord? It is obvious that the LXX understands the psalm in a messianic sense. Verse 1c—LB RPV F L EFDJX_O NPV13 The majestic expression LB RPV F L EFDJX_O NPV (“sit [enthroned] on my right hand”) is unique in the LXX. The imperative verbal form LB RPV occurs only rarely, so that we could say that the formulation employed by the psalmist is syntactically, stylistically and semantically actually not comparable with other cases in the Greek Old Testament.14 In this instance, it is not about a place of honour next to the throne of God as a supreme king, but about a second throne on his right, that is he who appointed the second lord to be “a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek (v. 4), and “will dash in pieces kings in the day of his wrath” (v. 5, see 89:27; cf. 2:2–10). Thus, if we want to understand in depth the intention of the whole unique expression in v. 1c, we have to nd out what the adverbial phrase F L EFDJX_O NPV means within the LXX context. 12. The Hebrew text can also be translated into QSP TXQPO QSP@K QSP TXQPO. In this specic instance, there is a qualitative difference determined by the whole text structure. 13. Cf. William P. Brown, “A Royal Performance: Critical Notes on Psalm 110:3ag-b,” JBL 117 (1998): 93–96. 14. The expression LB RPV NFU F NPV is attested in JudgAB 17:10 and LXX 1 Kgdms 22:23. It refers only to relations among human individuals, Micah and the Levite, David and Abiathar. 1
DAFNI Psalm 109(110):1–3 in the Septuagint
249
F L EFDJX_O—There are several occurrences of the phrase FL EFDJX_O in the LXX, occurrences that bear both with a profane and a theological meaning, but not everyone of these occurrences ts into our context. Most relevant and important for our case seem to be the following texts: Deut 33:2, LXX 3 Kgdms 22:19 = 2 Chr (Paraleipomena) 18:18; Zech 3:1; 6:12–13 and Ps 108(109):6. (a) In Deut 33, Moses, the Man of God, blesses the children of Israel before his death. In the Exordium (vv. 2–5), Moses rst reminds the Israelites of Yahweh’s revelation in person followed by ten thousand men of Cades, and with angels (standing) on his right hand (LXX Deut 33:2): ,V SJPK FL 4JOB I LFJ LBJ@ F QF GBOFO F L 4IJS I NJ O LBJ@ LBUF TQFVTFO FD P SPVK 'BSBO TV@O NVSJB TJO ,BEIK F L EFDJX_O BV UPV B HHFMPJ NFU BVUPV
' 8 9 % " 1 :
& /
While the LXX transliterates & as a place name, the MT reads it as & and only mentions the holy myriads. In addition, the MT offers, instead of one word (B HHFMPJ), two, the common Semitic word and a Persian loanword / “law,” and, in so doing, argues as follows: from the right hand of Yahweh were not angelic hosts assisting him (see LXX 3 Kgdms 22:19 = 2 Chr 18:18; Zech 3:1ff.; Ps 88[89]:7; Job 1–2; Dan 7:10 cf. Isa 6 etc.), but the divine law as a re (cf. Exod 3:2; Hab 3:3f.) for the myriads of all his sanctied ones following him. (b) A comparable scene of the heavenly assembly of the Lord occurs in the vision of the prophet Micha ben Yimla (LXX 3 Kgdms 22:19 = 2 Chr 18:18): 19
… FJ>EPO UP@O LV SJPO RFP@O *TSBIM LBRI NFOPO FQJ@ RSPOPV BVUPV LBJ@ QB TB I TUSBUJB@ UPV PVSBOPV FJTUI LFJ QFSJ@ BVUP O F L EFDJX_O BVUPV LBJ@ FD FVXOV NXO BVUPV
; .
< - + 9 6
… LBJ@ FDI MRFO QOFV NB LBJ@ F TUI FOX QJPO LVSJPV
%6 # : #
21
Here it is remarkable that in both the MT and the LXX a clear distinction has been made between the heavenly host, which stands on the right and on the left of the throne of the Lord surrounding him, and the personied false spirit coming (from outside) and standing before him (v. 21; cf. Job 1:6f. and 2:1f.). Surprisingly, the spirit appears as a volunteer in order to take the divine permission to “persuade Ahab that he may go up and fall 1
250
Psalms and Hebrews
at Ramoth-Gilead” (v. 20).15 Terminology and ideas of this specic text give rise to a further comparison with a network of Old Testament passages mentioning the evil divine spirit (LXX 1 Kgs 18:10 etc.) and Satan, in sharp contrast to the holy spirit (Isa 11:2 etc.) and the angelic hosts. (c) Zechariah 3:1’s main concern is to describe the Angel of the Lord and the Satan (adversary), who is not sitting, but standing on the right of the Angel in order to accuse Jesus, the high priest, who also stands before him: ,BJ@ F EFJYF O NPJ *ITPV O UP@O JFSF B UP@O NF HBO FTUX_UB QSP@ QSPTX QPVB HHF MPVLVSJPV LBJ@ P EJB CPMPK FJTUI LFJ FL EFDJX_O BVUPV UPV BOUJLFJ TRBJ BVUX]
2 " . # 3 : ") 9 ) =
(d) Zechariah 6:12b–13 focuses on a man called "OBUPMI , “Sunrise” (not Brenton: The Branch), with the rank of a king whose main task is to re-build the temple of the Lord. On his right is the priest, but in the LXX it is not explicitly said that he is sitting on a throne as well (LXX), enjoying equal royal honours. The use of the verbal form F TUBJ (6:13) instead of FJTUI LFJ (3:1) makes it very clear. In addition, the text according to the LXX and the MT underlines that they both, the king and the priest, will full their mission peacefully and in perfect harmony: JEPV@ BOI@S "OBUPMI@ P OPNB BVUX_] LBJ@ VQPLB UXRFO BVUPV BOBUFMFJ LBJ@ PJLPEPNITFJ UP@O PJ>LPO LVSJPV LBJ@ BVUP@K MINZFUBJ BSFUI@O LBJ@ LBRJFUBJ LBJ@ LBUB SYFJ FQJ@ UPV RSPOPV BVUPV LBJ@ F TUBJ P JFSFV@K FL EFDJX_O BVUPV LBJ@ CPVMI@ FJSIOJLI@ F TUBJ B OB@ NF TPO BNGPUF SXO
*
% % - , % , 6
+ 6
+ 6 9 6
; .
6 ; .
" + , " '
The motifs of the two lords, the king and the priest, as well as the name of the king according to the LXX reminds one of Ps 109(110):1, 3–4. The question is whether there exists a relationship between the Morning-star (FXTGP SPK, LXX Ps 109:3) in contrast to Sunrise ( "OBUPMI , LXX Zech 15. See Dafni, I? – , 102–58. Cf. also Evangelia E. Dafni, “CB IHC und die falsche Prophetie in I Kön 22,” ZAW 112 (2000): 365–85. 1
DAFNI Psalm 109(110):1–3 in the Septuagint
251
6:12b), and Satan (EJB CPMPK, LXX Zech 3:1), or not. In my view, the identication of them by the Jewish-Hellenistic translators and readers cannot be excluded. (e) Psalm 108(109):6 seems to be the contrasting image of Ps 109(110):1. It refers to the punishment of the sinner and the deceitful (LXX)/wicked and the deceitful ruler (MT), who lay charges against the psalmist/David (cf. 1 Chr 21:1; 29:4; 2 Chr 19:23; LXX 1 Kgs 5:18). Therefore, according to the ancient Near Eastern and Old Testament’s lex talionis, they have to be paid back in their own coin. The psalmist/ David invokes Yahweh to take a wicked ruler to accuse him of being assisted by an adversary/Satan who is standing on the right hand (cf. Zech 3:1). In the immediately following Ps 109(110):1 we nd the unique imperative LB RPV F L EFDJX_O NPV, while v. 5 is about the execution of every ruler/king standing as an adversary on the right of the second Lord: ,BUB TUITPO FQ BVUP@O BNBSUXMP O LBJ@ EJB CPMPK TUI UX FL EFDJX_O BVUPV
& : ") =
It is obvious that the unique expression “sit on my right” presupposes the image of the assembly of the Lord and implies a universal judgment, which will be carried out by the Lord through the other Lord, who according to this single psalm is by no means identical to David, but is pictured as the Lord of King David and the king of the kings, who will be executed from his right hand on the day of his wrath. Verse 1d—FXK B O RX_ UPV@K F YRSPV K TPV VQPQPEJPO UX_O QPEX_O TPV The expression FXK B O RX_ UPV@K F YRSPV K TPV VQPQPEJPO UX_O QPEX_O TPV is unique and not fullled in the person of David. Proto-canonical texts with comparable language and content might be Pss 17(18):38, 88(89):24 and Jer 26(46):10.16 But the characteristic coinage of the promise expressed in Ps 109(110):1d, which distinguishes it from all the other Old Testament formulations, lies exactly in the adverbial phrase V QPQP EJPO UX_O QPEX_O TPV. The phrase V QPQP EJPO UX_O QPEX_O is a stereotypical expression attested four times in the LXX, namely, in Pss 98(99):5; 109(110):1; Isa 66:1 and Lam 2:1.
16. Odad 6 belongs to its reception history, because the theme of Ps 109(110):1d recurs throughout this extra-canonical messianic text. 1
252
Psalms and Hebrews
(a) Isaiah 66:1 is a later text. It could be understood as an explication of all the previous Old Testament expressions about the divine kingdom and the throne of Yahweh, and could as well form the crux of the identication of the two lords and the assignment of the duty of the world judgment in Ps 109(110):1 to the second lord: PV UXK MF HFJ LV SJPK 0 PVSBOP K NPJ RSP OPK I EF@ HI VQPQP EJPO UX_O QPEX_O NPV QPJ PO PJ>LPO PJLPEPNI TFUF NPJ I QPJ PK UP QPK UI K LBUBQBV TFX K NPV
. ; . < 0 6
, %6 &
Apart from the allusions to LXX 2 Kgdms 7:7 and 3 Kgdms 8:27, Isa 66:1 joins imagery of Ps 109(110):1, 4 and Zech 6:12–13. When reading LXX Isa 66:1 together with LXX Ps 109:1.4 and LXX Zech 6:12–13, it is possible to associate Yahweh’s qualities with the given qualities of the second lord because the Greek text makes no terminological distinction between the two lords. However, this might not be obvious for the Greek speaking recipient of the Old Testament: Who is the lord (LV SJPK) speaking in LXX Isa 66:1? The rst (MT: ) or the second one according to LXX Ps 109(110)? If it is about the second lord, then the third part of the book of Isaiah receives a messianic orientation throughout, and, from the New Testament perspective, it could also be interpreted christologically. (b) While the Lord according to LXX Isa 66:1 says that “the heaven is his throne and the earth his footstool” and asks “what kind of a house will you build me? And of what kind is to be the place of my rest?,” Isa 6:3 stresses that “the whole earth is full of his glory” and Isa 6:1 species that “the house (namely the temple) was full of his glory.” Thus, we can assume that the image of the footstool of the Lord is identical with his resting-place, namely the holy place where he reveals his glory and is gloried by the seraphim surrounding him as the Holy One, the Lord of hosts (Isa 6:3). In Proto-Isaiah’s imagery this is the whole earth, as well as the temple. In Ps 98(99), a Davidic Psalm according to the LXX superscription, the Lord is depicted majestically as a king sitting on cherubs (v. 1), loving judgment, justice and equity. In v. 5 the psalmist/David is called upon to exalt the Lord and worship his footstool, “for he is holy”:
6ZPV UF LV SJPO UP O RFP@O INX_O LBJ@ QSPTLVOFJ UF UX_] VQPQPEJX] UX_O QPEX_O BVUPV P UJ B HJP K F TUJO 1
6 4 5 6 6% , 6 &
DAFNI Psalm 109(110):1–3 in the Septuagint
253
Considering this expression from the perspective of Isa 6:1–3 and 66:1, we can assume that in this instance the “footstool” implies both the whole earth and the temple of Yahweh. In LXX Ps 109:1d, the enemies of the second lord will be made his “footstool” by the rst lord, the God of Israel. (c) In Lam 2:1, which carries certain linguistic and theological characteristics of Ps 109(110), the footstool of the Lord is identied with daughter Zion: QX_K FHOP GXTFO FO P SHI ] BVUPV LV SJPK UI@O RVHBUF SB 4JXO LBUF SSJZFO FD PVSBOPV FJK HI O EP DBTNB *TSBIM LBJ@ PVL FNOI TRI V QPQPEJPV QPEX_O BVUPV FO INF SB] PSHI K BVUPV
1 ' + "#-
' 0 < 3
= : ,
+ ; 1 '
In the parallelismus membrorum we establish a threefold designation of Jerusalem: daughter Zion, the beauty/glory of Israel and the footstool of the Lord. The second designation in the present context (LBUF SSJZFO FD PVSBOPV FJK HI O EP DBTNB *TSBIM) is obviously a euphemism for “haughtiness,” which is implied here. This formulation reminds us, rst of all, of the proclamation of punishment in the day of Yahweh’s anger according to Isa 14:12ff. and Obad 3–4. These passages are the link to other Old Testament passages also referring to pride/haughtiness, and the punishment of earthly kings on the day of Yahweh. Verse 3a—F O I NF SB UI K EVOB NFXK TPV Instead of INF SB LVSJPV, in Ps 109(110) the designation I NF SB UI K EVOB NFXK TPV occurs as a hapax legomenon in the LXX. This stylistic feature recalls the divine name LV SJPK UX_O EVOB NFXO, rst attested in the context of the Davidic dynasty, but which is now to be understood in an eschatological sense. It is remarkable that Ps 23(24):10 identies LV SJPK UX_O EVOB NFXO with CBTJMFV@K UI K EP DIK. 5JK F TUJO PV
. 3 6
- . 3 6
Psalm 109(110) proclaims the coming of the second Lord who will be the king of glory. This helps us to understand clearly the modal expression F O UBJ K MBNQSP UITJO UX_O B HJXO
1
254
Psalms and Hebrews
Verse 3a—F OUBJ KMBNQSP UITJOUX_OB HJXO This phrase is a hapax legomenon in the LXX. The word MBNQSP UIK is attested only six times. An interesting occurrence of the word is found in LXX Isa 60:3 (LBJ@ QPSFV TPOUBJ CBTJMFJ K [MT:
] UX_] GXUJ TPV LBJ@ F ROI [MT: + ] UI ] MBNQSP UIUJ TPV). The revealed will of God is compared to a brilliant light. This light and brightness will direct the way of kings and nations in the great day of the Lord. In the same way Bar 4:24 compares the coming salvation to a ood of glory and brightness radiating from the eternal God: X TQFS HB@S OV O FXSB LBTJO BJ QBSPJLPJ 4JXO UI@O VNFUF SBO BJYNBMXTJBO PV UXK P ZPOUBJ FO UB YFJ UI@O QBSB@ UPV RFPV VNX_O TXUISJBO I FQFMFV TFUBJ VNJ O NFUB@ EP DIK NFHB MIK LBJ@ MBNQSP UIUPK UPV BJXOJPV. Baruch 5:3 (P HB@S RFP@K EFJDFJ UI ] VQ PVSBOP@O17 QB TI] UI@O TI@O MBNQSP UIUB) refers to the heavenly brightness/glory of Jerusalem, which will be eschatologically revealed by God. In Ps 89(90):17 the wish is expressed that the brightness/glory of the Lord will be upon his people and will direct the works of their hands: ,BJ@ F TUX I MBNQSP UIK LVSJPV UPV RFPV INX_O FG INB K ,BJ@ UB@ F SHB UX_O YFJSX_O INX_O LBUFV RVOPO FG INB K
6 6 4 5
6 . 6 = 6
This expression paves the way to Ps 109(110):3a. -BNQSPUIK is here synonymous to EP DB describing sunlight, and in a moral-ethical sense, clearness, lightness and brilliance, derived from the expression UB@ F SHB UX_O YFJSX_O INX_O LBUFV RVOPO FG INB K. Thus the phrase MBNQSP UIUFK UX_O B HJXO refers not to those who are simply “in holy vestments,” but to the wise and righteous ones who are gloried by God. This idea nds its full expression in TH-Dan 12:3: ,BJ@ PJ TVOJF OUFK FLMB NZPVTJO XK I MBNQSP UIK UPV TUFSFX NBUPK18 ,BJ@ B QP@ UX_O EJLBJXO UX_O QPMMX_O XK PJ BTUF SFK FJK UPV@K BJX_OBK LBJ@ F UJ
6 . = ( & . ' & / - 6 +. .
Verse 3b—F L HBTUSP@K QSP@ F XTGP SPV FDFHF OOITB TF The nature of the second lord is closer dened in 3b with the adverbial phrases F L HBTUSP@K and QSP@ F XTGP SPV F L HBTUSPK—It is remarkable that apart from Ps 109(110):3 every other relevant LXX occurrence is joined to the genitive possessive NIUSP K
1
17. See the same term referring to Satan’s eld of action in LXX Job 1:7 and 2:2. 18. LXX Dan 12:3, XK GXTUI SFK UPV PVSBOPV
DAFNI Psalm 109(110):1–3 in the Septuagint
255
(NPV), in correspondence to the Masoretic text: Eccl 5:14 (BQP@ HBTUSP@K NIUSP@K BVUPV ), Ps 138:13 and Job 31:18 (FL HBTUSP@K NIUSP@K NPV). Cf. Ps Pss 21:10 (FL HBTUSP K//BQP@ NBTUX_O UI K NIUSP K NPV); 70:6 (BQP@ HBTUSP@K FL LPJMJBK NIUSPK NPV); Job 3:10 (QV MBK HBTUSP@K NIUSP K NPV). Noteworthy are expressions which designate the limitations of human existence in Job 3:11 (FO LPJMJB] PVL FUFMFV UITB FL HBTUSP@K EF@ FDI MRPO), 10:19 (EJB@ UJ HB@S FL HBTUSP@K FJK NOI NB PVL BQIMMB HIO) and Sir 40:1 (BG INFSBK FDP EPV FL HBTUSP@K NIUSP@K BVUX_O F XK INFSBK FQJTUSPGI K FJK NIUFSB QBOUXO). The occurrences in the translations of later poetical books have not been taken into consideration for the translation of Ps 109(110). Crucial for Ps 109(110) is JudgA 13:5 and 7, with regard to the divine promise of the birth of Samson. JudgesA 13:7 (P UJ OB[JSBJ PO RFPV F TUBJ UP@ QBJEB SJPO BQP@ UI K HBTUSP@K F XK INFSBK RBOB UPV BVUPV ) is joined to the above-mentioned occurrences and gives expression to the idea of holiness regarding the child who is to be born. This, however, is relative because of its temporality: it is limited and lasts “from the womb until the day of his death.” JudgesA 13:5 (P UJ JEPV@ TV@ FO HBTUSJ@ F DFJK LBJ@ UFDI] VJP@O … IHJBTNFOPO OB[JSBJ PO F TUBJ UX_] RFX_] UP@ QBJEBSJPO FL UI K HBTUSPK LBJ@ BVUP@K B SYFUBJ TX ][FJO UP@O *TSBIM FL YFJSP@K BMMPGV MXO) has no corresponding Hebrew expression and refers to the historical assignment of the child, namely to rescue Israel from the hands of its enemies. The equivalent F L HBTUSP@K seems to replace here the usual rendering F L LPJMJBK. It is remarkable that the adverbial phrase F L LPJMJBK is also joined to a divine promise in Gen 25:23 (Jacob–Esau); Judg 16:17 (Samson); LXX 2 Kgdms 7:12n (David); Isa 44:2; 49:1, 5 (the Servant of God); 44:24 (Servant/Israel). Psalm 109(110) allows us to imagine an analogous promise for the second lord, without giving any kind of genealogy, but using a further adverbial phrase (QSP@ F XTGP SPV) causing considerable exegetical and hermeneutical problems regarding the identity of Eosphoros. The preference of HBTUI S instead of LPJMJB within this context was avoided, probably because of its usage in Gen 3:15 and the associations it could evoke. QSP@ F XTGP SPV19—The translator does not read the common noun % , a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible, but the compound form % + " . 19. Cf. F. Parante, “1SP@ F XTGP SPV F DFHF OOITB TF. La Traduzione die Salmo 110,3c,” SCO 22 (1973): 176–99. 1
LXX
di
256
Psalms and Hebrews
% occurs approximately 23 times in the Hebrew Bible,20 recalling
the name of the Ugaritic heavenly twin deities šÜr w šlm which control natural phenomena. It is noteworthy that šÜr is used also as a divine element in Akkadian and Punic personal names (HAD, 1467f.). The Septuagint provides the following renderings: P SRSPK QSXJ FXRJOP K FXTGP SPK QSP JNPK
Gen 19:15; Josh 6:15; LXX 1 Kgdms 9:26; Neh 4:15; Hos 6:3; 10:15; Amos 4:13; Joel 2:2; Pss 57(56):9; 108(107):3; 139(138):9; Song 6:10 Gen 32:25; Judg 19:25; Isa 14:12 Jon 4:7. Ps 22(21):1 Job 3:9; 38:12txt; 41:10 Isa 58:8
* Isa 8:20 (EX_SB?) and 47:11 (-) offer no transparent equivalency.
The equivalent FXTGP SPK is only preferable in those cases where the mythological horizon of the expression is obvious to the translator and his recipients. In Ps 109(110):3a, two prepositional combinations, % % , stood before the translator, who had to nd a reasonable and theologically well-founded rendering. Therefore, he suggested: FL HBTUSP@K QSP@ FXTGP SPV (= from the womb before the morning-star/Eosforos/ Lucifer). It is not quite clear whether FXTGPSPK in this context is a proper or a common noun, or not. From the reader’s perspective both are possible. The rst possibility is mirrored in Brendon’s translation “the morning-star,” the second possibility implies Petersma’s rendering “Morning-star.” According to the translator’s understanding, the Hebrew word % serves as a useful point of departure to show what kind of images might be associated with Ps 109(110):3b. This specic word leads us to Amos 4:13, which reads as follows: …B QBHHFMMXO FJK B ORSX QPVK UP@O YSJTUP@O BV UPV_ QPJX_O PSRSPO LBJ= P NJYMIO (Brenton: …and proclaims to men his Christ, forming the morning and the darkness. Howard [NETS]: and announces his anointed to humans, makes dawn and mist). In this case, the superiority of the Anointed One against % , translated in the LXX simply as “morning”/“dawn” and not “the Morning-star,”21 is implied. A comparative reading of LXX Ps 109(110):3 and LXX Amos 4:13 might inevitably evoke similar associations. 20. Even-Shoshan says 24 times, including Gen 32:24, 26, instead of only 32:25. 21. Cf. Joel 2:2, which refers to the Morning-star/morning and the mighty and incomparable people in the great day of the Lord: INF SB OFGF MIK LBJ@ PNJYMIK XK P SRSPK YVRI TFUBJ FQJ@ UB@ P SI MBP@K QPMV@K LBJ@ JTYVSP@K P NPJPK BVUX_] PV HF HPOFO BQP@ UPV BJX_OPK LBJ@ NFU BVUP@O PV QSPTUFRI TFUBJ F XK FUX_O FJK HFOFB@K HFOFX_O. 1
DAFNI Psalm 109(110):1–3 in the Septuagint
257
F XTGP SPK—There are seven occurrences of the word F XTGP SPK in the LXX, which serves as equivalent not only for % (Ps 109[110]:3; Job 3:9; 41:10), but also for 7 * (1 Sam 30:17), & ' (Job 11:17; 38:12) and (Isa 14:12). 1 Sam (1 Kgdms) 30:17 BQPFXTGP SPVFXKEFJMIK
7 * %
Ps 109(110):3 QSP@FXTGP SPV Job 3:9 FXTGP SPOB OBUFMMPOUB
% 1 : ' & ' .
Job 11:17 XTQFSFXTGP SPK Job 38:12
& % < , / % , / & '
FXTGP SPKEF=FJ>EFOUI@OFBVUPV UB DJO Job 41:10 PJEF=PGRBMNPJ=BVUPV FJ> Isa 14:12
% 1 : .
% " ' < , : 3
QX_KFDFQFTFOFLUPV PVSBOPV P FXTGP SPKP QSXJ=B OBUFMMXO
When comparing the Hebrew and Greek equivalency, the synonymity of the words in use is very obvious. But only three of them seem to be relevant to our specic case, namely Job 38:12; 41:10 and Isa 14:12. For the translation technique it is noteworthy that in the free translation of Isa 14:12 it is not % but the hapax legomenon that is rendered with F XTGP SPK. The Masoretic text contains the mythological desig ' , which reminds of Hesiod’s Theogony 381: 5PV@K EF@ nation% " NF U B TUF SB UJLUFO &XTGP SPO )SJHF OFJB Instead of a mythological designation, the translator of Isaiah prefers the demythologized, poetic expression P FXTGP SPK P QSXJ@ BOBUF MMXO, recalling Homer’s Iliad 23.226f.: ^)NPK E F XTGP SPK FJ>TJ GP XK F SF XO F QJ@ HBJBO P O UF NF UB LSPLPQFQMPK V QFJ@S B MB LJEOBUBJ I X K Nevertheless, the mythological allusions are not totally erased, because they have been transferred to other contextual elements of Isa 14:12. The Greek equivalent FXTGP SPK within the context of Ps 109(110) enables, rst of all, a comparison with Job 38:12 and 41:10. The poetical formulation in LXX Job 38:12b FXTGP SPK EF@ FJ>EFO UI@O FBVUPV UBDJO provides similar vocabulary, but the text’s intention is different. By reading LXX Job 38:12b in the light of the Classical Greek literary evidence,22 22. Plato, Timaeus 38d.2.6, Leges 821c.2, and Epinomis 986e.7; 987b.2; Eudoxus, Fragm 124.88f., and Ars Astronomica 4.34f., 5.2 and 5.9A. 1
258
Psalms and Hebrews
a naturalistic interpretation is possible. The occurrences in Plato and Eudoxus, the most renowned astronomer and mathematician of the fourth century BCE, allow us to explain Job’s phrase UB DJK UPV F XTGP SPV as a astronomical reference to the celestial motion of Venus. But in LXX Ps 109(110) the words F XTGP SPK and UB DJK are used separately in vv. 3 and 4. While the modal determination LBUB@ UI@O UB DJO .FMYJTFEF L (v. 4) designates the priestly mission of the second lord, the temporal determination QSP@ FXTGP SPV (v. 3) refers to his birth and existence. This poetical expression has a mythological aura which is very noticeable in the poetical personication of the Morning-star (Vulgate: Lucifer), which surrounds the gure of Leviathan (LXX and Vulgate: dragon) in Job 41:10 as well. As we know, Leviathan, a biblical name probably for the crocodile, has an unambiguously Ugaritic mythological background (KTU 1.5 I 1–3 // I 27–30) and nds direct linguistic parallels in Isa 27:1 and Ps 73(74):13–14. In both cases the name Leviathan, obviously a rabbinical nesse for the Ugaritic lt n, which probably means the “Crowed One,”23 is used as a symbol of God’s adversary, who will be erased on the great day of the Lord. In LXX Job 41:10 Leviathan’s eyes are compared to the Morning-star (PJ EF@ PGRBMNPJ@ BVUPV FJ>EPK FXTGP SPV) and his snorting is pictured as a light in the darkness (FO QUBSNX_] BVUPV FQJGBV TLFUBJ GF HHPK). This imagery seems to form a sharp contrast to the divine ood of brilliant light, which is transferable to the holy people who follow God’s will. As we have seen before, the king of Babylon in his ambition of selfdeication, is compared, and at last identied, with the Morning-star, obviously a remnant of a lost Ancient Mesopotamian or Canaanite astral myth, re-echoed in the Greek myth of Icarus, who ew too close to the sun and fell into the Icarian Sea (Apollodorus, Epitome of the Biblioteca I.11; II.6.3; cf. Hyginus, Fabulae 40, and Ovid, Metamorphoses VIII 183–235) or the pride of the primeval human beings, who “were all round and moved round and round,” “the man was originally the child of the sun, the woman of the earth, and the man-woman of the moon, which is made up of sun and earth” and “the tale of the hybris of Otys and Ephialtes who…dared to scale heaven, and would have laid hands upon the gods” in Plato’s Symposion 189e.5–190a.5). Instead of an ascent to the highest heaven, the king of Babylon attains the abyss (cf. the personied Edon in LXX Obad 5ff.). Thus, LXX Isa 14:12 contemplates: QX_K FDFQFTFO FL UPV PVSBOPV P FXTGPSPK P QSXJ@ BOBUF MMXO TVOFUSJCI FJK UI@O HI O P BQPTUF MMXO QSP@K QB OUB UB@ F ROI While the designation Eosforos in Isa 14:12 characterizes the king of Babylon, the 1
23. Dafni, I? – , 113ff.
DAFNI Psalm 109(110):1–3 in the Septuagint
259
expression QSP@ FXTGP SPV F DFHF OOITB TF drops a hint of a personied/ hypostatized opponent of the second lord, whose nature and historical action describe a group of poetical units in the Old Testament with mythological linguistic features including monologues named by Gerhard von Rad in his Theology of the Old Testament as Hoffartsmonologe.24 It concerns Isa 10:12–16 (king of Assyria), Isa 14:(3)4–11, 12–21 (king of Babylon), Ezek 28:1–10, 11–19 (prince/king of Tyrus), Ezek 29:1–7(8–9) and 32:1–10 (Pharaoh), which I have already discussed extensively in my dissertation.25 The quintessence of these passages, which construct the Old Testament’s horizon of Ps 109(110) as well, are also summarized in Isa 24:23 and 27:1 and their parallels.26 Leaving aside the details of many formal differences, the reader may assess the following common patterns: (1) Yahweh’s adversary is pictured as an individual who appears with comparable, but not identical outward characteristics (e.g. ood of brilliant light versus light in the darkness). (2) Its main inner characteristic is the pride, the uprising, the rebellion against God and his people. (3) The lot which will fall upon the adversary on the great day of Yahweh is total destruction. These patterns prompt the reader to make the necessary comparisons with Gen 3 and to reect on the theological understanding of the psalmic translators. Conclusions Ps 109(110), according to the LXX, reects imagery in a more compressed way than the other passages about the so-called ChaoskampfMythos and the units about the pride (“hybris”) of the kings. Its main concern is to show which kind of relationship there is between the two lords and to distinguish between the second lord, David, the kings standing on his right as well as the enigmatic gure of Eosphoros. The linguistic allusions to these units lead us to conclude a common tradition-historical horizon, and to date the psalm from the post-exilic period. Greek equivalents seem to be used not only to translate, but also to interpret the psalm on the basis of this focus. In this sense, their intention is not to reach some tentative conclusions about coincidental literal echoes, but to establish and highlight direct ideological and theological dependencies.
24. Gerhard von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments. Vol. 2, Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferungen Israels (9th ed.; Munich: Kaiser, 1987), 186. 25. Dafni, I? – , 139–41. 26. Ibid., 132–43, 149–55, 157. 1
This page intentionally left blank
Part III
CONTEMPORARY ILLUSTRATION: AN AFRICAN EXAMPLE
This page intentionally left blank
THE VERSIFICATION OF THE PSALMS AND THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PSALMS IN HEBREWS Herrie Van Rooy
Introduction The messianic interpretation of the Psalms has received new attention in some circles of the Afrikaans-speaking Christian community of South Africa in recent years. This is especially the result of the publication of a new hymnbook in Afrikaans with a new Afrikaans version of the Psalter. Among people who still have a high regard for the older version of the Psalter, the way in which the so-called Messianic Psalms were rendered in the new version is one of the main problems with the new Psalter. It is well known that a number of psalms were interpreted messianically in the New Testament. One of the guiding principles behind the criticism directed at the new Psalter is the idea that the New Testament’s interpretation of the Psalms should be denitive for the understanding of the original psalm, and thus for the interpretation behind the metric version used as hymns in the church. This contribution will examine a number of examples of renderings of Ps 110, to illustrate the problem. Then it will consider the criticism levelled against the new Afrikaans Psalter. It will then present a short survey of the Psalms linked to the Messiah in Hebrews, with a view to comparing the interpretation of these psalms in Hebrews to the interpretation underlying a number of metric versions of those psalms, to look at the hermeneutics of these Psalters and the consistency with which they used their hermeneutical principles in the metric versions of the Psalter. Some Examples of Psalms As this essay is directed especially at the discussion related to the new Afrikaans Psalter, the rst strophe of Ps 110 will be given from the two Afrikaans versions, with an English translation following:1 1. The psalms quoted in this study were taken from the following Hymn Books: Old and New Afrikaans versions: Gereformeerde Kerke in Suid-Afrika, Psalmboek 1
Psalms and Hebrews
264
Psalm 110—Old Afrikaans Version Die HEER is dit wat tot my HEER gespreek het: “Sit aan my regterhand as hoogste HEER, tot Ek u vyand in sy mag gebreek het, hom werp as voetbank voor u voete neer.” The LORD it was who spoke to my LORD: “Sit at my right hand as highest LORD, till I destroyed your enemy in his might, casting him down as footstool before your feet.”
The messianic interpretation behind this version is clear from the phrase “my HEER” (My LORD) at the end of line 1. In the Old Afrikaans Translation of the Bible the word HERE (LORD), with four capital letters, was used as a rendering for the tetragrammaton, while Lord was used to render Adonay. This distinction was not made in the Old Afrikaans Psalter, which used HERE or HEER for both names. “My Lord” refers to the Messiah in this version. This version can be compared to the Dutch version of 1773. Psalm 110—Dutch 1773 Dus heeft de Heer tot mijnen Heer gesproken, “Zit op den troon ter rechterhand naast Mij; Tot ik de macht uws vijands hebb’ verbroken, En U zijn nek tot eene voetbank zij.” Thus the LORD spoke to my Lord: Sit on the throne at my right hand next to Me; Till I have destroyed the might of your enemy, and his neck be a footstool for you.
It is quite evident that the Old Afrikaans version and the Dutch 1773 version share the same interpretation of the psalm. This strophe also demonstrates the frequent dependence of the Old Afrikaans version on the Dutch version of 1773. In this instance the dependence is quite evident in the rst strophe, but not so much in the remainder of the psalm.
(Wellington: NG Kerk-uitgewers, 2003); Dutch 1773: Hervormde Kerk van Nederland, Het boek der Psalmen nevens de Gezangen (Amsterdam: Bijbel-compagnie, 1917); Dutch 1973: Interkerklijke Stichting voor het Kerklied, Liedboek voor de kerken (Zoetermeer/Heerenveen: Boekencentrum/Jongbloed, 1996); CRC 1914: Christian Reformed Church, The Psalter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Sevensma, 1914); CRC 1988: Christian Reformed Church, Psalter Hymnal (Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 1988). 1
VAN ROOY The Versification of the Psalms
265
Psalm 110—New Afrikaans Version Dit het die Heer belowe vir my koning: “Sit aan my regterhand” het Hy gespreek, “en in die stryd behaal jy die oorwinning; Ek sal jou vyande se mag verbreek.” This the Lord promised to my king: “Sit at my right hand” He said, “and in the battle you will be victorious; I will break your enemies’ might.”
This version sees the person addressed in this psalm as the king, not the Messiah. This interpretation agrees with that of the new Dutch Psalter of 1973, who refers to “mijn heer,” that is “my lord.” Psalm 110 in the Version of Charles H. Gabriel The Lord unto his Christ hath said, In glory I enthrone Thee Till all Thy foes, in triumph led, Their sovereign King shall own Thee; From Zion shall Jehovah send Thy sceptre, till before Thee bend The knees of proud rebellion.
In this version the link with Christ is made even more explicit than in the Old Afrikaans and Dutch versions, with the use of “Christ.” This psalm was part of the Psalter of the Christian Reformed Church of the U.S.A. dating from 1914. There was another version of this same psalm in this Psalter, by Henry S. Cutler, which had the reference to Christ in the rst line as well. In the Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church from 1988 the version of Gabriel was omitted, but the one of Cutler was retained, however, in an altered form. In the revision of this version, the language was modernized. The reference to Christ was altered as well. The rst line reads as follows: The LORD unto my Lord has said…
This version shares the messianic interpretation of the Old Afrikaans and the Dutch 1773. It does not, however, make the reference to Christ explicit. The custom of making metric versions of the Psalms for use in the church, without adding a Christological dimension to the hymn, except where the original psalm is regarded as directly messianic, is typical of the Calvinistic tradition of Protestantism. In the Lutheran tradition the reinterpretation of a psalm in a more direct messianic sense is much 1
266
Psalms and Hebrews
more common. One example will sufce, namely, the second strophe of the version of Ps 45 by Phillip Nicolai from 1599:2 O meines Herzens werte Kron, wahr Gottes und Marien Sohn, ein hochgeborner König! Mit Freude rühm ich deine Ehr, deins heilgen Worte süße Lehr ist über Milch und Honig. Herzlich will ich dich drum preisen und erweisen, daß man merke in mir deines Geistes Stärke. The crown of my heart’s value, the true Son of God and Mary, a King of high birth. With joy I praise your honour, the sweet teaching of your word is more than milk and honey. Therefore I want to praise you, and demonstrate so that people can see in me the strength of your Spirit.
The identication of the King in this psalm with the Son of God and Mary is typical of this kind of reinterpretation. The Messianic Interpretation in Discussion The issue of the messianic interpretation is still one touched upon frequently in discussion, with some scholars accepting that some psalms were intended to be interpreted in a direct messianic way, and others opposing the notion. Waltke states it clearly that there is messianic hope in some of the Davidic Psalms, such as Ps 110.3 He links the rise of messianism not to the inter-testamental period, but to the kingly ideal of Israel as expressed in the Royal Psalms. In the editing of the Psalter some of the psalms became full blown messianic psalms. He says in this regard: “A Messianic hue tints the entirety of the edited Psalter we have
2. This is hymn 292 in the Evangelisch-luthererisches Gesangbuch der hannoverischen Landeskirche, cf. Freien Evangelisch-Lutherische Synode in SüdAfrika, Evangelisch-lutherisches Gesangbuch der hannoverischen Landeskirche (Durban: Pinetown, 1979). This hymn is included in a section with the title “Jesuslieder.” Two other hymns in this section are psalms as well, namely Hymn 295 (Ps 65:10) and 318 (Ps 73:23–28). Both of them have explicit references to Christ. 3. Bruce K. Waltke, “Psalms: Theology of,” NIDOTTE 4:1111. 1
VAN ROOY The Versification of the Psalms
267
in hand.”4 He accepts that the psalmist can act as “a prophet predicting the sufferings and the glories of Jesus Christ.”5 A different approach is followed by Craigie. In his discussion of Pss 2 and 45 he accepts that the original compositions were related to an Israelite king. He notes the interpretation of these psalms in the New Testament linking them to Christ, but that was not the original message of these psalms. With regard to Ps 2 he says that the words of the psalm did not change, but with the passage of time its function and signicance have changed.6 To understand the message of the psalm, its initial meaning must be determined.7 The later messianic interpretation is then linked to the idea of the kingdom of God. With regard to Ps 45 he accepts that it was not messianic in its original sense and context. The transition with regard to its interpretation he links to Heb 1:8–9.8 In his discussion of the Royal Psalms, Whybray points out that some scholars do not accept an eschatological dimension in the psalms,9 but he does accept the idea, linked to the fullment of the promises to the house of David in an eschatological future. In agreement with Whybray, one can accept that the later messianic interpretation of some Royal Psalms was built on this aspect of these psalms. It is impossible to present a survey of the history of the messianic interpretation of the Psalms. It is evident, however, that many, and, at times, all psalms were interpreted messianically. Hay, for instance, deals with the interpretation of Ps 110 in the Early Church, which used this psalm to point to the glory and transcendence of Jesus as the mediator of salvation. This psalm is seen as a symbol of his divine status.10 In the four headings given to this psalm in the Syriac manuscript 12t4, the messianic interpretation by different Church Fathers is illustrated. This manuscript has at least four headings for each psalm, with three of them attributed to the early Fathers Athanasius, Eusebius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. All three of them link Ps 110 to the Messiah. Eusebius has a short heading: “The victory of the Messiah.” Athanasius has a very long heading with an explicit reference to Jesus as our saviour. The heading of Theodore makes this link quite clear: “He (i.e. David) prophecies about the rule of our Saviour, the Messiah.” It is well known that Theodore 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid., 4:1112. 6. Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50 (WBC 19; Waco: Word, 1983), 40. 7. Ibid., 41. 8. Ibid., 340–41. 9. Roger N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book (Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1996), 88–99 (88 and 99). 10. David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), 155. 1
268
Psalms and Hebrews
interpreted only four psalms messianically, namely, Pss 2, 8, 45 and 110,11 whereas in the allegorical interpretation of the Alexandrians, more psalms were interpreted messianically. In the history of the versication of the Psalms in the Reformed tradition, John Calvin played an important role. It is therefore interesting to note his interpretation of two of the psalms generally regarded as messianic. He links Ps 2 primarily to David, and then uses typology to move from David to Christ. In the Latin he uses the phrase imago redemptoris for David as type.12 The enemies of the psalm are David’s enemies.13 As far as the word Messiah is concerned, Calvin says: “By honouring himself with the title of Messiah, or anointed, he declares that he reigned only by the authority of God, inasmuch as the oil brought by the hand of Samuel made him king who before was only a private person.”14 As far as Ps 2:7 is concerned, Calvin does not want to connect it to the idea of the eternal generation of Christ, but rather to the time when it became clear that Jesus is the Son of God.15 It is therefore clear that Calvin did not regard this psalm as pointing to the Messiah in its original context. He did, however, regard Ps 110 as pointing directly to the Messiah.16 In criticism against the new Afrikaans Psalter, the statement is often made that it is supported by a theology that disagrees in vital aspects with the traditional Reformed view of Scripture.17 Most of the authors that criticize the new Psalter can be regarded as very conservative, even fundamentalist in their theology. They regard the non-messianic interpretation of certain psalms as an indication of a critical view of Scripture.18 This view indicates their ignorance of the fact that even scholars who are generally regarded as evangelicals in the American sense of the word differ with regard to the linking of certain psalms directly to Christ. This 11. Willem Bloemendaal, The Headings of the Psalms in the East Syrian Church (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 22. 12. John Calvin, Commentarii in librum psalmorum pars prior: Ps. I ad XC. (Corpus Reformatorum LIX, 1887), 43. 13. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), 9–10. 14. Ibid., 11. 15. Ibid., 18. 16. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 4 (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847), 294–95. 17. Victor E. d’Assonville Jr., Eric Kayayan and Ludolf F. Schulze, “Christus self is in gedrang,” Die Kerkblad (March 2004): 32. 18. Cf. Johannes G. Meijer, “Mag gereformeerde kerke die nuwe psalmberyming aanvaar?,” Waarheid & Dwaling 8, no. 2 (2002): 9. 1
VAN ROOY The Versification of the Psalms
269
difference is quite evident from the contributions of two well-known American “evangelicals,” Tremper Longman III and Walter Kaiser, as well as from the contributions to a book edited by Satterthwaite, Hess and Wenham.19 In the introduction to this book, McConville says that the modern (= critical) study of the Old Testament does not accept the traditional messianic interpretation of certain passages from the Old Testament.20 He accepts that some passages linked to Christ in the New Testament were not messianic in their original contexts. A good example in this regard is Hos 11:1, which is linked in Matt 2:15 to the return of Jesus and his parents from Egypt.21 Johnston22 and Heim23 come to the same conclusion with regard to Pss 16 and 72 in their studies contained in the same collection. The differences that exist among evangelicals can be demonstrated by comparing the views of two well-known American evangelicals in this regard, Walter Kaiser and Tremper Longman III. Kaiser accepts 65 direct predictions in the Old Testament in the light of the pattern of promise and fullment.24 He is, however, not uncritical of the traditional approach. In his introduction he discusses the problems in this regard and his own approach. In this discussion he points to the beginning of the debate about the Messiah in the Old Testament, with important contributions by such people as Anthony Collins in the eighteenth century, and Eichorn, who said already in 1793 that the Messiah was removed from the Old Testament.25 Hengstenberg in the early nineteenth century wanted to keep the New Testament as the nal arbiter in this regard.26 In the light of his principles for distinguishing messianic texts he regarded 19. Philip E. Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess and Gordon J. Wenham, eds., The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). 20. J. Gordon McConville, “Messianic Interpretation of the Old Testament in Modern Context,” in Satterthwaite, Hess and Wenham, eds., The Lord’s Anointed, 1–17 (2). 21. Ibid., 13–14. 22. Philip S. Johnston, “ ‘Left in Hell’? Psalm 16, Sheol and the Holy One,” in Satterthwaite, Hess and Wenham, eds., The Lord’s Anointed, 213–22. 23. Knut Heim, “The Perfect King of Psalm 72,” in Satterthwaite, Hess and Wenham, eds., The Lord’s Anointed, 223–48. 24. Cf. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament (Studies in Old Testament Theology; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1955), 240–42, for a survey of these passages. 25. Ibid., 13–14 and 19. 26. Ibid., 20. 1
270
Psalms and Hebrews
Pss 2 and 110 as directly messianic and did not attempt to nd any message for these psalms in the time of the Old Testament.27 Longman has a radically different view of the so-called Messianic Psalms, as is evident from his claim that “Messianic Psalms, in an exclusively narrow sense, do not exist.”28 He says that the term “Messianic Psalm” can be used in two ways. If it is regarded as a psalm anticipating the Messiah, all psalms are messianic. A direct Messianic Psalm would be one predicting the Messiah, without any direct message for the time of the Old Testament. In this latter sense he does not accept that any psalm is directly messianic.29 This discussion makes it quite clear that it is simplistic to see the rejection of the idea of direct Messianic Psalms in the Old Testament as being exclusively related to a critical view of the Bible. A Review of Criticism Against the Non-messianic Interpretation of the Psalms in the New Afrikaans Psalter No real scientic study has been published voicing the concerns raised about the lack of a messianic interpretation in the new Afrikaans Psalter. The discussion has been restricted to popular church magazines and the proceedings of a conference held by people protesting against this new Psalter. The tone of the criticism is very severe, almost boiling down to an anathema being pronounced on the new Psalter and those involved in its creation. For example, Meijer30 says that the new research behind the new Psalter is an old Jewish fallacy, a very old heresy presented in a new form in Die Bybel in Praktyk.31 He says that we have to reject the new Psalter to retain our faith.32 The criticism has been dealt with in detail elsewhere, so that just a few examples will sufce. According to the critics, the worst thing that the new Psalter does is to remove Christ on purpose from the Psalms.33 The new Psalter rejects the divinity of Christ. From this argument, the conclusion follows that if one does not accept that Ps 110 is messianic, one is preaching heresy.34 27. Ibid., 23–31 and 94–99. 28. Tremper Longman III, How to Read the Psalms (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), 73. 29. Ibid., 67. 30. Meijer, “Gereformeerde kerke,” 9. 31. This as an Afrikaans publication comparable to the Life Application Bible. 32. Meijer, “Gereformeerde kerke,” 10. 33. Victor E. d’Assonville Sr., “Skrifgesag – Christus – Die Psalmberyming 2001,” Waarheid & Dwaling 8, no. 5 (2002): 4. 34. Ibid., 5–6. 1
VAN ROOY The Versification of the Psalms
271
To these critics, the interpretation of Psalms by the New Testament, even by Christ himself, is the decisive factor for the interpretation of the true meaning of the Psalms in the Old Testament.35 Because the new Psalter did not do that, it represents a view of Scripture that they regard as totally unacceptable. Because of the interpretation of the New Testament, they accept that the original psalm was meant to be understood as referring directly to the Messiah in its original context. Psalms with a Messianic Interpretation in Hebrews It is not the aim of this contribution to offer a new discussion of the use of the Psalms in Hebrews, but rather to compare this usage with the practice and principles underlying metric versions of the Psalter. The use of the Old Testament by the New Testament has been discussed in detail in recent times. In a Festschrift for J. L. North, Steve Moyise discusses the notion of intertextuality in this regard, and distinguishes three categories of intertextuality, namely, intertextual echo, dialogical intertextuality and post-modern intertextuality.36 Intertextuality can indeed be used as an umbrella term for different kinds of interactions between different texts.37 This contribution deals with the relationship between three different texts, with the Old Testament text as historically the rst. This text was used in some way in the New Testament and is used in another way in a metrical Psalter. The New Testament text may again, in some way, inuence the interpretation of the Old Testament text as rendered in a metrical Psalter. In another contribution in the same volume, Casey deals with the issue of Christology and the way in which the Old Testament was used in the New to legitimize views expounded in the New Testament. He states that a Christological exegesis of the Old Testament was a fundamental aspect of Western Christianity.38 This was one of the reasons for the dispute between Alexandria and Antioch in the Early Church. The Alexandrians regarded the exegesis of people like Theodore of Mopsuestia as too Jewish, while Theodore and his followers were opposed to the allegorical 35. Cf. d’Assonville Jr., Kayayan and Schulze, “Christus self is in gedrang,” 32. 36. Steve Moyise, “Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North (ed. Steve Moyise; JSNTSup 89; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 2000), 14–41 (17). 37. Ibid., 41. 38. Maurice Casey, “Christology and the Legitimating Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” in Moyise, ed., The Old Testament in the New Testament, 42. 1
272
Psalms and Hebrews
interpretation of the Alexandrians. In the development of the Christological interpretation in the writings of the New Testament, Casey distinguishes three stages. The rst stage had started with Jesus and continued with Peter and the rst disciples. The developments of this stage remained within the parameters of Judaism. In the second phase many Gentiles entered the Church. Some of the new developments of this stage would not have occurred within a Jewish community, but Casey does not think that the ideas would have been in conict with Jewish monotheism. The third stage, of the Johannine community, went further. Their views of the deity of Christ would have constituted a complete break with the Jewish community.39 In this development, Casey sees Hebrews as part of the second stage. He emphasises the long series of quotations in Heb 1:5–14, with special attention to the quotation of Pss 2:7; 45:7 and 110:1. He thinks that this series of quotations legitimates a very high Christology, with Jesus in a position not accorded to any Jewish messianic or intermediary gure.40 The collection edited by Moyise and Menken contains important studies on the Psalms in many of the books in the New Testament.41 For the purpose of the present study the contribution of Attridge on the Psalms in Hebrews is especially relevant.42 In his study he deals with the following psalms as used in Hebrews: Pss 2:7; 6:5–8; 8:5–7; 22:23; 40:7–9; 45:7–8; 95:7–11; 97:7; 102:26–28; 110:1 and 4, and 118:6. In his discussion he makes clear that these psalms are used in different ways in Hebrews. Of all the psalms used, he regards Ps 110 as the most important.43 Verses 1 and 4 are quoted or alluded to more than twelve times. Verse 1 is used as a Leitmotif for the Son’s exaltation. It is used in a structurally signicant way in Hebrews, at important places in the structure of the book as a whole. This use of v. 1 is rmly rooted in tradition. An innovation is the use of v. 4, with the reference to Melchizedek. He regards Ps 110 as critical for the book, providing elements important for the structure of the book, as well as for some of the conceptual claims made by the book.44 39. For a summary of Casey’s views, cf. his conclusions in “Christology,” 63–64. 40. Ibid., 48. 41. Steve Moyise and Marten J. J. Menken, eds., The Psalms in the New Testament (The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel; London: T&T Clark, 2004). 42. Harold W. Attridge, “The Psalms in Hebrews,” in Moyise and Menken, eds., The Psalms in the New Testament, 197–212. 43. Ibid., 197. 44. Cf. ibid., 197–99. 1
VAN ROOY The Versification of the Psalms
273
In the further use of Psalms in Hebrews, he gives special attention to the catena of quotations in Heb 1. In this collection, Ps 2:7 is used to underscore the importance of Jesus as the Son of God. Psalms 97:7; 104:4 and 45:6–7 are quoted or alluded to emphasise the Son’s superiority over the angels. The quotation from Ps 102:27–29 afrms that the Son was the instrument of God’s creation, and it compares the transitory character of creation to the abiding character of the Son, while the fact that God remains the same points to the afrmation in Heb 13:8 that Jesus is the same—yesterday, today and forever.45 Some psalms are used to point to the suffering of the Son. In this respect Ps 8:5–7, as quoted in Heb 2, plays a central role. While the original psalm points to the exalted position of man, just below the angels, in Heb 2 it is used to indicate the fact that the Son had been made lower than the angels for a while. Afterwards he was crowned with glory again.46 The author of Hebrews uses Ps 95:7–11 in Heb 3 to direct a call of delity to the covenant community.47 As this psalm is not interpreted messianically, but used to actualize the message for the covenant community, it is not that important for the subject under discussion. In a nal section Attridge indicates how Psalms are used to express the voice of Jesus and his followers.48 He refers to three statements of the Son showing his solidarity with his followers. They include Ps 22:23, linked to two passages from Isaiah.49 Further psalms used in this way include Pss 6:5–8; 40:7–9 and 118:6.50 From this discussion it becomes clear that all the psalms used in Hebrews are not interpreted messianically, but used in other ways to elucidate the work of Christ and the message of the author to his addressees. Attridge does not deal with all the psalms quoted or alluded to in Hebrews. In total, 18 psalms are quoted or alluded to in Hebrews. The following quotations or allusions can be added to the examples he discussed: 2:8 (in 1:2); 33:6, 9 (in 11:3); 34:8 (in 1:14), 14 (in 12:14); 39:12 (in 11:13); 50:6 (in 12:23), 14 and 23 (in 13:15); 68:8 (in 12:26), 91:11 (in 1:14); 104:4 (in 1:7); and 135:14 (in 10:30). One of these instances can be classied with the examples discussed by Attridge. In Heb 1:2 the reference to Jesus as “heir of all things” is probably an echo 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 1
Cf. ibid., 199–203. Cf. ibid., 203–5. Cf. ibid., 205–8. Cf. ibid., 208–12. Cf. ibid., 208. Cf. ibid., 210–12.
274
Psalms and Hebrews
of Ps 2:8, looking forward to the use of Ps 2 later in the book. The function of textual coherence is supported by this quotation, as an example of intra- rather than intertextual use. The other quotations or allusions are used not to refer to the Messiah, but to some other aspect, such as the creation (Pss 33:6 and 9 in 11:30), the work of the angels being lower than the Son (Pss 34:8 and 91:11 in 1:14, and Ps 104:4 in 1:7), a holy life (Ps 34:14 in 12:14), the fact that the heroes from the past were strangers on this world (Ps 39:13 in 11:13), God as judge (Ps 50:6 in 12:23, and Ps 135:14 in 10:30), a sacrice of praise (Pss 50:14 and 23 in 13:15), and the eschatological shaking of the world (Ps 68:9 in 12:26). These examples are not directly relevant to this discussion. The psalms that are directly relevant are Pss 2, 6, 8, 22, 40, 45, 95, 97, 102, 110 and 118. It is interesting to note that three of these psalms are part of the group of Royal Psalms, namely, Pss 2, 45 and 110. The following psalms are usually regarded as part of the collection of Royal Psalms: 2, 18, 21, 45, 72, 89, 101, 110, 132 and 144. Psalms 2, 45 and 110 are frequently interpreted messianically in hymns, but the others less frequently. Messianic Interpretation and Versication For the comparison of the messianic interpretation of the psalms under discussion in different hymn books, six hymn books were used, namely the Afrikaans Psalters of 1937 and 2001, the Dutch Psalters of 1773 and 1973, as well as the hymn books of the (CRC) of North America of 1914 and 1987.51 The hymn books of the CRC often have more than one rendering of a psalm, and all the different versions were used. Because of the fact that Pss 2, 45 and 110 are Royal Psalms, frequently interpreted messianically, they will be dealt with rst. The order of the discussion of the different Psalters will be chronological: Dutch 1773, CRC 1914, Afrikaans 1937, Dutch 1973, CRC 1987 and Afrikaans 2001. As far as the three Royal Psalms are concerned, the examples discussed at the beginning demonstrate the different approaches followed. All three of these psalms were interpreted messianically by the Dutch Psalter of 1773. In Ps 2 that Psalter refers to the “Gezalfde” (anointed, strophe 2) who is seen as the Son of God (strophe 4). The King of Ps 45 is equated with the Messiah throughout the psalm. Psalm 110 was already discussed at the beginning of the present study. The Afrikaans Psalter of 1937 is often quite close to the Dutch 1773 and agrees with the interpretation of that Psalter with regard to these three psalms. 51. Cf. n. 1 for more information about these hymn books. 1
VAN ROOY The Versification of the Psalms
275
The Psalter of the CRC 1914 contains two versions of Ps 2. Both present a messianic interpretation. This is clear in the rst one from the references to “Christ his Son” (strophe 1), the “Anointed” (strophe 2), “My beloved Son” (strophe 3) and “Son” and “Christ” (strophe 4). The second one refers to “Messiah’s reign” (strophe 1) and “Son” and “Christ” (strophe 3). The two versions of Ps 45 do the same. The second of them is very explicit, with a reference to “Christ the King” (strophe 1). The versions of Ps 110 were discussed at the beginning. The Dutch Psalter of 1973 did not interpret these psalms messianically. It refers to the “gezalfde vors” (anointed ruler, Ps 2:1) and renders the person addressed in Ps 110:1 as “mijn heer” (my lord). It does not give a messianic interpretation of Ps 45 as well. It does, however, retain the word Elohim in its version as a reference to God (“o Heer,” my Lord in strophe 3). The Psalter of the CRC of 1987 retained the rst version of the Psalter of 1914. It did, however, make some changes to the text, to modernize it, to rephrase it to some extent, but also to soften the very direct messianic interpretation of the older version. It substituted “His Anointed” for “Christ His Son” in strophe 1, but retained the other reference to the “Anointed” and the “Son.” The example from this Psalter discussed at the beginning shows that this Psalter did the same with regard to Ps 110. CRC 1987 includes a new version for Ps 45, in which the psalm is not interpreted messianically at all. The Afrikaans Psalter 2001 did no interpret any of these psalms messianically. With regard to the non-royal psalms used in Hebrews, Attridge points to the way in which Ps 6:5–8 is echoed in Heb 5:7.52 This is probably no more than a faint echo, and thus one would not expect it to inuence the interpretation of this psalm for a hymn. It did not have any inuence on any of the hymns in the books consulted. Psalm 8:4–6 is quoted in Heb 2:6–8 in connection with the submission of the Son. It deals in the rst instance with the exalted position of humanity, and it functions as a contrast with the subjection of the Son, who became less than the angels. Against this background, one would not expect the interpretation of the psalm in Hebrews to inuence versications. This is indeed the case in all the versions consulted. Psalm 22 is often discussed extensively in connection with the issue of the New Testament’s use of the Psalms, because of the fact that v. 2 was used by Jesus on the cross. Hebrews 2:12, however, quotes v. 23 and puts the words in the mouth of Jesus. If the New Testament interpretation of a psalm be a decisive factor for the interpretation of a versication, 52. Attridge, “Psalms in Hebrews,” 211. 1
Psalms and Hebrews
276
this psalm is be a good example. However, this psalm was not interpreted messianically in the two Dutch Psalters, nor the two Afrikaans Psalters or the new version of the CRC 1987. It is only in the Psalter of the CRC of 1914 that a messianic interpretation is found. This Psalter contains ve versions of this psalm, or of parts of this psalm. The rst of these ve versions is a versication of the psalm as a whole and presents a messianic interpretation, connecting the psalm to Christ, albeit without a reference to the name of Christ. The other four versions have only a selection of strophes from different poets. The fourth one (number 50 in the Psalter) has references to Christ, the others not. The fourth is published in the Psalter Hymnal of the CRC of 1987, as hymn number 240, retaining the direct reference to Christ in strophe 2. Psalm 40:7–9 is quoted in Heb 10:5–7 and then expounded on. This is one of the examples where the words of the Psalms are placed in the mouth of Jesus.53 Although one could expect this use of the psalm to have a bearing upon the versication, none of the Psalters contains a version inuenced by this use of the psalm in Hebrews. Psalm 95 is quoted in Heb 3:7–11 and then used as the basis for a call to remain true and faithful to God.54 It is therefore not used in a messianic sense linked to Christ as the Messiah. In the light of this, a messianic interpretation in the hymns is not to be expected and does not appear in any of the hymn books consulted. Psalm 97:7 is alluded to in Heb 1:6. In this instance the original psalm exhorted the gods to worship God. The Septuagint gives this command to angels. This is followed by the author of Hebrews, but with Christ the object of worship, not the Lord Yahweh. In the hymns the reference to the Lord is retained in all versions, with no reference to Christ. Hebrews 1:10–12 quotes Ps 102:26–28 as part of the introductory catena.55 This is a clear example of an instance where the original psalm is directed at the Lord, while the quotation applies it directly to Christ. Not one of the Psalters consulted followed this interpretation of Hebrews, but rather followed the original text by directing these words to the Lord. Hebrews 13:6 quotes Ps 118:6. This instance is included by Attridge as one of the examples where Psalms are placed in the mouth of Jesus and his followers.56 Psalm 118:6 is spoken by the followers of Jesus. It is, therefore, not used messianically and consequently not rendered messianically by any of the Psalters. 53. 54. 55. 56. 1
Ibid., 210–11. Ibid., 205–8. Ibid., 202–3. Ibid., 211–12.
VAN ROOY The Versification of the Psalms
277
From the discussion above it is evident that the different versications in the Psalters discussed do not treat the so-called Messianic Psalms in the same way. This is even true of the Royal Psalms that have often been the subject of a messianic interpretation in versications. The Dutch Psalter of 1973 and the Afrikaans Psalter of 2001 do not represent a messianic interpretation in any of the psalms discussed. The Dutch Psalter of 1773 and the Afrikaans Psalter of 1937 have a messianic rendering of all three of these psalms, while using terminology found in the Old Testament. A more direct messianic interpretation of the Royal Psalms is found in the Psalter of the CRC of 1914, with references to Christ appearing frequently. The CRC’s 1987 Psalter retained some of the versions of these psalms from 1914, but changed the references to Christ to references to the Anointed, the Son, Lord or King, retaining the messianic interpretation, but not as directly as in the original versions. On the other hand, it has a new version of Ps 45, with no messianic reference at all. Most of the non-royal psalms are not linked explicitly to the Messiah in any of the Psalters consulted. However, the CRC Psalter of 1914 has a messianic version of Ps 22 as a whole, and another version has a direct reference to Christ. These are the only examples of a messianic interpretation in any of the Psalters with regard to the non-royal psalms discussed. If the principle that the New Testament’s messianic interpretation of the Psalms had been decisive in inuencing subsequent interpretations of the various psalms in their Old Testament context, one would have expected more messianic versions of at least Pss 22, 40 and 102 in some of the Psalter editions consulted. With regard to the hermeneutics behind the interpretation of the psalms in the different Psalters, it is evident that the Dutch Psalter of 1973 and the Afrikaans Psalter of 2001 are in agreement with the view of the majority of current Old Testament scholars that the Royal Psalms pointed in their original context to an Israelite (or Judean) king. The older Dutch and Afrikaans Psalters accepted the view that some psalms were directly messianic, and therefore used this interpretation as guiding principles in the rendering of psalms such as Pss 2, 45 and 110. The CRC Psalter of 1914 contains some hymns with an even more direct link to Christ. It seems that if the CRC Psalter of 1987 recognized the problems in this regard and thus softened the messianic reference in some instances, and in the case of Ps 45 included a new version without any messianic references.
1
278
Psalms and Hebrews
Conclusion The idea that the interpretation of a psalm in the New Testament must speak the nal word with regard to the interpretation of the Psalms was not accepted with regard to all the psalms discussed in any of the modern Psalter editions included in this study. For some of them the New Testament usage was followed in some instances, especially with regard to the Royal Psalms. In these instances they rendered the Psalter in the light of their reception history and not in the light of the intention of the Psalms in their original context(s). Can this kind of rendering of a psalm in a version intended for use as hymns be regarded as a valid rendering? Such versions are indeed still in use, in many churches in the Reformed tradition all over the world. To my mind such versions are still valid, then with the recognition that they represent not a faithful rendering of the psalm in its original context, but a reinterpretation of the psalm in the light of its reception history. If this is not acknowledged, the hermeneutics behind such renderings would negate the historical character of the Old Testament and relegate it to an inferior position in relation to the New Testament. This discussion of the use of a number of biblical psalms in Hebrews refutes the position of the critics of the new Afrikaans metrical version of the Psalms that this new version must be rejected on account of its rendering of the so-called Messianic Psalms. The basic starting-point for their criticism is that a metrical version of the Psalter (and a translation as well) must depart from the interpretation of these psalms in the New Testament. This view is not tenable when the interpretation of the Psalms in Hebrews is compared with the rendering of these psalms in a number of Hymn Books in the reformed tradition.
1
INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1 1:6 1:9 1:10 1:14–17 1:26–28
1:26–27 1:28 2–3 2 2:2
2:3 2:3 LXX 2:15 2:24 3:15 5:24 6:2 6:4 7:1 LXX 14:14–28 14:18 18:2–8 19:15 21:12
73, 74 73 173 173 73 16, 70, 71, 73, 74 74 112 17, 18 188 187, 196, 202, 215, 216, 219, 220, 223, 227, 235 188 189 112 208 255 235 109 109 209 24 235 79 256 235
22:17 24:11 24:40 25:23 26:11 32:24 32:25 32:26 47:31 49:9 Exodus 1:6 3:2 4:4 4:10 4:22 5:14 7:3 14:16 14:22 14:29 14:31 15–17 15 15:11 15:19 16:25 17 17:1–7 17:2 17:6 17:7
235 172 79 255 91 256 256 256 235 172
209 249 92 198 58 255 178 173 173 173 198 179 163 173 173 225 178, 181, 188 155, 158 178 170 178, 184
18:11 19–34 19–24 19–23 19:5 19:12 19:13 20 21:33 23:21 24 24:8 24:12 25–31 25:40 31:18 32–34 32 32:9 33–34 33 33:3 33:5 33:7 33:11 LXX 33:12–13 33:13 33:17–18 33:17 33:18 34 34:5 34:6–7
173 58, 59 59, 60 61 176 235 235 60 140 176 59 235 61 59 235 59, 61 59 55, 60 179 58, 60 60 179 179 61 248 61 58, 61 61 61 61 55, 59– 61 61 55
Psalms and Hebrews
280 Exodus (cont.) 34:6 55, 57– 59, 62– 64 34:9 179 34:11 158 34:21 221 34:27–28 61 34:29–34 61 35:2 221 Leviticus 19:17 20:23 Numbers 10:35 10:36 12:7 12:8 14 14:18–20 14:18 14:19 14:21–23 14:22 14:23 14:29 14:29 LXX 14:30 14:43 18:21 20 20:1–13 20:8 20:13 20:24 22 23:21 24:9 24:21 26 27:14
216 179
221 221 197–99 198 188, 212, 216 176 56 63 180 176 176 188 188 159 227 235 170, 178, 181, 188 158 155 178, 184 178 79 201 172 155 190 178, 184
32:10 32:13 Deuteronomy 1:34 1:35 2:14 4:30 4:40 6:6 6:16 7:11 7:21 8:19 8:20 9:3 9:6 9:13 9:16 9:17 9:19 9:22 9:23 10:16 100:4 11:2 11:8 12:8–9 12:9
13:5 13:19 15:5 19:15 25:11 25:19 26:14 26:17 28:9 29:9 29:14 30:2 30:10 30:15
180 179
180 179 179 176 158 158 178, 184 158 173 90, 158 176 158 179 179 179 92 235 184 176 178 180 224 224 224 159, 180, 190, 203, 221 176 176 176 196 92 159 176 176 179 224 224 176 176 158
30:20 32:15 32:20 32:35–36 32:51 33 33:2 33:2 LXX 33:2–5 33:8–11 33:8 93:5 94:22 96:8 97:8 99:2
176 155, 171 179 235, 239 178, 184 249 249 249 249 202 158, 178, 184 180 180 180 180 180
Joshua 1:13 1:15 6:15 9:2 21:44 22:4 23:1
221 221 256 198 221 221 221
Judges 2:10 5:27 12:6 13:5 13:7 16:3 16:17 17:10 19:25 19:29 20:6
209 172 92 255 255 92 255 248 92, 256 92 92
1 Samuel 2:10 2:35 LXX 9:26 LXX 22:23 LXX
205 199 256 248
Index of References 30:17 30:17 LXX 2 Samuel 4:8 LXX 7 7:7 LXX 7:11 7:12 7:14 13:11 22 LXX 22 MT 22:1 22:3 22:3 LXX 22:3 MT 22:47 23:2 23:2 LXX
257 257
247 196 252 196, 202 255 23, 121, 198, 234 92 133 133 133 171, 235 132 132 171 186 208
1 Kings 1:50 5:18 LXX 6:6 8:27 LXX 8:54–56 8:54 8:56 11:30 18:10 LXX 19:18 22:19 LXX 22:21 LXX
92 251 92 252 221 172 190, 221 92 250 172 249, 250 249
2 Kings 1:13 2:12 4:27 14:6 LXX 17:14 19:35 22:1 LXX 24:22 LXX
172 92 92 131 178 79 133 247
1 Chronicles 6:31 9:33 15:23 16:25 16:40 17:13 21:1 29:4
221 104 205 173 198 198 251 251
2 Chronicles 2:4 6:13 6:41 7:3 18:18 19:23 24:19 29:29
173 172 221 172 249 251 90 172
Ezra 3:7 9:5
178 172
Nehemiah 1:5 4:15 9:6 9:11 9:16–17 9:16 9:17 9:26 9:29 9:32 13:21
173 256 174 173 179 178 56, 178 90 178 173 90
Esther 3:5
172
Job 1–2 1:6 1:7 LXX 2:1
249 109, 249 254 249
281 2:2 LXX 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:17 7:11 7:17 8:15 10:1 10:19 11:17 15:14 31:18 38:7 38:12 38:12 LXX 38:13 41:10 41:10 LXX Psalms 1–89 1 1:1–2:18 1:6 2
2:1 2:2–10 2:6–8 2:6 2:7
2:8 3–41 3–7 5:8
254 257 255 255 143 205 103, 109 92 179 255 257 103 255 170 257 245, 257 92 257, 258 258
150, 151 151 114 78 23–25, 187, 194–96, 243, 267, 268, 270, 274, 275, 277 275 248 89 89 23, 36, 121, 187, 234, 235, 247, 268, 272, 273 273, 274 56 99 171
282 Psalms (cont.) 6:5–8 272, 273, 275 7:21 LXX 245 8 12–18, 20–22, 25, 69– 71, 74, 76, 77, 80–83, 85, 88– 90, 95, 96, 98, 99, 103, 105, 106, 112–15, 122–25, 187, 195, 196, 268, 274, 275 8:1–4 114 8:1 101 8:2–4 17 8:2–3 100, 101 8:2 70, 71, 100, 101, 105, 108, 110, 112 8:3 70, 71, 106 8:4–9 70 8:4–6 99, 102, 112, 113, 275 8:4–5 100 8:4 36, 71, 101, 102, 107 8:5–7 LXX 114 8:5–7 80, 89, 96, 120, 187, 235, 272, 273 8:5–6 79 8:5 36, 71, 77, 101–
Psalms and Hebrews
8:6–9 8:6–7 8:6
8:7–9 8:7–8 8:7
8:8–9 8:8 8:10
11:4 15 LXX 15:2 15:8–11 LXX 16 16 MT 16:8–11 MT 17:38 LXX 17:45 LXX 18 18:3 18:32 18:38 MT 18:45 MT 18:47 21 21 LXX 21:1 21:1 LXX 21:1 MT 21:5 21:6 21:10
103, 107–109, 122 100, 101 100, 111 36, 70, 71, 77, 85, 90, 94–96, 102 70, 102 107 70, 85– 87, 94, 96, 97, 110 100 110 70, 71, 100–102, 105, 108, 110, 112 229 195 248 195 269 195 195 251 142 24, 274 155, 171 155 251 142 155, 171 274 133, 134 134 133 256 106, 107 110 255
21:23 LXX 22 22 MT 22:1 LXX 22:1 MT 22:2 22:22 22:23 22:23 MT 23:10 LXX 24:10 MT 25:10 26:2 26:3 27:5 30:9 31:3 31:5 33–34 33:4 33:6 33:9 33:12 34:2 34:8 34:13–17 34:14 39 39 LXX
39:1 39:1 LXX 39:1–3 39:2–11 39:7 39:7 LXX 39:7–10 LXX 39:7–9 LXX
127, 129, 132 274, 275, 277 133, 134 256 133 275 36, 235 187, 272, 273, 275 132 253 253 32 178 32 171 32 171 32 56 32 273, 274 273, 274 168, 175 92 273, 274 195 273, 274 140 127, 128, 133–35, 137, 140, 142, 146, 187, 195 134 133 136 136 136 126, 139, 143 145 127, 132, 139, 195
Index of References 39:8 39:8 LXX 39:9 LXX 39:11 LXX 39:12–18 39:12 39:13 39:13 LXX 40 40 MT
40–41 40:1 MT 40:6–8 MT 40:6 40:7–9 MT 40:7–9
40:7 40:8–9 40:8 40:10 40:11 40:17 43 43:3 45
45:4–5 45:4 45:6–7 45:6 45:7–8 45:7 47:2 47:3 47:6 47:7 50
136 131 139 135 136 273 274 136 33, 213, 274, 277 133–35, 137, 142, 187, 195 56 133 127, 132 36 195 187, 235, 272, 273, 276 36 187 36 32 32 173 33 32 187, 195, 213, 266–68, 274–77 110 33 234, 273 36 121, 187, 272 36, 272 201 155, 173 201 93 140, 149, 171
50 LXX 50:6 50:14 50:18 LXX 50:23 51 MT 51–71 51:6 54:5 56:9 MT 57 57:3 57:9 LXX 57:10 60:4 61:7 62:3 62:7 62:8 65:10 66:6 68:8 68:9 68:15 68:22 MT 69–71 69:3 69:13 70:5 71:3 71:19 71:22 72 72 LXX 73–83 73:13–14 LXX 73:23–28 74:1 74:12–17 74:13–14 MT 77 77:14 77:21 78 78:106
141 273, 274 273, 274 140 273, 274 141 56 33 33 256 33 33 256 33, 34 33 33 171 171 171 266 173 273 274 156 245 56 171 33 173 171 173 33 24, 269, 274 56 167 245, 258 266 168 202 245, 258 152, 167 173 158, 167 152 178
283 78:18 78:41 78:52 78:56 79:13 80:2 80:8 80:9 LXX 81 81:2 81:4 81:8 84–89 85:10 85:11 86 86:9 86:10 86:11 86:15 88 LXX 88:7 LXX 88:14 88:24 LXX 88:27 LXX 88:28 88:28 LXX 89 89 LXX 89 MT 89–105 LXX 89:1–18 89:7 MT 89:7–8 89:8 89:12 89:14 89:15 89:17 LXX 89:24 MT 89:27 89:27 MT
178 178 158 178 168 158 184 90 149, 171 170 201 158, 178 167 33 34 56, 57, 167 171 173 34 34, 56, 57, 64 243 249 171 251 247 121 247 24, 151, 167 185 243 185 202 249 173 173 156 34 171 254 251 155, 171, 248 247
Psalms and Hebrews
284 Psalms (cont.) 89:28 MT 89:40 89:50 90 90 LXX 90 MT 90–92 90–150 90–106 MT 90–106 90:3 90:16 90:17 MT 91 91 LXX 91 MT 91–93 LXX 91:11 92 92 LXX 92 MT 93 93 LXX 93 MT 93–99 93–94 93–100 94 94 LXX
94 MT 94:1 LXX 94:1–7 LXX
247 167 167 167 185 185 151 150, 151 184 150, 167, 203 109 168 254 34, 167 185 185 185, 189 273, 274 167 185 185 17, 151, 169, 201 185 185 151, 168 151 151, 167, 173 151, 188, 191 166, 183–89, 191, 195, 201–3, 205, 206, 208, 211–14, 220, 224–28 185, 195 184 190
94:1–6 LXX 94:1–6 94:2 LXX 94:4 LXX 94:5 LXX 94:6 LXX 94:7 LXX 94:7–11 LXX
94:8 LXX 94:8–11 LXX 94:8–11 94:8–10 LXX 94:9 94:10 LXX
94:11 LXX
94:22 94:23 95
95 LXX 95 MT
184 189 183 188 188 183, 184 184, 215, 222, 224 194–97, 200, 205, 207, 208, 210, 213, 215, 220 183, 205 184, 186 188, 189 205 187, 205, 211 183, 184, 205, 209, 211 188, 189, 203, 215, 216, 219, 224 170 170 147–53, 158, 160–65, 167–69, 171, 172, 175, 178, 180, 181, 183, 187, 188, 196, 200, 202–4, 212, 219, 274 166, 185 166, 184, 185, 187, 195,
95–99 95:1–7 MT 95:1–7
95:1–5
95:1–2 95:1
95:2 95:3–7 95:3–5 95:3 95:4–5 95:4
95:5
95:6–11 95:6–7
95:6
95:7–11 MT
201–3, 213, 226–28 151 190 149, 152, 169, 175, 176, 181–83 147, 152–55, 169 154, 155, 157, 169 152, 155, 157, 170–72, 176 152, 157, 170 203 153, 155, 170, 172 152, 172, 173 152, 156, 174 156, 173–75, 179 152, 156, 172–75, 179 169 147, 153–55, 157 152, 155, 157, 169, 170, 172, 174, 176 194, 195, 197, 200, 208, 210
Index of References 95:7–11
95:7–8 95:7
95:7 MT 95:8–11
95:8–10 MT 95:8
95:9
95:9 MT 95:10
95:10 MT 95:11–96:2 95:11
147, 152–54, 158, 160–62, 175, 181, 188, 192, 202–4, 208, 228, 235, 272, 273 161, 187 36, 149, 152, 153, 155, 157, 160, 168, 170, 172, 174, 175, 177, 182, 202–4, 225, 226 222 149, 169, 176, 181–83 205 36, 148, 152, 153, 159, 177–79, 205 36, 152, 153, 159, 162, 177, 178 205 36, 152, 153, 159, 162, 177–79, 202, 204 205, 209 204 36, 152, 153, 161, 180, 181,
95:11 MT 95:15 96 96 LXX 96 MT 96–99 96–100 96:2 96:4 96:8 96:13 97 97 MT 97–98 LXX 97:7
97:9 98 98 LXX 98–99 MT 98:1 LXX 98:3 98:4 98:5 LXX 98:6 99 99 LXX 99 MT 99:1 MT 99:2 99:5 99:5 MT 99:6–9 99:8 99:9 100
100 MT 100:1–4 100:1
187, 202, 204 187, 203 202 168, 169 185 185 151, 201 151 169 155, 169, 173 169, 171 34, 169 203, 274 185 185 36, 109, 234, 272, 273, 276 173 169 252 185 252 34, 169 170 251, 252 170, 201 169, 172 185 252 252 155, 172 172 251, 252 167 172 172 151, 167–69, 181 185 171 169, 181, 234
285 100:2 100:3 100:4 100:5 101 101 LXX 102 102 MT 102:25–27 102:25 102:26–28 102:26 102:27–29 102:27 103 103 LXX 103–107 103:1 103:7 103:8 103:9–18 103:9–12 103:13–18 103:13 103:20 104 MT 104:1 104:4
105:26–45 105:32 106:8–33 106:32 107:3 MT 108:3 LXX 108:4 108:6 LXX 109
169, 171 158, 168 169, 171, 234 34, 169 167, 203, 274 187 213, 274, 277 187 234 36 187, 272, 276 36, 115, 121 273 36 58, 167 187 57 58 167, 179 56, 57, 64 58 58 58 58 121 187 110, 173 36, 121, 171, 187, 234, 273, 274 168 184 168 178 256 256 34 249, 251 95
286 Psalms (cont.) 22, 23, 109 LXX 25, 83, 85, 88, 90, 95, 134, 187, 241, 243, 244, 248, 252, 253, 255, 257–59 109:1 87 109:1 LXX 13, 84– 87, 89, 94, 192, 247, 248, 251–53 109:1–3 LXX 241, 243 109:2 LXX 245 109:3 LXX 245, 246, 250, 253, 254, 256–58 109:3–4 LXX 250 109:4 LXX 192, 245, 248, 252, 258 109:4–7 LXX 243, 245 109:5 LXX 246, 248, 251 109:6 LXX 245 249, 251 109:6 MT 109:7 LXX 246 110 22–25, 88, 122, 123, 195, 196, 229–32, 234–36, 238–40, 263–68, 270, 272, 274, 275, 277 110 MT 134, 187, 241, 243,
Psalms and Hebrews
110:1
110:1 MT
110:1–3 MT 110:1–3 110:2 110:2 MT 110:2–6 110:2–3 110:3–4 110:3
110:3 MT
110:4
110:4 MT
110:4–7 MT 110:5 110:5 MT 110:5–6 110:6 110:6 MT 110:7 110:7 MT 111:8 115:1 117:2 118
244, 248, 252, 253, 255, 257–59 13, 24, 36, 121, 122, 187, 229–35, 237–40, 272, 275 192, 247, 248, 251, 252 241, 243 25 238, 239 245 238 237, 239 250 24, 25, 175, 238, 239 244–46, 253, 254, 256–58 36, 187, 229–40, 272 192, 245, 248, 252, 258 243, 245 238, 239 246, 248, 251 237, 239 238, 239 245 237–39 246 34 34 34 194, 195, 214, 274
118:6
118:30 118:43 119:142 119:147 119:151 119:158 119:54 121:1 132 132:3 MT 132:7 132:8 132:11 132:14 133:3 LXX 134:1 135:5 135:14 138:2 138:9 MT 138:13 139:7 139:9 LXX 139:21 144 144:3–4 144:3 144:15 145 145:1 145:8 145:12 145:14 145:18 145:21 146:6 147:7 148:13
36, 187, 272, 273, 276 34 34 34 171 34 179 154 156 274 246 171 159 34 159 246 104 173 187, 273, 274 34 256 255 248 256 179 274 109 103 168, 175 58 59 56, 58, 59, 64 110 59 34 59 34 171 105
Index of References Proverbs 3:8 3:11 3:12 4:13 17:11 28:14
143 235 235 92 205 178
Ecclesiastes 5:14
255
Song of Songs 6:10 256 Isaiah 2 6 6:1–3 6:3 6:9 8:17–18 8:17 10:12–16 10:12 10:14 11:2 12:2 LXX 14:3–11 MT 14:4–11 LXX 14:12 14:12 LXX 14:12–21 16:10 17:10 24:23 27:1 27:4 30:15 30:29 33:16 40:3–5 41:8 42:1–4
179 249 253 252 195 235 132 259 246 246 250 132 259 259 253, 256, 257 258 259 170 171 246, 259 245, 258, 259 92 225 104 155 195 93 195
287
44:2 44:23 44:24 45:23 49:1 49:5 55:2 58:8 60:3 LXX 61:1 66:1
255 170 255 172 255 255 208 256 254 195 251–53
28:1–10 28:11–19 29 29:1–7 29:7 29:8–9 31 32 32:1–10 36:31 47:19 48:28
259 259 246 259 92 259 246 246 259 179 178, 184 178, 184
Jeremiah 3:2 7:23 7:26 11 11:4 11:7 16:12 17:23 18:12 19:15 26:10 LXX 30:30 31 MT 31:20 31:31–34 MT 31:31–34 31:31 31:34 32:18 38 LXX 38:31–34 MT 38:32 46:10 MT 51:23
63 176 178 176 157, 176 176 179 178 179 178 251 93 195, 225 58 195 235 235 235 173 195, 225 195 92 251 93
Daniel 7 7:10 7:13 7:16 9:4 12:3 12:3 LXX
246 249 78, 122 79 173 254 254
Hosea 4:4 6:2 6:3 10:15 11 11:1–9 11:1–4 11:1 11:3 11:4 11:5–7 11:8–9 11:8 11:9 13:14
205 246 256 256 20 19, 20 19 58, 269 58 58 19 20 19 20 19
Joel 2 2:2 2:13
195 246, 256 56
Lamentations 2:1 251, 253 Ezekiel 6:9 20:43 28:1–19
179 179 246
Psalms and Hebrews
288 Amos 4:13 4:13 LXX
256 256
Obadiah 3–4 5 LXX
253 258
Jonah 1:9 4:2 4:7
173 56 256
Micah 4
179
Nahum 1:3
56
Habakkuk 2:3 2:4 3:3 Zephaniah 3:14 Haggai 2:6
235 235 249
APOCRYPHA/DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS Tobit 6:3 92 11:11 92 Ecclesiasticus 4:11 6:21 19:13–17 40:1 45:12
92, 93 209 216 255 96
Baruch 4:2 5:3
92 254
Susanna 1:40
92
Bel and the Dragon 1:36 92 2 Maccabees 13:6
91
170
235
Zechariah 1:9 1:14 3:1 3:1 LXX 6:11 6:12 LXX 6:12–13 LXX 6:12–13 6:13 8:23
79 79 249–51 251 96 251 252 249, 250 250 92
Malachi 3:10 3:15
178 178
NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1 134 2:15 269 12:18–21 195 12:45 209 13:14–15 195 14:31 92 15:24 160 18:12–13 160 19:4 208 21:16 80, 115 22:45 241 26:66 91 27:29 96 28:3 79 Mark 3:29 8:12
91 209
8:23 10:47 10:48 12:34 14:64 15:17
92 64 64 241 91 96
Luke 1:46–55 1:68–79 2 3:4–6 3:23–38 4:18–19 11:30 20:20 20:26 20:40 23:26
64 64 134 195 134 195 209 92 92 241 92
John 1:17 2:21 10 10:3 11:27 19:2
135 135 160 226 135 96
Acts 1:16 2 2:25–28 2:30 2:32–34 5:29 13:34 17:10–11 17:19 21:30 21:33 28:26–27
208 195 195 218 121 15 208 27 92 92 92 195
Romans 1:3 5 5:12
133 97 87
Index of References 6:1–11 8:38–39
87 84
1 Corinthians 10:1–13 160 11:27 91 15 85–87, 90, 97 15:2 80 15:12–19 86 15:20–28 88 15:21–22 86, 87 15:21 87 15:22 86 15:23 86 15:24–25 86 15:25 13, 85, 86 15:26 85, 86 15:27 13, 85, 86, 115 Galatians 3:27 Ephesians 1–2 1:20–2:10 1:20–22 1:20–21 1:20 1:21–22 1:21 1:22 1:23 2:1–2 2:1 2:2 2:5–6 2:5 4:27 5:2 6:11 6:12
Philippians 2:10 3:21
84 115
Colossians 1:16 2:10 2:12 15
84 84 87 84
1 Timothy 1:15 5:21 6:12 6:19
135, 137 90 92 92
1:4 1:5–5:10 1:5–2:18 1:5–14
1:5–13 1:5–12 1:5
1:6 1:7
2 Timothy 2:8 Hebrews 1–12 1
87
85–87, 90, 97 87 80 84, 85 87 13 87 85, 87, 115 87 85 87 87 87 86, 87 87 135 87 84
289
1:1–4:13 1:1–2:18 1:1–14
1:1–4 1:1–3 1:1
1:2–3 1:2 1:3–2:5 1:3
1:4–14
134
234, 240 83, 198, 234, 240, 273 128 115 83, 118, 232, 234, 239 232 84 64, 119, 131, 132, 191 82 128, 225, 273 95 36, 65, 87, 89, 119, 122, 187, 198, 229, 232, 234 85, 89
1:8–9 1:8 1:9 1:10–12 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:13
1:14 2–4 2
2:1–4:16 2:1–4:14 2:1–4 2:3 2:5–18 2:5–9
83, 84, 97 160 160, 196 83, 84, 121, 232, 272 23 234 23, 36, 131, 137, 187, 198, 224 36, 121, 276 36, 187, 273, 274 267 36, 187 36 81, 187, 276 36, 115 36 36 36, 85, 89, 187, 229, 232, 234, 241 273, 274 234, 240 12–17, 21, 22, 83, 86, 91, 95, 120, 129, 130, 132, 144, 145, 273 232, 235, 239 234 89 200 197 79, 80
290 Hebrews (cont.) 2:5 81, 89 2:6–13 235 2:6–9 99, 112, 113, 115, 118 2:6–8 13, 275 2:6–7 187 2:6 36, 89, 90, 114, 117, 131 2:7 36, 85, 90, 92, 94, 97, 116, 144, 198 2:8–10 95 2:8–9 95, 116, 235 2:8 14, 15, 36, 85, 96, 122, 123 2:9–10 21 2:9 81, 90, 92, 95– 97, 123, 198, 229, 232 2:10 97, 118, 124, 198 2:11–13 130 2:11 86, 87, 97, 129, 130 2:12–13 126, 127 2:12 36, 128– 30, 187, 275 2:14–5:5 209 2:14–16 90, 93 2:14–15 85, 86, 91 2:14 86–88, 90–93, 126, 144
Psalms and Hebrews 2:15–16 2:15 2:16 2:17–3:1 2:17
3–4
3
3:1–4:13 3:1–4:11 3:1–19 3:1–6 3:1
3:2 3:3 3:4 3:5–6 3:5 3:6
3:7–4:13 3:7–4:11 3:7–4:7 3:7–19 3:7–11
3:7–8
94 90–92 90–94 235 65, 86, 94, 222, 229, 232 148, 160, 161, 163, 189, 191, 194, 195, 197, 208 166, 181, 186, 188, 193, 198, 205, 273 196 196 160 196, 197, 199, 200 118, 197, 199, 214, 229, 232 197, 199, 200 198 198, 199 198 197, 199, 200 118, 198–200, 218 222, 227 197, 223 235 162 161, 187, 195, 196, 200, 208, 210, 213, 215, 222, 276 217
3:7
3:8 3:9
3:10
3:11–14 3:11 3:12–4:11 3:12–19 3:12–15 3:12 3:13
3:14 3:15
3:16–18 3:16 3:17 3:18
3:19
4
36, 160, 161, 186, 188, 189, 203, 208, 217, 219, 224 36, 188, 215–18 36, 162, 184, 188, 188, 206 36, 162, 184, 209, 212, 216, 218 197 36, 190, 218, 223 197, 213 215, 216 216 200, 214–17 216, 217, 224, 227, 228 189, 214, 227 36, 161, 187, 189, 208, 215, 217, 224 215, 217, 221 190, 217, 218 188, 213, 217, 218 36, 190, 217, 218, 223 188, 189, 200, 218, 228 166, 181, 184, 186,
Index of References
4:1–13 4:1–11 4:1–5 4:1
4:2 4:3–5 4:3
4:4–5 4:4
4:5
4:6–11 4:6 4:7–8 4:7
4:8–11 4:8
4:9–10 4:9
4:10 4:11–13
187, 189, 193 160 216, 218 215 189, 190, 215, 217, 218, 222, 223, 225 188–90, 219 221 36, 161, 187–90, 208, 215, 218, 219, 223, 227 220 188, 208, 215, 220, 223 36, 161, 187, 215, 218, 219, 223 215 217, 218, 223, 224 220 36, 133, 161, 186, 187, 189, 190, 206, 208, 215, 223, 224 161 190, 191, 208, 221, 223 221 189, 191, 219, 221, 223, 228 223 227
4:11
4:12–13 4:12 4:13 4:14–9:28 4:14–5:10 4:14–15 4:14 4:16 5–7 5:1–7:28 5:1–3 5:1 5:5–7:10 5:5 5:6
5:7–8 5:7 5:8–9 5:8 5:9 5:10 5:11–10:39 6:19 6:20 7:3 7:11 7:14 7:15 7:17
7:21
160, 188, 196, 197, 200, 215, 218, 222, 227, 228 197, 225 191, 214 214 128 160 232 118, 197, 198, 235 65, 129 234, 240 232, 233, 235, 239 97 97 235 36, 187 36, 187, 229, 233, 235 132 96, 275 96 118 25, 97 229, 233, 235 160 222 229, 233 229 192, 229, 233 133, 134 134 36, 131, 134, 187, 229, 233, 235 36, 187, 218, 229, 233, 235
291 7:24 7:25 7:28 8–12 8–10 8 8:1–12:29 8:1–10:18 8:1
8:5–10:17 8:5 8:8–12 8:8 9:5 9:9 9:11 9:26 10
10:2 10:3 10:5–7
10:5
10:6 10:7 10:8–22 10:8–9 10:8 10:9
229 229 96, 97, 192, 229 234 228, 240 145 234 232, 233, 235, 239 36, 131, 197, 229, 233, 235 235 198 195 225 198 225 197 128 126, 128–30, 132, 134, 138, 144, 145 144 211 126, 127, 130, 137–39, 145, 187, 195, 276 36, 126, 129–31, 135, 145, 146 36, 140 36, 131 209 131 130, 131, 140 130, 187, 211
292 Hebrews (cont.) 10:10 128, 129, 135, 137, 145 10:12–13 229, 235 10:12 36, 187, 233 10:13 36, 233 10:15 207 10:17 239 10:19–12:29 232, 233, 235 10:19–21 233, 235 10:19 145, 222 10:21 197, 198, 229 10:23 200 10:24 216 10:26–31 239 10:26 35 10:27 239 10:29–11:13 209 10:29 198 10:30–12:26 235 10:30 187, 239, 273, 274 10:36 36 10:38 140 11–12 240 11:3 273 11:8 192 11:13 273, 274 11:26 96 11:28–12:17 209 11:30 274 12 240 12:1–29 239 12:1–3 239 12:2 36, 96, 229, 233, 235 12:5 198 12:14 273, 274 12:22–24 81, 240 12:22–23 233, 235
Psalms and Hebrews 12:22 12:23 12:25 12:26 13
13:10–14 13:11 13:13 13:14 13:15 13:21 13:23
223, 229 273, 274 200 273, 274 144, 214, 234 232, 233 36, 187, 276 146 144 96 145 273, 274 198 135
James 2:10
91
1 Peter 3:10–12 3:22
195 84, 115
QUMRAN 1QH 1:22
202
1QS 5:4 5:6 5:25–6:1 5:26 8:5
202 198 216 202 198
4Q372 1:1:5–6
202
4QFlor 1:7
202
4QpPs 37:1
225
4QpPs 37:6
225
CD 3:19 7:2–3 9:2–8 20:14 20:15
198 216 216 204 225
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 3 Enoch 12:15 121
PHILO De ebrietate 61
115
Odes of Solomon 20:8 202
Legum allegoriae 2.88 92
Psalms of Solomon 16:14 209
Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 182 197
13:1–25 13:6
Jude 31:34
239
Revelation 21:3
160, 226
Testament of Gad 6 92 Testament of Simeon 8 92
De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 130 197
Index of References De somniis 2.69 2.189
92 197
De specialibus legibus 1.229 97 De vita Mosis 1.158 1.334 2.2–7 2.66 2.153–158 2.187 2.275 JOSEPHUS Antiquities 13:5:9 War 2:141
197 197 197 197 197 197 197
14
216
EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS 1 Clement 36:1–6 120 Acts (Martyrdom) of Peter and Paul 1 223 Apostolic Constitutions 2.36.2 223 Athenagoras Apology 10 Barnabas 8:5
120
202
Diodorus Commentary on Psalms 39:7 142
Epiphanius Adversus Haereses 30.2.2 223 66.85.9 223 Eusebius Commentary on Psalms 39:7 142 Historia ecclesiastica 5:26 136 Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.6.5 136 4.17.1 141 5.32.2 136 20.30.9 136 IV 17.1 136 Justin Dialogus cum Tryphone 23:3 223 Origen De oration 27:16
223
On the Pascha 2.46.33–36 142 Pseudo-Macarius (Symeon) Homily 12.2.4 223 Theodore of Mopsuestia 39:7 142 Shepherd of Hermas Similitude 5 120 6 120
293 BABYLONIAN TALMUD Sanhedrin 98a 225 OTHER SOURCES Aeschines De Falsa Legatione 89:9 90 Apollodorus Epitome of the Biblioteca I.11 258 II.6.3 258 Demosthenes Orationes 42:28 90 Pro Phormion 50–52 89 Diodor of Sicily 20:54 96 Eudoxus Ars Astronomica 4.34 257 5.2 257 5.9 257 Fragm. 124.88
257
Hesiod Theogany 381
257
Homer Iliad 23.226
257
Hyginus Fabulae 40
258
Psalms and Hebrews
294 Isaeus 6.62
89
Ovid Metamorphoses VIII 183–235 258 Plato Epinomis 986e.7 987b.2
257 257
Leges 821c.2
257
Phaedrus 274b–77
207
Symposion 189.5–190a.5 258 Timeaus 38d.2.6
257
Plutarch Cimon 16:8
90
On Superstition 3 223 Polybios Histories 1.33.5 3.110.4
90 90
PAPYRI Papyrus Bodmer XXIV 206–208 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 657 209, 210 UGARITIC TEXTS KTU 1.3 V 32–33 156 1.4 VII 49–50 156 1.5 I 1–3 245, 258 1.5 I 27–30 245, 258
INDEX OF AUTHORS Abrams, D. 121 Achenbach, R. 24 Adam, K.-P. 24 Aejmelaeus, A. 242 Ahlborn, E. 127, 138, 143, 208, 209, 211, 212 Albertz, R. 5, 9 Allen, L. C. 57–59, 236, 245, 247 Amphoux, C.-B. 133, 138, 140–42 Anderson, A. A. 103 Anderson, D. R. 229, 236 Archer, G. L. 206 Armesto, F. F. 28 Armour-Garb, B. 47 Arndt, W. F. 198, 212 Arneth, M. 18, 24 Attridge, H. W. 52–54, 64, 80, 81, 115, 117–19, 121, 122, 124, 137, 196–99, 206, 209–12, 215, 216, 218–21, 223, 225, 272, 273, 275, 276 Auffret, P. 149 Austermann, F. 242 Austin, J. L. 39 Backhaus, K. 135, 136, 187 Baethgen, F. 153 Bailey, J. L. 230, 240 Ballhorn, E. 167, 168, 170 Baly, D. 202 Barr, J. 12, 29, 33 Barrera, J. T. 242 Barth, K. 3 Barthélemy, D. 140, 204 Bauernfeind, O. 220 Beall, J. C. 47 Beardsley, M. C. 39 Beckwith, R. T. 224 Berges, U. 21 Berlejung, A. 79, 80 Bernstein, M. J. 114 Bietenhard, H. 241 Biletzki, A. 28 Blackburn, S. 39, 42 Bloemendaal, W. 268
Bodendorfer, G. 241 Bons, E. 241 Bonus, A. 93 Booij, T. 158 Bornkamm, G. 84 Bottéro, J. 71, 73 Bowker, J. W. 24 Brand, J. 162 Braulik, G. 6, 159, 170, 175, 201, 221 Braun, H. 96, 161, 186, 204 Bray, G. 229, 236 Briggs, C. A. 148, 236 Briggs, E. G. 148 Brink, G. van den 196 Broek, L. D. van der 230, 240 Brown, W. P. 248 Bruce, F. F. 52, 114, 121, 133, 161, 230, 231 Brueggemann, W. 10, 108 Brunner, H. 23, 24 Buchanan, G. W. 25, 161, 229–31, 235 Bullock, C. H. 101 Bultmann, R. 10, 62, 63 Burden, J. J. 236 Büschel, F. 90 Byars, R. P. 147 Cadwallader, A. H. 139, 210 Callan, T. 241 Caloz, M. 138, 144 Calvin, J. 268 Cangh, J.-M. van 133 Cartwright, R. 47 Casey, M. 271, 272 Cassirer, E. 11 Childs, B. S. 12, 60, 61, 109, 115, 116, 122 Chirichigno, G. 206 Clark, G. R. 55, 62 Clifford, R. J. 69, 70, 105, 107, 109 Clines, D. J. A. 30 Cole, T. 35 Combrink, B. H. J. 116 Cook, J. 76 Cordes, A. 183, 243
296
Psalms and Hebrews
Craigie, P. C. 100, 103, 105, 110, 267 Creach, J. F. D. 150, 151, 156 Crenshaw, J. 110 Crüsemann, F. 155 Dafni, E. G. 243, 245, 250, 258, 259 Dahmen, U. 204 Dahood, M. J. 106, 158, 236 Dalglish, E. R. 117 Damnjanovic, N. 49 Damrosch, D. 73 Danker, F. W. 198, 212 d’Assonville, V. E., Jr. 268, 271 d’Assonville, V. E., Sr. 270 Dautzenberg, G. 242 David, M. 39, 43 Davidson, D. 39, 43 Davidson, R. 100, 104, 106, 107, 109, 111 Davies, G. 19 Davies, G. H. 147 Davies, P. R. 30 Deissler, A. 148, 154 Delitzsch, F. 129, 182 Delling, G. 92 DeSilva, D. A. 79–81, 95, 113, 114, 116, 118–20, 123, 124 Dierken, J. 9 Dines, J. M. 205 Doeker, A. 172 Dohmen, C. 56, 58, 59, 61, 62 Dolfe, K. G. 92 Donner, H. 24 Dorival, G. 133, 138, 140–42 Droysen, J. G. 8 Durham, J. I. 55, 56, 60 Eaton, J. 103, 106, 154, 159 Eichrodt, W. 4, 5 Eissfeldt, O. 3 Ellingworth, P. 80, 81, 114–16, 122–24, 197–200, 206, 212, 214, 216, 219, 226–28 Ellis, E. E. 207, 230, 234, 242 Enns, P. 65, 152, 160–62, 186, 196, 209, 211, 212, 214, 220, 222, 226, 227 Esser, H.-H. 63, 64 Feneberg, W. 90 Field, H. 47, 48 Fischer, G. 21 Fløysvik, I. 62
Flusser, D. 214–16, 225, 227 Fohrer, G. 153 Fokkelman, J. 77 Forbes, G. 43 Forgó, N. 91 Fossum, J. 24 Fraenkel, D. 206 France, R. T. 53, 127 Freed, E. D. 229 Fretheim, T. E. 56 Frevel, C. 178 Frey, J. 132 Fried, L. S. 14 Fuhrmann, S. 93, 97 Fumerton, R. 43 Gäbel, G. 84, 137, 138, 144, 222 Galter, H. D. 157 George, A. R. 71, 73 Gericke, J. 10 Gerstenberger, E. S. 9, 103, 104, 149, 152 Gese, H. 11 Gheorghita, R. 89, 138 Gingrich, F. W. 198, 212 Glanzberg, M. 29 Goldingay, J. 99, 112 Görg, M. 13, 23, 25 Goulder, M. D. 203 Grässer, E. 84, 92, 93, 126, 129, 182, 206 Gray, P. 91, 93 Grelot, P. 138, 141, 142 Grier, M. 44 Grogan, G. W. 54, 125 Grover, S. 49 Gudorf, M. E. 92, 93 Gunkel, H. 149, 152 Gunneweg, A. H. J. 10 Gunther, J. J. 84 Gupta, A. 47 Guthrie, G. H. 37, 53, 54, 77, 80, 230, 232 Gzella, H. 134, 203, 242, 243 Hahn, F. 23, 88 Hamburger, K. 19 Harder, G. 127 Hartenstein, F. 154 Hatch, E. 205 Hay, D. M. 85, 86, 229, 267 Hazel, G. F. 6 Head, P. M. 209, 210
Index of Authors Hengel, M. 23, 85, 241, 242 Hermisson, H. J. 7 Herrmann, S. 10 Hess, R. S. 269 Hilber, J. W. 23, 24 Hill, C. E. 87 Hinson-Hasty, E. 111 Hoff, G. M. 15 Hous, O. 97, 127, 218, 223 Holtz, B. W. 230, 234 Horwich, P. 49 Hossfeld, F. L. 23, 71, 74, 148, 149, 151, 153, 169–72, 174, 175, 180, 183–85, 189 Hossfeld, F.-L. 56, 57 Houtman, C. 55, 56 Howard, D. M. 151, 169 Howard, G. D. 127 Hübner, H. 13, 22, 26, 127 Hughes, G. 127, 230, 234
297
Köhler, L. 5 Korsch, D. 3 Kowalski, B. 183 Kraus, H.-J. 4, 56, 58, 71, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 111, 148, 170, 171, 175 Kuhn, H.-W. 95 Kümmel, W. G. 230 Künne, W. 39
Jacobsen, T. 71 Janowski, B. 166 Jeremias, J. 19, 151–53, 155, 158, 168, 170, 171, 175 Joas, H. 14 Jobes, K. H. 121, 128, 138, 144 Johnson, A. R. 202 Johnston, P. S. 269
Lane, W. L. 92, 198 Laughton, L. C. 129, 131 Laurence, S. 29 Le Roux, J. 9 Lehnardt, A. 204 Leisi, E. 89 Leschert, D. F. 115–19, 122–24, 127 Lessing, G. E. 7 Leupold, H. C. 69, 99 Levine, H. J. 154, 158 Lewicki, T. 130 Lincoln, A. 219, 227 Lindars, B. 80 Löhr, H. 187, 216 Longman III, T. 270 Loretz, O. 149, 156 Lust, J. 242 Lynch, M. P. 39
Kaiser, O. 10 Kaiser, W. C. 137 Kaiser, W. C., Jr 269, 270 Karrer, M. 13, 25, 92, 96, 97, 128, 131–35, 138, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 192, 193, 196, 197, 199, 200, 208, 214, 215, 218–21, 241 Käsemann, E. 7, 15, 84, 165, 182, 222 Kasser, R. 207 Katz, P. 127 Kayayan, E. 268, 271 Keel, O. 17, 156 Kilian, R. 23 Kirkham, R. L. 39 Kirkpatrick, A. F. 147 Kistemaker, S. J. 116, 117, 135, 194–96, 200, 203, 206, 211, 213, 216, 217, 219, 220, 224, 228, 232 Kittel, R. 149, 154 Klassen, W. 191 Koch, K. 23, 24
MacDonald, N. 6 Maier, J. 204 Malina, B. J. 119 Marcos, N. F. 113 Margolis, E. 29 Martinéz, F. G. 204 März, C.-P. 129, 137, 161 Matar, A. 28 Mathewson, D. 186 Mays, J. L. 103, 106, 108–10, 158 McCall, H. 71 McCann, J. C. 109–12 McConville, J. G. 269 McCullough, J. C. 127 McLay, T. 242 McLean, B. H. 202 Meier, J. P. 117 Meier, S. A. 79 Meijer, J. G. 268, 270 Menken, M. J. J. 118, 272 Merino, L. D. 141
298
Psalms and Hebrews
Metzger, B. M. 115 Meyer, T. 11 Mildenberger, F. 5 Milik, J. T. 204 Mitchell, D. C. 162 Moffat, J. 161 Moffatt, J. 91 Monteore, H. 232 Motyer, S. 53, 121 Mowinckel, S. 149, 177, 201, 202 Moyise, S. 118, 122, 242, 271, 272 Müller, B. A. 101, 103, 106, 107 Mussner, F. 191, 193 Nel, P. 232, 234 Neumann-Gorsolke, U. 12 Nicholson, E. W. 6 Nida, E. A. 123 Noordtzij, A. 238 Nordheim-Diehl, M. von 241 O’Connor, D. J. 43 Olivier, G. C. 105, 106 O’Neill, J. C. 120 Orlov, A. A. 121 Otto, E. 4, 6–8, 10, 13, 14, 16–18, 20, 22– 25, 145 Pannenberg, W. 7 Parante, F. 255 Peirce, C. S. 46 Peterson, C. 156 Pieterse, H. J. 72 Pietersma, A. 183–85, 207 Pilhofer, P. 130 Pokorný, P. 87 Powers, D. G. 88 Preez, J. du 164 Prinsloo, W. S. 147–49, 153, 201 Punt, J. 52, 54 Quast, U. 242 Quinn, R. D. 77, 80 Rad, G. von 6, 73, 259 Rahlfs, A. 138, 207 Redpath, H. A. 205 Reim, G. 135, 187, 217 Rendtorff, R. 174 Rescher, N. 45
Reventlow, H. G. 5 Riding, C. B. 155 Ritner, R. K. 75 Rogerson, J. W. 153 Roloff, J. 126 Roodt, P. H. 72 Rorty, R. 46 Rösel, C. 134, 242 Rösel, M. 134 Rüsen-Weinhold, U. 128, 138, 142, 195, 206, 209, 212, 214, 242 Russell, B. 45 Saldarini, A. J. 231, 235, 240 Sanders, J. 12, 204 Satterthwaite, P. E. 269 Schantz, R. 39 Schaper, J. 13, 22, 25, 77–79, 134, 183, 242 Schmidt, H. 154 Schnackenburg, R. 87 Schniedewind, W. M. 169 Schnocks, J. 167 Schrage, W. 86, 88 Schröger, F. 89, 126, 127, 132 Schultz, H. 5 Schulze, L. F. 268, 271 Schunack, G. 186, 197, 199, 206, 212, 215 Scoralick, R. 55, 56, 60 Seidl, T. 149, 158, 175 Seiler, S. 183 Seybold, K. 152, 154, 159 Silva, M. 128, 138, 144 Simian-Yofree, H. 19 Simmons, K. 39 Simon, J. 4 Smelik, K. A. D. 75 Smith, D. M. 206, 214, 227 Soames, S. 39 Söding, T. 8, 16 Son, K. 52 Spangenberg, I. 76 Spicq, C. 211 Stemberger, G. 187 Steymans, H.-U. 24 Steyn, G. J. 85, 86, 94, 126, 129, 133, 135, 138, 139, 195, 220 Stoljar, D. 49 Strobel, A. 186 Strong, J. 32 Stuhlmacher, P. 11
Index of Authors Tarski, A. 48 Tate, M. E. 101, 104, 110, 148, 154 Terrien, S. 100, 107 Testuz, M. 207 Thagard, P. 45 Theobald, M. 129–31 Thompson, J. W. 127, 136 Tigay, J. H. 73 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 204 Tilly, M. 85 Tobin, V. A. 74, 75 Tov, E. 242 Troeltsch, E. 14 Tucker, W. D. 158 Tyrell, H. 16 Urassa, W. M. 85 Van Henten, J. W. 78, 79 VanderKam, J. C. 24 Vanhoye, A. 114, 161, 234 Vaux, R. de 202 Vella, A. 147, 149 Verburg, W. 86, 87, 90 Vischer, W. 4 Vision, G. 43 Vorster, W. 236 Vos, C. 105, 106 Walker, C. S. 45 Walker, R. C. S. 45 Wallace, D. 114, 118
299
Walter, N. 126 Walters, P. 205 Waltke, B. K. 266, 267 Warren, M. 209, 210 Weber, B. 152 Weber, M. 4, 16 Wedderburn, A. J. M. 128, 136 Weiser, A. 69, 70, 106, 108, 156, 202 Weiss, H.-F. 129, 206, 219 Wenham, G. J. 269 Wenkel, D. 77 Westcott, B. F. 231 Westermann, C. 6, 70 White, A. R. 45 White, O. 152 Whybray, R. N. 267 Wilckens, U. 128 Williams, M. 47 Williamson, R. 132 Wilson, G. H. 100, 105, 109, 151 Wilson, G. S. 78 Wimsatt, W. K. 39 Wolff, H.-W. 19 Yeo, K.-K. 186, 188, 212 Young, J. O. 45 Zenger, E. 55–60, 71, 74, 166, 169, 170, 172, 174, 175, 178, 185, 189, 242 Ziegler, J. 93 Zimmerli, W. 6, 8 Zobel, H.-J. 54, 56, 63
