Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-ksm4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:55:44.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Kenneth J. Thomas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The textual origin of the O.T. citations in Hebrews has long been an enigma. From the time the texts of the two principal witnesses to the LXX, LXXA and LXXB, became available in the early part of the nineteenth century, it has been observed that the text of the citations in Hebrews does not exactly correspond to either. F. Bleek, who was evidently the first to make a systematic textual study of these citations, concluded that the author of Hebrews used a recension closely related to LXXA. Most commentators since have concluded that some text of the LXX was used, variously explaining variations from it as due to citation from memory, intentional adaptations by the author, and errors of transcription in his manuscript. Others have suggested that the citations were taken from a lost version of the Greek O.T. or from liturgical sources.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , July 1965 , pp. 303 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 303 note 1 Bleek, F., Der Brief an die Hebräer erlautert… (Berlin, 1828–1840), I, 374Google Scholar.

page 303 note 2 All three of these explanations are propounded by Swete, H. B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge, 1900), p. 402Google Scholar; Woods, F. H., ‘Quotations’, A Dictionary of the Bible…, ed. Hastings, J. (Edinburgh, 1898–1904), IV, 187Google Scholar; and Stendahl, K. O., The School of St Matthew (Uppsala, 1954), pp. 160f.Google Scholar

page 303 note 3 Padva, P., Les Citations de l'Ancien Testament dans 'Épître aux Hébreux (Paris, 1904), p. 101.Google Scholar

page 303 note 4 Burch, H. V., The Epistle to the Hebrews, Its Sources and Message (London, 1936), pp. 58fGoogle Scholar.; Spicq, C., L'épître aux Hébreux (Études Bibliques, Paris, 1952–3), I, 336Google Scholar; Kistemaker, S., The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam, 1961), p. 59Google Scholar. But see Katz, P., ‘The Quotations from Deuteronomy in Hebrews’, Z.N.W. XLIX (1958), 221Google Scholar. The only textual evidence for this theory is the citation of Deut. xxxii. 43 from the Odes in Heb. i. 6. The element of truth in this theory is that the author of Hebrews used passages familiar to his readers from worship and apologetic use. See Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures: the sub-structure of New Testament Theology (London, 1952)Google Scholar; Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (London and Philadelphia, 1961)Google Scholar; and Moule, C. F. D., The Birth of the New Testament (London, 1962)Google Scholar.

page 303 note 5 Ps. ii. 7 in i. 5a; II Sam. vii. 14 in i. 5b; Ps. cix. I in i. 13; Isa. viii. 18 in ii. 13b; Ps. cix. 4 in v. 6; and Gen. xxi. 12 in xi. 18.Google Scholar

page 303 note 6 LXXA/B is used to indicate all readings found in either LXXA or LXXB. Variations from LXXA/B are all readings which differ from both LXXA and LXXB.Google Scholar

page 303 note 7 The evidence of the N.T. witnesses makes it possible to establish with almost complete certainty the text of the citations in Hebrews, thus providing a sound basis for a critical study of the O.T. text used by the author. The N.T. text has had sufficient authority to withstand correlation with the LXX with the result that in Hebrews only 15 of 56 variations from LXXA/B have been correlated with LXXA/B in any N.T. witnesses and in only 7 of 23 instances for which LXXA and LXXB differ is the alternate reading found in any N.T. witnesses. This result in Hebrews corresponds with that for the N.T. generally. Cf. Stendahl, op. cit. p. 164, and G. N. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles… (London, 1953), p. 172.Google Scholar

page 304 note 1 The Odes, or Canticles, follow the Psalter in most Greek MSS. since the fifth century. The text in Hebrews is exactly the same as Deut. xxxii. 43 in the Odes of LXX55. The Odes in LXXA has the same except for an additional of before dάγγελοΙ which may have been assimilated from the similar text in Ps. xcvi. 7 of the LXX. Witnesses to Deut. xxxii. 43 with the same text as LXXA are LXXFMmgNθV Bo Eth Sahmg Just Or Eus Hil. These may be attempts to correlate the LXX text with the version in the Odes. Deut. xxxii. 43 in the LXX is known to have been translated from the Hebrew and not interpolated from another source, as the existence of a Hebrew antecedent has been established by the discovery of a Hebrew fragment in Cave 4 at Khirbet Qumran. See P. W. Skehan, ‘A Fragment of the “Song of Moses” (Deut. 32) from Qumran’, B.A.S.O.R. cxxxvi (1954), 12f. Cf. P. Katz, op. cit. p. 219.Google Scholar

page 304 note 2 Lindars, op. cit. p. 211 n. 3.Google Scholar

page 304 note 3 Schneider, H., ‘Die biblischen Oden im christlichen Altertum’, Biblica, xxx (1949), 28–65Google Scholar; Werner, F., The Sacred Bridge (London and N.Y., 1959), pp. 141 f.Google Scholar

page 304 note 4 Lindars, op. cit. pp. 244f.; Kistemaker, op. cit. p. 22.Google Scholar

page 304 note 5 Parallels in Boh, Sah, and a few Lucian-type LXX minuscules.Google Scholar

page 304 note 6 Stephanus, H., Thesaurus Graecae Linguae (Paris, 1831–1865), viii, 953.Google Scholar

page 304 note 7 Cf. Ps. xxviii. 7 and Isa. lxvi. 15.Google Scholar

page 304 note 8 Also translated as plural in Boh and Sah.Google Scholar

page 304 note 9 Kistemaker, op. cit. p. 24, suggests the change was made to harmonize πυρòς φλóγα with πυεύματα for proper balance and rhythm in liturgical use.Google Scholar

page 305 note 1 Cf. contrast between God and the angels in IV Ezra viii. 20–3.Google Scholar

page 305 note 2 Since the author of Hebrews is not concerned to address ‘the Son’ as God, the additional καí cannot be considered a separation of two quotations as suggested by Kistemaker, op. cit. p. 25.Google Scholar

page 305 note 3 Aùτоũ is accepted as the original reading of Heb. i. 8 because of the strong witness of N.T.P46HB (which, in eleven other instances of minority readings in Hebrews, where they are together, are considered to have the original reading), the scribal tendency to use σσυ to avoid difficulties of interpretation, and the tendency to retain σσυ as found in the LXX.Google Scholar

page 305 note 4 Parallel to change of word order found in LXX142. Parallel to additional καΙ in LXX89,142.Google Scholar

page 305 note 5 This Psalm had already been given a Messianic interpretation in the LXX and in Matt. xxiv. 22 and Mark xiii. 20. Cf. Bacon, B. W., ‘Heb. 1, 10–12 and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps. 102, 23’, Z.N.W. III (1902), 280–5Google Scholar. Also Moule, op. cit. p. 79.

page 305 note 6 Cf. similar idea in Isa. xxxiv. 4 which seems to be associated with Ps. ci. 27 because of the occurrence of έλ(ε)íξεIς.Google Scholar

page 306 note 1 Interpretation of Lam. iii. 23 in Hagigah 14a (ed. Epstein, I., The Babylonian Talmud (London, 1935–1948), Seder Mo'ed VIII, Hagigah, p. 83).Google Scholar

page 306 note 2 This Psalm is used of Jesus in Matt. xxi. 16; I Cor. xv. 27; and Eph. i. 22.Google Scholar

page 306 note 3 Barrett, C. K., ‘The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, in The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, eds. Davies, W. D. and Daube, D., in honour of C. H. Dodd (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 389 f.Google Scholar

page 306 note 4 These words are also found in II Sam. xxii. 2 but the citation is probably from Isa. viii. 17 since the next citation in Heb. ii. 13 is from Isa. viii. 18. Further, Isaiah has an ambiguous subject whereas in II Samuel the words are clearly ascribed to David. Cf. Lindars, op. cit. p. 176, for further discussion.Google Scholar

page 307 note 1 Parallels in LXXR,56, 210 Boh Thdrtpt.Google Scholar

page 307 note 2 Moffatt, J., A Critical and Exegelkal Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (I.C.C., ed. Plummer, A., Edinburgh, 1924), p. 45.Google Scholar

page 307 note 3 This understanding of Heb. iii. 7–11 was first expounded by Clement of Alexandria, Cohortatio ad Gentes, ix (J.-P. Migne, P.G. VIII, 196). He says that ‘today’ signifies ‘eternity’.Google Scholar

page 307 note 4 Rendall, F., The Epistle to the Hebrews in Greek and English with Critical and Explanatory Notes (London, 1883), p. 31Google Scholar; Vaughan, C. J., ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟγΣ. The Epistle to the Hebrews with Notes (London, 1890), p. 66Google Scholar; Grundmann, W., ‘δόκιμоς, άδόκιμоς, δоκιμή, δоκίμιоν, δоκιμάзω, άπоδоκιμάзω, δоκιμασία’, in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. Kittel, G., (Stuttgart, 1933– ), II, 258–64.Google Scholar

page 307 note 5 Parallels in LXX19,53,54,72,135,314,344 OrigLatEus.Google Scholar

page 308 note 1 Cohn, L. and Wendland, P., eds., Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae supersunt (Berlin, 1896–1926), II, 14.Google Scholar

page 308 note 2 Leg. All. I, 16 (6) (Cohn and Wendland, op. cit. 1, 64).Google Scholar

page 308 note 3 Barrett, op. cit. p. 367 n. 1.Google Scholar

page 308 note 4 Leg. All. 1, 5 (3) (Colson, F. H. and Whitaker, G. H., trans., Philo with an English Translation (Loeb Classical Library, London, 1929–1941), 1, 149)Google Scholar; cf. Drummond, J., Philo Judaeus: or, the Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy in its development and completion (London, 1888), II, 16.Google Scholar

page 308 note 5 This antithetic connexion between Philo and Hebrews is further developed in my unpublished Ph.D. thesis (1959) presented to the University of Manchester, The Use of the Septuagint in the Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 248–316.Google Scholar

page 308 note 6 Parallels in Boh and Dialogues of Timothy and Aquila.Google Scholar

page 309 note 1 Kurtz, J. H., Der Brief an die Hebräer (Mitau, 1869), p. 211Google Scholar, suggests the further possibility that the author may have thought Abraham did not live to see the birth of Jacob since the death of Abraham is recorded in Gen. xxv. 8, while the birth of Jacob follows in Gen. xxv. 26. This may have led him to limit the terms of the promise by omitting τò σπρμα σου to include only that which he considered had been fulfilled in Abraham's lifetime. This seems unlikely since the chronology in Genesis clearly indicates that Abraham lived 15 years after the birth of Jacob. Cf. Gen. xxi. 5; xxv. 7, 26.

page 309 note 2 Parallels in LXXF,19,85,129,130,314,344,509 Boh Cyr Philo.Google Scholar

page 309 note 3 Parallels in LXX15,53,56,58,72,85,129,130,344,376.Google Scholar

page 309 note 4 Goodwin, W. W., Greek Grammar (rev. Gulick, C. B., Boston, 1930), p. 267Google Scholar. Nunn, H. P. V., A Short Syntax of Mew Testament Greek (5th ed. Cambridge, 1938), p. 72Google Scholar, says, ‘The Perfect is not used in Greek unless stress is laid on the fact that the action denoted by the verb has been brought to its appropriate conclusion, and that its results remain.’

page 309 note 5 Cohn and Wendland, op. cit. 1, 135f.Google Scholar

page 310 note 1 Also Kistemaker, op. cit. p. 57.Google Scholar

page 310 note 2 Parallels in LXX38,49,90,613,764 Chrys Thdrt.Google Scholar

page 310 note 3 Parallels in LXX41 Sym Syr-Hex. The use of συυελέσω in Symmachus is quite a coincidence, but was probably a translation independent of any earlier text or version, as suggested by Padva, op. cit. p.77.Google Scholar

page 310 note 4 Only LXXQ* has this reading and there it is probably due to the influence of Hebrews as suggested by Moffatt, op. cit. p. 110.Google Scholar

page 310 note 5 Michel, O., Der Brief an die Hebraer (7. Auflage, Krit. exeget. Komm. über das N.T., ed. Meyer, , Gottingen, , 1936), p. 100, considers this conclusion possible.Google Scholar

page 311 note 1 Padva, , op. cit. p. 77.Google Scholar

page 311 note 2 Kistemaker, , op. cit. p. 42.Google Scholar

page 311 note 3 Driver, S. R., The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah (London, 1906), p. xlviii.Google Scholar

page 311 note 4 Parallels in LXX407,544 Thdrt and other Greek fathers.Google Scholar

page 311 note 5 Toy, C. H., Quotations in the JVew Testament (New York, 1884), p. 225Google Scholar; Weiss, B., Das Neue Testament Handausgabe (Leipzig, 1902), p. 566.Google Scholar

page 311 note 6 Kistemaker, , op. cit. pp. 41 f.Google Scholar

page 311 note 7 Ibid. p. 129.

page 312 note 1 Winer, G. B., A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek…, trans. Moulton, W. F. from 3rd ed. rev. (gth ed. Edinburgh, 1882), p. 636.Google Scholar

page 312 note 2 Vaughan, , op. cit. p. 196.Google Scholar

page 312 note 3 Thompson, F. E., A Syntax of Attic Greek (London, 1904), p. 133Google Scholar, discovered in Homer's Odyssey that ‘the Subjunctive differs from the Future Indicative in stating what is thought likely to occur, not positively what will occur’. This supports the suggestion made by Moulton, W. F., ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews’, in A New Testament Commentary for English Readers, ed. Ellicott, C. J. (London, 1877–9) 326Google Scholar, that the author of Hebrews used the future indicative in x. 17 now that ‘the firm basis of the promise has been shown’.

page 312 note 4 This reading is supported in viii. 10 by all N.T. witnesses except N.T.P46 Bψ, which are individually strong witnesses, but not as a group without additional support. Cf. Zuntz, op. cit. p. 62.Google Scholar

page 312 note 5 LXXB and the majority of LXX witnesses have γράΨω. LXXA and Arab have έΠΙργάψω but with a different word order than in Hebrews. Their word order emphasizes έΠΙργάψω; which would have suited the purpose of the author of Hebrews had he known it. LXXQ, v, 26, 46, 86, 130, 239, 532, 544, 613, 710 and some Greek and Latin fathers have έΠΙργάψω with the word order as in Hebrews and M.T. These do not appear to be a conflation of the LXX traditions since the LXXA group is too weakly attested. Rather, they probably reflect the change made in Hebrews.Google Scholar

page 313 note 1 Cf. Prov. vii. 3 in which έπΙγράφω is also metaphorically connected with the heart to emphasize the permanence of such an inscriptionGoogle Scholar

page 313 note 2 Parallels in Sah and Dialogues of Timothy and Aquila.Google Scholar

page 313 note 3 Jeremias, J., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. Ehrhardt, A. from 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1955), pp. 134f.Google Scholar, indicates the possibility that τς δΙαθήκης is an early exegetical gloss. However, δΙαθήκη is found in I Cor. xi. 25, which was written before Hebrews.

page 313 note 4 Andrews, H.T., ‘Hebrews’, in The Abingdon Bible Commentary, eds. Eiselen, F. C., Lewis, E., Downey, D. G. (New York, 1929), p. 1316Google Scholar, makes the curious statement: ‘It is strange that the writer does not quote the words used by Jesus in the institution of the Lord's Supper, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (I Cor. 1126), but it is in keeping with the absence of any distinct reference to the Eucharist in the Epistle.’ Although Andrews does not find in the quotation a reference to the words of institution, it is noteworthy that he considered such a reference to be appropriate here.

page 313 note 5 Jeremias, , op. cit. p. 84Google Scholar, maintains that the absence of the Eucharist from the list of subjects taught to beginners in Hebrews vi. I f. is to be explained by the consideration that it was a subject to be taught to the more mature in order to keep it from profanation. If this is true then the veiled reference to the institution of the Lord's Supper in Heb. ix. 20 is meaningful to the instructed but safeguards the ritual words of institution from the uninitiated.

page 313 note 6 Parallels in LXX44,71.Google Scholar

page 313 note 7 Parallels in LXX71 Boh Eth.Google Scholar

page 313 note 8 Parallels in LXX71 and Philo.Google Scholar

page 314 note 1 Marcus, R., ed., Philo Supplement, II (Loeb Classical Library, London, 1953), p. 77.Google Scholar

page 314 note 2 Parallels in LXX2013 Boh Sah.Google Scholar

page 314 note 3 Parallel in Sah.Google Scholar

page 314 note 4 Parallels in LXX2013 and Sy.Google Scholar

page 314 note 5 Nairne, A., The Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools, Cambridge, 1917), p. 98Google Scholar, says that this change gives the key to the fact that the emphasis is on the last phrase and not on σμα. Many commentators base their interpretation of this passage on σμα, for example Moffatt, op. cit. p. 138: ‘Our author found acopa in his LXX text and seized upon it; Jesus came with his body to do God's will, i.e. to die for the sins of men.’

page 315 note 1 The text of Targum Onkelos reads (Berliner, A., ed., Targum Onkelos (Berlin, 1884), 1, 236.).Google Scholar

page 315 note 2 Cf. Manson, T. W., ‘The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, Bull. J. Rylands Lib. XXXII (1949–1950), 16, for evidence that the author of Hebrews was familiar with Romans.Google Scholar

page 315 note 3 Cf. Katz, , op. cit. p. 820.Google Scholar

page 315 note 4 Leg. All. III, 105 (34) (Colson and Whitaker, op. cit. 1, 371).Google Scholar

page 315 note 5 Bleek, , op. cit. 11 (2), 696Google Scholar, tries to avoid this connotation by saying that God judges his people to determine who are really his. Delitzsch, F. J., Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh, 1868–1870), II, 191Google Scholar, claims that the author used κρΙΝεï in its original sense by interpreting the citation to mean that the Lord executed judgement on behalf of his people. This is contrary to the plain sense of the context.

page 316 note 1 Lindars, , op. cit. p. 231, says that the use of the phrase from Isa. xxvi. 20 ‘fixes the interpretation of the Habakkuk passage in an eschatological sense’.Google Scholar

page 316 note 2 Cf. Sanliedrin 97b (Epstein, I., ed., The Babylonian Talmud (London, 1935–1948), Seder Nezikin VI, II, 658f). The Qumran Habakkuk Commentary interprets this passage in terms of faith in the Teacher of RighteousnessGoogle Scholar. Cf. Brownlee, W. H., The Dead Sea Habakkuk Midrash and the Targum of Jonathan (Durham, N.C., 1953), p. 5.Google Scholar

page 316 note 3 Kurtz, , op. cit. p. 342; Toy, op. cit. p. 127; and especially T. W. Manson, ‘The Argument from Prophecy’, J.T.S. XLVI (1945), I33f.Google Scholar

page 316 note 4 Parallels in LXX46,95.130,185,311 Cyr Thdr Theophil.Google Scholar

page 316 note 5 Cf. Acts i. II; I Cor. xi. 26; I Thess. iv. 15–17; II Thess. ii. I; Rev. i. 7; etc.Google Scholar

page 316 note 6 Parallels in LXX26,62,86,147,410 Basil.Google Scholar

page 316 note 7 See above under Heb. x. 16.Google Scholar

page 316 note 8 Goodwin, W. W., op. cit. p. 288.Google Scholar

page 316 note 9 Manson, , op. cit. p. 134; Lindars, op. cit. p. 231.Google Scholar

page 316 note 10 Nairne, , op. cit. p. 106Google Scholar. Goodwin, D. R., ‘On the Use of καí in Hebrews x. 38’, J.B.L.v (1885), 85Google Scholar, argues that if δ δíκαΙος were to be the subject of ποστεΙληγαΙ, the author would have used δέ instead of καí. Delitzsch, op. cit. 11, 200, sufficiently answers this with the comment that it was necessary to insert καí because a δέ had already been retained, otherwise δέ would have been more natural.

page 316 note 11 Also Lindars, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

page 317 note 1 Parallels in LXX23 Cl Al Chrys Thdrt M.T. Targums.Google Scholar

page 317 note 2 Cong. 177 (31) (Colson and Whitaker, op. cit. IV, 549 and 551).Google Scholar

page 318 note 1 Cf. five occurrences of ντρομος in LXX: Ps. xvii. 8; Ps. lxxvi. 19; Dan. x. II (⊖); Wis. of Sol. xvii. 10; and I Mace. xiii. 2.Google Scholar

page 318 note 2 Cf. Sanhedrin 97b (Epstein, loc. cit.).Google Scholar

page 318 note 3 Colson, and Whitaker, , op. cit. IV, 101.Google Scholar

page 318 note 4 Migne, , op. cit. VIII, 1072.Google Scholar

page 318 note 5 Katz, P., ‘O μή σε άδ, ο μή αε γκαταλΙπω Hebr. XIII 5. The biblical source of the quotation’, Biblica, xxxin (1952), 524; Spicq, op. cit. 1, 336.Google Scholar

page 318 note 6 Philo may have originated this form of the text, starting with Gen. xxviii. 15 and enlarging it from Deut. xxxi. 6, 8, and used the combined form with reference to Jacob. Katz, op. cit. Biblica, xxxin (1952), 523f., and op. cit. Z.N.W. XLIX (1958), 220ff.Google Scholar

page 318 note 7 This is also the interpretation given in Midrash Rabbah, Gen. lxix. 6 (Freedman, H. and Simon, M., eds., Midrash Rabbah… (2nd ed. London, 1951), II, 633Google Scholar) and Lev. xxxv. 2 (ibid, IV, 447).

page 319 note 1 Spicq, op. cit. II, 419.Google Scholar

page 319 note 2 Parallels in LXXℵ, R, 55, 156, 286 it Gal. Ps. Aug Tert Cyp M.T. Targums. Textual evidence is split for both LXX and Hebrews. However, the evidence indicates that καΙ was originally in LXX and omitted in Hebrews. Cf. Zuntz, op. cit. p. 172.Google Scholar

page 319 note 3 Moffatt, , op. cit. p. 229.Google Scholar

page 319 note 4 Werner, , op. cit. p. 159: ‘Ps. 118…is both the Easter and the Passover psalm par excellence and was always so understood.’Google Scholar

page 319 note 5 Cf. n. 5, p. 313 above.Google Scholar

page 319 note 6 Buchel, C., ‘Der Hebräerbrief und das Alte Testament’, Theol. Stud. u. Krit. LXXIX (1906), 522.Google Scholar

page 319 note 7 Kistemaker, , op. cit. p. 32.Google Scholar

page 319 note 8 Bleek, , op. cit. II (2), 634; Weiss, op. cit. 11, 578.Google Scholar

page 320 note 1 See n. 4, p. 303 above.Google Scholar

page 320 note 2 Kistemaker, , op. cit. pp. 13–60. He himself concludes that the author of Hebrews originated the variations in ten of the citations and implies that he did in two others: Heb. i. 8f., i. 10–12, ii. 6–8, vi. 13f., ix. 20, x. 5–7, x. 16f., x. 37f., xii. 5f., xii. 26; by implication ii. 13a and x. 30b. Heb. ii. 12 may have been changed by the author or in the liturgy, while four others he considers to have been borrowed from other sources: Heb. viii. 5, x. 30a, xii. 20, and xii. 21.Google Scholar

page 320 note 3 Cf. conclusion with estimates of originality of the author of Hebrews in use of O.T. by Lindars, , op. cit. p. 29; and Moule, op. cit. p. 80.Google Scholar

page 320 note 4 Bleek, , op. cit. II (I), 443.Google Scholar

page 320 note 5 Winer, , op. cit. p. 717.Google Scholar

page 320 note 6 Bleek, , op. cit. II (I), 162, even concludes that άδΙκìα is the reading in Hebrews because it gives better sense with δΙκαΙοσνην.Google Scholar

page 321 note 1 Katz, , op. cit. Z.N.W. XLIX (1958), 222.Google Scholar

page 321 note 2 Roberts, B. J., The Old Testament Text and Versions… (Cardiff, 1951), pp. 29, 120Google Scholar; Hatch, E., Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford, 1889), pp. 136fGoogle Scholar.; Lindars, op. cit. p. 27.

page 321 note 3 Roberts, , op. cit. p. 155.Google Scholar

page 321 note 4 Ibid.

page 322 note 1 See Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans, and rev. by Funk, R. W. from 10th German ed. (Cambridge and Chicago, 1961), p. IIGoogle Scholar; Goodwin, W. W., op. cit. p. 12Google Scholar; and Thackeray, H. St J., A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint (Cambridge, 1909), p. 137.Google Scholar

page 322 note 2 Cf. Bleek, , op. cit. II (I), 444, and Delitzsch, op. cit. 1, 172.Google Scholar

page 322 note 3 Cf. Driver, , op. cit. p. xlviii.Google Scholar

page 322 note 4 Kurtz, op. cit. p. 258; Moulton, J. H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh, 1906–1929), I, 222ffGoogle Scholar.; Moffatt, op. cit. p. 110; Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge, 1953). PP. 179f.Google Scholar

page 322 note 5 Considered to be the original LXX reading by Manson, , op. cit. pp. 133 f. However, it is thought to have originated in Hebrews by Moffatt, op. cit. p. 157; Zuntz, op. cit. p. 173; Lindars, op. cit. p. 231.Google Scholar

page 322 note 6 Bleek, , op. cit. II (I), 162.Google Scholar

page 322 note 7 Thackeray, , op. cit. pp. 93f.Google Scholar

page 322 note 8 Ibid. pp. 212f.; Blass and Debrunner, op. cit. p. 44.Google Scholar

page 323 note 1 Cf. Bleek, , op. cit. II (I), 246, and Zuntz, op. cit. p. 48, who maintain Τìς is the original reading in Hebrews because it is given this interpretation by the author. Τìς is supported only by N.T.P46CP.Google Scholar

page 323 note 2 The omission of copula forms, other than third person forms, is rare in Greek. Cf. Goodwin, W. W., op. cit. p. 195.Google Scholar

page 323 note 3 Cf. Thackeray, , op. cit. pp. 83fGoogle Scholar., and Moulton, J. H., op. cit. I, 46.Google Scholar

page 323 note 4 Cf. Goodwin, W. W., op. cit. p. 308Google Scholar, and Moule, op. cit. p. 141.

page 324 note 1 Moffatt, , op. cit. p. 110.Google Scholar

page 324 note 2 Cf. Westcott, B. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (2nd ed. 1892, Grand Rapids, Mich., reprinted 1952), p. 223, and Bleek, op. cit. II (2), 454.Google Scholar

page 324 note 3 The O.T. readings in Hebrews remain comparatively free from editing through the second century as is evident in their use by the Church fathers. In 12 instances for which LXXA and LXXB differ, the Church fathers follow the text as in Hebrews in all but one instance, that is the different word order of Ps. ci. 26 (Heb. i. 10). Where we now have significant variants from the LXXA/B text, the Church fathers have the variants in six instances while following the LXXA/B text in nine instances. Thus we have a total of 20 primitive readings as against seven edited readings, a slightly higher percent of edited readings than in Hebrews.Google Scholar

page 324 note 4 Sperber, A., ‘New Testament and Septuagint’, J.B.L. LIX (1940), 248Google Scholar, proposes that LXXA and LXXB represent two translations, with LXXA having a close affinity with the asterisk readings of Origen's Hexapla, and LXXB with the obelus readings.

page 324 note 5 This view was held almost universally up to this century. Recently, M. L. Margolis proposed that LXXA and LXXB represent two recensions in Joshua: LXXA as a witness for the Constantinopolitan Recension and LXXB as a witness for an Egyptian Recension. See Orlinsky, H. M., ‘On the Present State of Proto-Septuagint Studies’, J.A.O.S. LXI (1941), 81 ff.Google Scholar

page 324 note 6 Roberts, , op. cit. p. 181.Google Scholar

page 324 note 7 Ibid. p. 116; Thackeray, op. cit. pp. 12–16Google Scholar, and The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: a study in origins (London, 1921), pp. 12fGoogle Scholar.

page 325 note 1 Sperber, , op. cit. p. 266, says LXXA and LXXB were brought into agreement at the expense of LXXA because LXXB had become more or less the established text.Google Scholar

page 325 note 2 Roberts, , op. cit. p. 120, implies that the editing process did not begin until the second century a.d.Google Scholar