Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception

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 maat.21 Maat 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, maat is regarded as a goddess. And yet, according to Egyptian belief, she was more than a goddess: maat was a concept, representing order, truth and justice. Indirectly, maat can also be connected to creation: maat represents that which is everlasting, unchanging and present since the very time of creation.22 The principle of maat permeates the whole universe—heaven and earth. Thus, maat 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 maat23 in mundane matters. Maat 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 maat and abolish isfet. Consequently, the pharaoh bore the title “good god” (nŠr nfr), a title which signies that he was also seen to possess the power and goodness of a creator god. As maat 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, “Maat,” 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, “Maat,” 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 maat. 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 5JEH (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: H9CE A

C59H 5H3 > 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 > (JE34 . 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 5H3E, 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 BVUP=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 (QBRINBUXO23 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&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