09823897328975

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
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
THE RECEPTION OF PSALM 95(94):7–11
IN HEBREWS 3–4
Gert J. Steyn
1. Introduction
The Psalms have a prominent place in the New Testament. This is not
strange when one keeps in mind the place that they have in Israel, with
its liturgical use in the temple and in the synagogues. No wonder that the
Psalter has been the hymnbook and prayerbook of the Christian Church
from the earliest times.1 Focusing on Hebrews, this prominence can be
seen from the fact that it is the New Testament book which quotes the
most from the Psalms—as becomes clear from the following graph.
20
15
10 Psalms
0
Mark Ma tt Luke Acts John Rom 1 Cor 2 Cor Eph Heb 1 Pet
Matt (8); Mark (5); Luke (7); Acts (10); John (8); Rom (13); 1 Cor (3);
2 Cor (2); Eph (2); Heb (16); 1 Pet (2).
About half of all the Old Testament quotations in Hebrews are taken
from the Psalms. In fact, there is a case to be made that all the explicit
quotations in the !rst half of Hebrews were taken from hymnic texts.
Furthermore, the very !rst quotation in Hebrews is taken from a psalm
(Ps 2), as is the very last quotation (Ps 118). It is thus no wonder that the
treatment of the Psalms in Hebrews has received particular attention
in such studies as those by Kistemaker (see n. 1) and Rüsen-Weinhold,
1. Cf. Simon Kistemaker (The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews
[Amsterdam: Wed. G. van Soest, 1961], 114): The “knowledge of sacred history was
stimulated, kept alive, and augmented by the use of the psalms in Synagogue and
Church.”
1
STEYN The Reception of Psalm 95(94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4 195
among others.2 This author, too, has also dealt with some of Psalms
quotations before, particularly regarding their Vorlage in Hebrews
(notably Pss 2;3 8;4 45;5 1186).
One of the occurrences in Hebrews where a psalm is quoted and fairly
extensively interpreted and commented upon is that of Ps 95(94):7–11 in
Heb 3–4. Relatively few of the quotations in the New Testament are
fairly long. Most of the lengthy Old Testament quotations are to be found
in Luke–Acts and in Hebrews. The quotation from Ps 95(94):7–11 in
Heb 3:7b–11 is the second longest in Hebrews7 and probably the third
longest in the New Testament.8 The quotation from Ps 95(94) is thus,
with the quotations from Pss 16(15), 34 and 40(39), one of the longest
Psalms quotations in the New Testament. Furthermore, the author does
not only present this long quotation, but also continues with a midrasch-
artige exposition and application of the Psalms passage within his
argument. The author himself refers explicitly at least four more times
back to the same quotation. This makes it, with Ps 110, one of the two
passages that are the most frequently quoted and referred to by the author
of Hebrews. It is also the only place where Ps 95(94) occurs in the New
Testament, and there are no references to it in the Church Fathers.9 The
Psalms quotation and its application by the author of Hebrews should
therefore serve as an appropriate example of the reception of a psalm by
a New Testament author.
2. U. Rüsen-Weinhold, “Der Septuaginta-Psalter in seinen verschiedenen

Textformen zur Zeit des Neuen Testaments,” in Der Septuaginta-Psalter: sprach-
liche und theologische Aspekte (ed. E. Zenger; HBS 32; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2001), 1–87, and Der Septuagintapsalter im Neuen Testament. Eine
textgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004).
3. Gert J. Steyn, “Psalm 2 in Hebrews,” Neot 37, no. 2 (2003): 262–82.
4. Gert J. Steyn, “Some Observations about the Vorlage of Ps 8:5–7 in Heb 2:6–
8,” Verbum et Ecclesia 24, no. 2 (2003): 493–514.
5. Gert J. Steyn, “The Vorlage of Ps 45:6–7(44:7–8) in Heb 1:8–9,” HTS 60, no.
3 (2004): 1085–103.
6. Gert J. Steyn, “The Occurrence of Ps 118(117):6 in Heb 13:6: Possible
Liturgical Origins?,” Neot 40, no. 1 (2006): 119–34.
7. Exceeded only in length by that of Jer 31(38):31–34 in Heb 8:8–12, which is
the longest in the New Testament.
8. The quotation from Joel 2 in Acts 2 takes its second place between the quota-
tions from Jer 31(38) and Ps 95(94) in Hebrews. Other long quotations are: Isa 42:1–
4 (Matt 12:18–21); Isa 6:9 (Matt 13:14–15; Acts 28:26–27); Isa 40:3–5 (Luke 3:4–
6); Isa 61:1 (Luke 4:18–19); Ps 16(15):8–11 (Acts 2:25–28); Ps 34:13–17 (1 Pet
3:10–12) and Ps 40(39):7–9 (Heb 10:5–7).
1
9. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 35.
196 Psalms and Hebrews
Apart from evidence of existing combinations of texts prior to

Hebrews (e.g. Ps 2 + 2 Sam 7; Ps 110 + Ps 8; etc.), an extremely inter-
esting phenomenon seems to be the fact that the author himself connects
all his quoted texts in pairs around a particular theme.10 The same is also
true here, where the author deals with the motif of rest and uses the two
texts from Ps 95 and Gen 2:2 to make his point. The motif of rest is also
found in 4QFlor with a quotation of 2 Sam 7:11 as well as in 4Q372.
2. The Reception of Psalm 94:7–11 (LXX) in Hebrews 3:1–4:13

It is interesting to note, according to Attridge, that Heb 3:1–4:11 parallels
the !rst section of Hebrews, 1:5–2:18: “Both begin with a contrast
between Christ and some other agent of God’s dealings with humanity.
Both proceed, in slightly different fashions, to exegesis of a scriptural
text and to exhortation. In each section the terms of the initial contrast
lead gradually into a soteriological re"ection.”11 The section 3:1–4:13 is
a cohesive unit12 that deals mainly with the issue of belief–unbelief by
means of the motif of rest. The unit has a clear Narratio, Amplicatio with
its Hypodeigma, and closes with a Peroratio.13 It starts with (A) a prelude
(Heb 3:1–6), the Narratio. Then it moves to (B) an example from Scrip-
ture, the Hypodeigma (cf. 4:11), which is already the beginning of his
Ampli!catio14 and where the author presents his introductory formula
with a long explicit quotation from Ps 95(94):7–11 (Heb 3:7–11).
Hereafter follows (C) the author’s own interpretation of the quotation
10. G. van den Brink also observed this: “…(het) valt ons op dat de schrijver
meerdere keren twee of meer teksplaatsen aanhaalt om zijn uitspraak te bewijzen.”
He reckons that the technique of using a combination of passages was probably
developed on the principle of Deut 19:15, which points to the con!rmation of an
issue by two or three witnesses (“De schrift zegt of de Schrift fantaseert? Het gebruik
van het Oude Testament in Hebreeën,” in Verkenningen in de katholieke brieven en
Hebreeën [ed. G. van den Brink et al.; Theologische Verkenningen 7; Kampen: Kok
Voorhoeve, 1993], 211–17 [211]).
11. Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1989), 114.
12. So also, among others, Peter Enns, “The Interpretation of Psalm 95 in
Hebrews 3.1–4.13,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel:
Investigations and Proposals (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; JSNTSup 148;
Shef!eld: Shef!eld Academic, 1997), 352–63. Kistemaker calls it “an interlude of
nearly two chapters” (Psalm Citations, 85).
13. So also Martin Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebräer. Kapitel 1,1–5,10
(ÖTBKNT 20/1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 2002), 205.
1
14. Attridge refers to this section as “a lengthy meditation” (Hebrews, 114).
from Scripture, which is the rest of his Ampli!catio and where the author
presents an even longer exposition and application (Heb 3:12–4:11). The
little pericope (D) about the Word of God (Heb 4:12–13) is a re"ection
on the role of the author’s previous involvement with Scripture and is the
closing part of the unit, the Peroratio.15 It serves, in turn, as a hinge
between the motif of rest and the motif of Jesus as High Priest16 that
follows. The reception of Ps 95(94):7–11 in Heb 3–4 will be discussed
on the basis of these four consecutive sections.
3. Prelude (3:1–6): The Narratio

This section bridges the Christological foundation of salvation in 2:5–18
and the exhortation of 3:7–4:11.17 The author of Hebrews addresses his
audience in 3:1 as “holy brothers who share in the heavenly calling” and
appeal to them to “!x your thoughts on Jesus”—who is called “the
apostle and high priest of our profession.” The issue of faithfulness is
then introduced, which seems to be the overall theme for the discussion
in Heb 3–4, starting in 3:2 with !"#$%&'18 and ending in 4:11 with
()!*"+*"&(,. In his prelude to this theme of faithfulness, the author presents
Jesus and Moses as two role models. This connection is reinforced later
in the author’s exposition of his quotation in Heb 3:11–14.19 Here,
though, the faithfulness of Jesus is compared with that of Moses:20 “just
as Moses was faithful in all his house” (3:2). The author of Hebrews
probably alludes in 3:2 to Num 12:7 which is again alluded to (but not
quoted as some scholars state21) in 3:5.22 However, “Jesus has been found
15. Paul Ellingworth also takes it to be a “concluding comment” (The Epistle to

the Hebrews [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 213).
16. Jesus is referred to as High Priest at key points in the structure of Hebrews:
3:1; 4:14; 8:1; 9:11; 10:21.
17. G. Schunack, Der Hebräerbrief (Zürcher Bibelkommentare; Zurich:
Theologischer Verlag, 2002), 43.
18. Cf. Karrer (Hebräer, 189): “Pistos, ‘zuverlässig’, wird zum Schlüsselmotiv…”
19. Also Attridge, Hebrews, 115.
20. Ellingworth pointed out that “Moses holds a particularly high place in the
thought of Philo, who repeatedly calls him ‘high priest’ (Rer. Div. Her. 182; Sacr.
130; Vit. Mos. 1.334; 2.2–7, 66ff., 153–158, 187, 275) and more than once +*%-, (Vit.
Mos. 1.158; Somn. 2.189)” (Hebrews, 194). A similar tradition existed in Palestinian
Judaism (e.g. the Assumption of Moses) and rabbinic tradition “provides ample evid-
ence for the belief that Moses was held to be higher than the angels” (Ellingworth,
Hebrews, 194).
21. Nestlé–Aland 27th ed.; Karrer, Hebräer, 188, 195ff.; Attridge, Hebrews, 108.
Ellingworth, though, calls it a “fullest reference” (Hebrews, 206).
1
worthy of greater honour (.%&/0,)23 than Moses” (3:3). Then follows the
metaphor of the house: “the builder of a house has greater honour than
the house ($%12 %"34%1) itself.24 For every house (%"54%,) is built by some-
one, but God is the builder of everything” (3:4). The house metaphor
stands in the centre of the ring compositional argument.25 “House” could
be understood to be either a community26 or a structure27 here. A little bit
further on, however, it is speci!ed as a community (3:6).28
This argument leads to the fact that Moses was faithful “in” (*)') God’s
house as/like a servant (67, +*8(&!6'), whereas “Christ” (the !rst time
the term is used in Hebrews) is faithful “over” (*)!"&) God’s house as/like
a son (67, 1"7%&,, 3:5–6).29 This reminds the reader of the second quotation
(2 Sam 7:14 / 1 Chr 17:13), at the beginning of the book, where God
proclaimed Jesus as his Son (1:5), and the statement in 2:10 where Jesus
brought “many sons” (!%99%1:, 1"7%1&,) to glory—an idea that continues
again in 12:5. The author then indicates that “we are his house” (%"54%,
*)#;*' 07;*"2,) and that they “hold on to the promise and the hope of which
they boast” ($0:' !(880#"&(' 4(": $%: 4(1:<0;( $02, *)9!"&.%, 4($(&#<6;*',
3:6). The term +*8(&!6' was used for the servants of the Temple of
Asclepius,30 the servants of the Pharaoh and also applied to Moses.31 It
22. Attridge, Hebrews, 108. W. L. Lane makes the interesting observation that Ps
94 is presented in the LXX as a meditation on Num 14 (Hebrews 1–8 [WBC 47A;
Dallas: Word, 1998], 85).
23. Cf. Heb 1:3; 2:7, 9, 10; 9:5; 13:21.
24. Cf. Heb 8:5 where Moses is referred to as “building the tabernacle.”
25. Similarly also Ellingworth: “The key term in this section is clearly %"54%,”
(Hebrews, 196).
26. Ellingworth pointed out that “The Qumran community frequently describes
itself as a ‘house’ (e.g. 1QS 5:6; 8:5ff.; CD 3:19), but this is a natural development
from Old Testament and orthodox Jewish usage, and there is no reason to suppose
direct in"uence on Hebrews” (Hebrews, 196–97).
27. See ibid., 197. As structure, the idea is widespread in the New Testament.
The use of 4($(#4*1(&=6 in 3:3 suggests, according to Ellingworth, “a live spatial
metaphor.” Furthermore, %"54%,>+*%12 is freely used of the sanctuary in the LXX
(p. 197).
28. See also Heb 10:21.
29. There seems to be a progression in the author’s reference to Jesus as God’s
Son. Heb 1 refers merely to “the son.” Here in Heb 3 Christ is faithful “as/like a
son.” Heb 4:14 states though explicitly that Jesus is God’s Son: ’?0#%12' $%:' 1"7%:' $%12
+*%12. See also Heb 10:29.
30. W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker, A Greek–English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1979), 359.
31. The term is a common term in the LXX. It is particularly applied to Moses in
Exod 4:10; 14:31; Num 12:7, 8; Josh 9:2 and 1 Chr 16:40.
1
seemed to have combined cultic and prophetical elements in its serving

role. According to Ellingworth, “+*8(&!6' means a free man offering
personal service to a superior.”32 Attridge con!rms that it “does not have
the same pejorative connotations of forced servitude as does .%129%,…
Yet the distinction cannot be pressed, since the choice of terminology
here is governed by scripture.”33 The allusion to Num 12:7 in Heb 3:5 is
striking,34 although the author of Hebrews takes it “out of its context and
accords a very different sense to its key term.”35 Nonetheless, Elling-
worth is of the opinion that the section 3:1–6 “is essentially a midrash on
Num 12:7, with special reference to the adjective !"#$%&,, which forms a
point of comparison between Moses and Jesus, and the preposition *)',
which the author understands as a point of contrast between them.”36
Karrer, among other scholars, points also to the in"uence of 1 Kgdms
(LXX) 2:35 and states: “Das Haus von LXX 1 Kön (1 Sam) 2,35 hat seine
Mitte im Priesterhaus, das Gott sich schaffen wird, das haus von Num
12,7 in Israel. Beides geht in den Hebr ein.”37
The author presents this prelude in a ring compositional structure38 that
has at its core the metaphor of the house. His argument develops
schematically as follows:
a. Jesus the apostle and high priest (was faithful)
> @%:' ()!%&#$%9%' 4(": ()8<"*8*&( $02, %7;%9%A"&(, 07;62' )?0#%12' (3:1)
b. Moses—just as he was faithful in all his house
> !"#$%:' BBB C61#02, *)' %D96E $62E %"346E (1)$%12 (3:2)
c. House building metaphor
> F(2, A(:8 %"54%, 4($(#4*1(&=*$(" 17!%: $"'%,
> %7 .*: !(&'$( 4($(#4*1(&#(, +*%&, (3:4)
b’. Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant
> > C61#02, ;*:' !"#$%:, *)' %D96E $62E %"346E (1)$%12 67, +*8(&!6'BBB (3:5)
a’. Christ (is faithful) as a Son over his house
> G8"#$%:, .*: 67, 1"7%:, *)!": $%:' %"54%' (1)$%12 (3:6)
32. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 207.

33. Attridge, Hebrews, 111.
34. Cf. also the discussion by Karrer in this connection (Hebräer, 188, 195ff.).
37. Karrer, Hebräer, 198. So also Ellingworth, Hebrews, 201; Schunack,
Hebräerbrief, 45.
38. Also Karrer points to a similar structure, calling it “einen kunstvollen
Chiasmus” (Hebräer, 190).
1
Picking up on the issue that the author and his audience are (*)#;*'
07;*",)39 metaphorically the house of God,40 he states that they hold on
to the promise and the hope of which they boast (3:6). The same idea
resurfaces later again in Heb 10:23: “Let us hold unswervingly to the
hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.” This leads the author
of Hebrews to proceed to his introductory formula and to present his
long quotation from Ps 95(94):7–11. In contrast to the !"#$%&, (Heb 3:2,
5) stands the ()!"#$"&( (3:12, 19) of the section that follows.41 Accord-
ingly to Kistemaker, “It is this thought of belief and unbelief which is the
basis of the exegetical discourse upon which the structure of the promise
of God is built, entailing eternal rest.”42 Karrer reminds us that this is
rhetoric for a Narratio, which is the point of departure for this section of
3:1–6: “Antike Leserinnen und Leser erwarten die actualisierende
Mahnung und die mit einem Beispiel (Para- oder Hypodeigma; Begriff
4,11) arbeitende Ampli!catio (Ausweitung) von einem Redeschlussteil
(der Peroratio…).”43
4. Quotation (3:7–11): The Hypodeigma

In order to gain some understanding of the reception of Ps 95 by the
author of Hebrews, it will be important to address a number of questions.
It should be asked, !rst, what place this psalm had within the tradition of
history. Secondly, the critical work on the text ought to be carried out
here. It would be important to determine, as far as is possible, the
particular Vorlage that was used by the author of Hebrews. Before this is
done, it would be risky to establish which changes were made by the
New Testament author and which might be accounted for by the textual
variants available from our extant traditions. Once we have some under-
standing of these, then we could !nally move to the New Testament
author’s reception of Ps 95 within his context and as part of his
argument. Here the author’s application of the psalm, his methodology in
using it, and his hermeneutics as revealed by his own interpretation of
the psalm would become clear.
39. Ellingworth points out the emphatic function of 07;*"2, and to Hebrews’ use of
it in “a fortiori arguments comparing the old and the new dispensations (2:3; 12:25)”
(Hebrews, 210).
40. This is the introduction of a new “Leitmotiv” (Karrer, Hebräer, 192).
41. So also Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 108.
1
43. Karrer, Hebräer, 205.
4.1. Tradition History of Psalm 95(94)

4.1.1. Background regarding Psalm 95. Different scholars connected
Ps 95 with the liturgical traditions44 of early Judaism and early Chris-
tianity. Braulik sees the psalm addressed to all Israel, who live in the
Promised Land and who are gathered at the temple in Jerusalem for a
feast.45 Mowinckel considers particularly the !rst part46 of Ps 95 as
having all the characteristics of, and belonging to, the “Enthronement
Psalms” (Pss 93; 96–99).47 The second part—from which Hebrews
quotes—“expresses an idea other than the mere enthronement,” so that
the psalm can be considered as a “liturgical composition.”48 Psalm 95 had
clear connections to the harvest and new year’s festival,49 according to
Mowinckel, who adds that“…it has the conception of Yahweh’s appear-
ance and the revelation of his nature (‘name’) and will—the epiphany
concept—also the renewal of the covenant, and an admonition to faith-
fulness thereto….”50 Mowinckel further expands on the characteristics of
these feasts, saying,
Just as the harvest feast was ‘Yahweh’s festival’, so new year’s day on the
1st of Tishri was the special festal day of Yahweh… New Year’s day is the
day for the ‘sounding of horns’ (yom haššôph"r), a rite characteristic of
the festal enthronement procession of Yahweh (Pss. 47.6; 98.6; cf. 81.4). It
is also called the ‘day for the cry of homage’ (yom hatt#rû!â); the cry of
homage (t#rû!â) is at the same time characteristic of the psalms and the
day of enthronement (47.2, 6; 98.6); the cry of homage means ‘royal
homage’, ‘homage to the king’ (t#rû!ath melekh) for Yahweh; when this
cry is heard in Israel it is evidence that ‘Yahweh her God is with her’
(Num 23.21).51
44. Prinsloo reckoned that although there is fair agreement (“redelike sekerheid”)
that Ps 95 functioned in the cult, there is doubt about its precise cultic Sitz im Leben;
see Willem S. Prinsloo, “Ps 95: As julle maar na sy stem wou luister!,” in Die lof van
my God solank ek lewe. Verklaring van ‘n aantal psalms deur Willem S. Prinsloo
(ed. W. Beuken et al.; Pretoria: Medpharm, 2000), 155–67 (158) (English version
published in M. D. Carroll, D. J. A. Clines and P. R. Davies, eds., The Bible in
Modern Society [JSOTSup 200; Shef!eld: Shef!eld Academic, 1995], 393–410).
45. Georg Braulik, “Gottes Ruhe—Das Land oder der Tempel?,” in Freude an
der Weisung des Herrn. Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen. Festgabe zum 70.
Geburtstag von Heinrich Groß (ed. E. Haag and F.-L. Hossfeld; SBB 13; Stuttgart:
Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986), 33–44 (43).
46. Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, vol. 1 (trans. D. R.
Ap-Thomas; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 106, 122, 156.
47. Ibid., 32.
48. Ibid., 106.
49. Ibid., 122.
50. Ibid., 121–22.
1
51. Ibid., 122.
The Mishnah also supports this Jewish tradition and links New Year’s
day with the day of creation—on a par with the feast of tabernacles and
the Enthronement Psalms, which also have a special connection with
creation.52 Johnson53 and Weiser54 strongly argued in favour of a New
Year festival that accompanied the Feast of Booths, while De Vaux55
rejected this. Assuming the existence of the New Year feast, Baly states:
“The Creation and Exodus themes are tied together in a number of
psalms, which were probably used at this festival (Pss. 74:12–17; 89:1–
18; 95; etc).”56 This is important to remember when considering
Hebrews’ use of Ps 95, its reinterpretation of the motif of rest and its
connection with Gen 2:2 and creation.
4.1.2. The use of Psalm 95 in the early Jewish and Christian traditions.
Although it has been observed before that there are no explicit quotations
from Ps 95(94) in our existing corpus of early Jewish and Christian
literature, there seems to be at least some possible allusions to Ps 95(94).
It is in particular the motifs of rest and of testing as found in this psalm
that were part of a number of familiar and recurring motifs in early
Judaism and early Christianity. It is therefore not surprising that traces of
the section quoted from Ps 95:7–11 by the author of Hebrews are thus to
be detected as allusions in 1QS 5:26 (Ps 95:7); 1QH 1:22; 1QS 5:4; Barn
8:5 (Ps 95:10); Odes Sol. 20:8 (Ps 95:11).57 The motifs of rest and testing
surfaced also at Qumran. In 4QFlor 1:7 (4Q174) the motif of rest (from
enemies) picks up from 2 Sam 7:11. It is also referred to in 4QapJosepha
(4Q372), frag. 1, I:5b–6 and reads: “They did not enter] (v. 6) Israel. And
he uprooted them from the land [ ] [from the place to him; they did not
allow them to rest].” The motif of the testing at Massah and Meribah
surfaces in 4QTest (4Q175) v. 15 in a quotation from Deut 33:8–11 and
reads: “(whom) you tested at Massah, and with whom you quarrelled
about the waters of Meribah….”
Familiarity with Ps 95 in liturgical settings can be accepted. Psalms 95
and 96 were apparently “known as the psalms of the invitation for
52. Ibid.
53. Aubrey R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of
Wales Press, 1955).
54. Artur Weiser, The Psalms (Philadelphia: SCM, 1982), 35–52.
55. Roland De Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (London: Darton,
Longman & Todd, 1980), 502–6.
56. D. Baly, The Geography of the Bible (London: Harper & Row, 1974), 86.
57. Cf. B. H. McLean, Citations and Allusions to Jewish Scripture in Early
Christian and Jewish Writings through 180 C.E. (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1992),
75.
1
worship.”58 According to Kistemaker, Ps 95 was “regarded as a preamble

of services on Friday evening and Sabbath morning” and the “practice
undoubtedly stemmed from the Temple ritual which in later years was
gradually taken over in the Synagogue.”59 Goulder holds a similar view
about the function of Ps 95, though he allocates it as part of the morning
liturgy in churches from early times:
The psalms in Book IV are numbered 90–106, and we should therefore
have the same mnemonic as with the Songs: if they were a festal sequence,
evening and morning, the even-numbered psalms would have to fall in the
evening and the odd numbers in the morning. This time we have three
probable morning psalms, 95, 97 and 101. Psalm 95, the Venite, has been
used as a morning psalm in churches from early times: its challenge,
‘Today, if ye hear his voice, Harden not your heart’, seems appropriate in
the morning, when there is time for such resolutions (95.7).60
Gzella pointed out the interesting similarities between this passage and
Joseph and Asenath:
In dem frühjüdischen, hellenistisch geprägten Roman Joseph und Aseneth
(die Datierung ist eine crux, man wird wohl von irgendeinem Zeitpunkt
zwischen 100 v.Chr. ausgehen können?) bittet weiterhin Joseph für
Asenath, sie möge in die 4($(&!(1#", Gottes eingehen (8,9). Der sehr enge
sprachliche Anklang an die Septuaginta-Fassung von Ps 95 (94), 11 (die
Formulierung *")#*&8<*#+(" *"), $0:' 4($(&!(1#"' kommt nämlich nur noch
dort und in Dtn 12, 9 vor) dürfte zweifelsohne für ein eschatologisches
Verständnis der Psalmenstelle zumindest zur Abfassungszeit des Romans
sprechen. Zusammen mit Hebr 3, 7ff bezeugt dies eine verbreitete
eschatologische Rezeption des Ruhemotivs im griechischen Psalter, an
dem sich die Verfasser dieser Texte orientiert haben.61
4.2. Text Variants and Vorlage

4.2.1. Alternative readings of Psalm 95:7–11. The text traditions that
might represent the Vorlage used by the author of Hebrews for his
quotation from Ps 95(94) could be divided into the Hebrew and Greek
traditions. Turning to the Hebrew textual traditions, it should be noted
that some fragments were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) that
contain parts of Ps 95:7–11: 4Q94 (4QPsm) and has the text of Ps 95:3–7,

59. Ibid.
60. Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107–150)
(JSOTSup 258; Shef!eld: Shef!eld Academic, 1998), 109.
61. H. Gzella, Lebenszeit und Ewigkeit. Studien zur Eschatologie und Anthro-
pologie des Septuaginta-Psalters (BBB 134; Berlin: Philo, 2002), 165.
1
whilst 1Q10 (1QPsa)62 contains Ps 95:11–96:263 and 11QPsa contains Ps

95:11.64 This covers at least the beginning and the end of the section used
by the author of Hebrews for his quotation. The fragmentary 1Q10 con-
tains only the last two words in Hebrew (regarding this quotation) and it
agrees exactly with the reading of the MT. No evidence, however, of
explicit quotations to Ps 95 were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls
themselves.65 The closest is the reference to the “forty years” of Ps 95:10
which occurs also in CD 20:14. However, this motif was so widely
spread in antiquity that any analogy between these two texts would be
impossible to prove.66 When comparing the evidence from the Hebrew
traditions as found in the DSS and the MT, the readings which have
survived are identical:
Ps 95:7 (4QPsm)67 Ps 95:11 (1QPsa)68 Ps 95:7–11 (MT)
!"#"$! !"%&'$ $!& %() !6"#7"8$9!8 !6"%&:';$< $!6& %(=>
*!%& !+%,$-! !.%/01 */ *!?%6&8 !?+%@ ,$-;! !?.%/>0718 */8)
!/123. !'45 *$ A !6/1B237.> !?'4;567C*$>7
&5B%0D17(>6 *(E5758'7 !62347.68C'$8)
A 056B+F1>6568 &G6B18 *!?%(67
*(E%.:!?5$9 %"D!6G6"D 023E$9)
A %'>/HIB !6$0@C*J6K %"D!6"#B567
0!?+567 L!64$B &"@23@ *%/>56B0F$8)
*&:!F *&:55B': %/:.6; */8 018$;!@)
A %(B0@+F !6/+F%@C$3'
%IM>$857 %.6>/7568237"DC023E$9
%.#!"1 '$[ %.>#B!6"17C'$E ,!6$5;%FC*$>
62. Cf. D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave I (DJD I; Oxford:

Clarendon, 1955), 69.
63. For the texts, cf. F. García Martinéz and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead
Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Vol. 1, 1Q1–4Q273 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 5–6, 283.
64. U. Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Frühjudentum. Rekonstruk-
tion, Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPsa aus Qumran
(Leiden: Brill, 2003).
65. See J. Maier, Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer. Vol. 2 (UTB
1916; Munich: Reinhardt, 1996).
66. So also H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament (Tübingen: Mohr, 1966),
2:312–13.
67. Cf. A. Lehnardt, Bibliographie zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-
römischer Zeit (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1999), 6:202. The text is taken
from E. Ulrich et al., eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XI. Psalms to Chronicles (DJD 16;
Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 132.
68. Cf. the catalogue compiled by James A. Sanders, “Pre-Masoretic Psalter
Texts,” CBQ 27 (1965): 114–23 (114). Text taken from Barthélemy and Milik,
Qumran Cave I, 69.
1
When turning to the Greek textual traditions of Ps 94 LXX, the !rst

striking difference with that of the Hebrew is the presence of the super-
scription—one of many in the Greek Psalter. Dines describes the super-
scription here as of a “historicizing or exegetical kind.”69 Comparing now
the particular passage of Ps 94:7–11 (LXX), which is quoted here in Heb
3, it is clear that a large part of the text from the quotation reads exactly
the same in both the MT and LXX (the latter mostly followed by New
Testament). The differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts are
mainly to be found in Ps 95(94):8–10.
! In v. 8, the singular for “heart” + the plural suf!x (*(E5758'7) is
replaced in the LXX by the plural for “heart” + the plural per-
sonal pronoun ($(:, 4(8."&(, 17;62').
! Also in v. 8, attention has been drawn to the interesting phe-
nomenon that the LXX translator of Ps 95 interpreted a noun with
an initial 1 as though this was the !rst radical and the Hebrew
018 was translated with F(8(!"48(#;%&,.70 When this translation
equivalent is compared with the Hebrew &5B%0D1,7 then, according
to Walters, one “…cannot even be sure whether the translator, at
this !rst occurrence of the phrase, did not have in mind instead
NO%5E%0P17 part. Hiph., cf. 1 Sam. 2:10; Hos. 4:4….”71 F(8(!"48(#-
;%&, is a hapax legomenon in the LXX, but resurfaces later in the
translations of Aquila (1 Chr 15:23), Symmachus (Job 7:11) and
Theodotion (Prov 17:11).72 The verb !(8(!"48("&'*"', however,
occurs fairly frequently in the LXX as a translation for G/8(6B
(“provoke”); 00K1B (“be bitter”); &0@1B (“be refractory, obstinate”)
and 00KGB (“be stubborn”).
! In v. 9b the LXX reads *).%4"&;(#(' (without ;*) for the Hebrew
hapax legomenon %"D!6"#B567. The LXX also reads $(: *38A( (plural)
for the singular %'>/QIB of the MT.
! In v. 10a the MT has no demonstrative as in the LXX $02E A*'*(2E
*)4*"&'0E.
! In v. 10c ()*"& is added in the LXX.
69. J. M. Dines, The Septuagint (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 49.
70. Cf. P. Walters: “It is obvious that in the Ps. Passage we must spell place-
names, *)' $62E F(8(!"48(#;62E and $%12 F*"8(#;%12 = &G6B18” (The Text of the Septua-
gint: Its Corruptions and their Emendation [Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1973], 151).
71. Ibid., 152.
72. Cf. E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint. Vol. 1,
A–I (Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1975), 1063.
1
Hebrews seems not only to be closer to the LXX in these instances, but
almost identical.73 First, it is clear that Hebrews follows a LXX74 text
which has already translated the names Meribah (&5%01) and Massah
(&G1) with !(8(!"48(#;%&, and !*"8(#;%&,.75 Attridge formulated this
observation as follows: “The LXX translates these names abstractly, imi-
tating the etymological play in Hebrew, but obscuring the geographical
reference.”76 Second, his reference later in 4:7 to David who foretold
these words of Ps 94 (LXX) (the only reference in Hebrews to a human
author), probably also points to his knowledge of this psalm in the LXX
which has David’s name in the heading to the psalm but which lacks in
the Hebrew version.77 Third, Hebrews also differs at some of the same
points where the LXX differs with the Hebrew.
Nonetheless, it reads slightly differently from the LXX as well: *"3.%#('
(LXX) became *"5.%' in Heb 3:9. Some scholars are of the opinion that
there might even have been a textual error in the LXX tradition here,
which is why *)' .%4";(#"&(E is not as close to %"D!6"#B567 as is the LXX *).%-
4"&;(#('.78 However, *)' .%4";(#"&(E might have been an alternative LXX
reading, as testi!ed by P.Bod. XXIV.
The reconstructed reading of Ps 94 (LXX) is close to that found in
P.Bod. XXIV (Ra 2110), dated in the middle of the second century or in
the fourth century C.E.79 None of the additions or omissions, as suggested
among the variants of the LXX, are attested by P.Bod. XXIV. The LXX
reads:
! 17;62' (as in Hebrews)—instead of 17;"' in P.Bod.
! *).%4"&;(#(' instead of *)' .%4";(#"&( of P.Bod. (as in Hebrews).
73. Schunack, Hebräerbrief, 48.

74. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 35; Enns, “Interpretation,” 353; D. Moody
Smith, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New,” in The Use of the Old Testament
in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring (ed.
J. M. E!rd; Durham: Duke University Press, 1972), 3–65 (59).
75. Cf. Rüsen-Weinhold, Septuagintapsalter, 202; Kistemaker, Psalm Citations,
35; E. Grässer, An die Hebräer. 1.Teilband. Hebr 1–6 (EKK 17/1; Zurich: Benzinger
Verlag, 1990), 176; H.-F. Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 13; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 259.
77. According to Ellingworth, the author follows “Jewish tradition in attributing
Ps. 95 to David” (Hebrews, 217).
78. Cf. G. L. Archer and G. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New
Testament (Chicago: Moody Bible, 1983), 79; Attridge, Hebrews, 115.
79. Cf. D. Fraenkel, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten
Testaments von Alfred Rahlfs, Vol. I,1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004),
58–60.
1
! *"3.%#(' (*"5.%' in Hebrews) instead of "H.%#(' of P.Bod.

! $*##*8(&4%'$( (as in Hebrews)—instead of ;Ð of P.Bod.
! 4($(&!(1#"' (as in Hebrews)—instead of 4($(!(1#%'$(" of
P.Bod.
Ps 94:7–11 LXX80 P.Bod. XXIV (Rahlfs Ra 2110)81

7
#0&;*8%'I *)(:' $02, J6'02, (1)$%12 > [#0;*8%' *(' $0, J6'0, (1$%1 >
()4%1&#0$*I 8 ;0: #49081&'0$* $(:, (4%1#0$*] [;0 #49081'0$* $(,
4(8."&(, 17;62' 67, *)' $62E !(8(K 4(8."(,>1;6' 6, *'] [$6 !(8(K
!"48(#;62E 4($(: $0:' 07;*&8(' $%12 !"48(#;6 4($(>$0' 0;*8(' $%1]
!*"8(#;%12 *)' $02E *)80&;6EI 9 %1L !*"8(#;%1] *' $0 *80;6 %1
*)!*"&8(#(' %"7 !($*&8*, 17;62'> *![*"8(#(' %" !Ð8Ð*Ð,Ð 1];"' *'
*).%4"&;(#(' 4(": *"3.%#(' $(: *38A( > .%4";(#"( : 4(" "[.]%#([' $( *8A(>
;%1 10 $*##*8(&4%'$( *3$0M ;%1] ;Ð *$0 !8%#6<+"#( $0 >
!8%#6&<+"#(>$02E A*'*(2E *)4*"&'0E 4(": A*['*( *4*"'0 4(" *"!]( (*"
*")!(M ()*": !9('62'$(" $02E 4(8."&(EI 4(": !9('6'$(">$0 4(8."( : [4(" (1$%"
(1)$%" %1)4 *3A'6#(' $(:, %7.%1&, ;%1, %]14 *A'6#('>$(, %.%1, ;%1 :
11
67, 63;%#( *)' $02E %8)A02E>;%1M *") 6, 6[;%#( *' $0 %8A0>;%1
*")#*9*1&#%'$(" *"), $0:' > *"#*9*1#%'$(" *", $0['
4($(&!(1#"' ;%1B 4($(!(1#%'$(" ;%1
4.3. Introductory Formula

The introductory formulae of the New Testament quotations contain
important information regarding the author’s use and interpretation of
Scripture. It serves often to express the authority of a quotation. Intro-
ductory formulae were widely used by Judaism82 and there is a clear
overlap between the New Testament introductory formulae and those
employed at Qumran and by Philo of Alexandria. The author of Hebrews
prefers to introduce his explicit quotations with verbs of saying rather
than verbs of writing.83 Using forms of 9*&A6, the author links every
quotation to God, the Son or the Holy Spirit.84 The quotation from
80. A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vol. 10, Psalmi cum
Odis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 246.
81. Cf. R. Kasser and M. Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer XXIV. Psaumes XVII-CXVIII
(Cologny-Geneve: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1967), 189–90; A. Pietersma, “Ra 2110
<P. Bodmer XXIV> and the Text of the Greek Psalter,” in Studien zur Septuaginta.
Festschrift für Robert Hanhart (ed. D. Fraenkel, U. Quast and J. W. Wevers; MSU
20; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 262–86. Also http://ccat.sas.upenn.
edu/rs/rak/earlylxx/earlypaplist.html.
82. E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpre-
tation in the Light of Modern Research (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 79.
83. Cf. Plato’s Phaedrus (274b–77) where he warned that written words are dead
and cannot answer back. True philosophy, however, is a live activity.
1
84. See also Heb 10:15.
Ps 95:7–11 is introduced in Heb 3:7 as if it is an utterance of the Holy

Spirit. This is probably done from the tradition that the Spirit spoke
through David,85 creating a link with David (cf. 4:7 and the heading of Ps
94 LXX) and 2 Kgdms (LXX) 23:2.86 It was not an unknown practice to
quote Old Testament statements that were not made by God in their
original contexts, as if they were indeed utterances of God.87 Verbs of
saying in introductory formulae were usually used in the prophetic
circles of the Hebraists, while verbs of writing were usually used in the
prophetic circles of the Hellenists. The author’s consistency in using a
form of the verb 9*&A6 in Heb 3–4 is striking. Compare: 9*&A*" (3:7);
9*&A*#+(" (3:15); *"3804*' (4:3); *"3804*' (4:4); 9*&A6' (4:7); !8%*"&80$("
(4:7); *)9(&9*" (4:8).
4.4. Alternative Readings of Hebrews 3:7–11

The following variant readings exist among the New Testament manu-
scripts regarding the text of Ps 95(94):7–11 in Heb 3:7–11:
(1) The inclusion of ;* between *)!*"&8(#(' and %"7 !($*&8*, 17;62' by a2
D2 Y 0243. 0278. 1739. 1881 M lat sy bo. Some later LXX traditions also
support the inclusion, cf. R#88 Aug Ga L#89 1219 = å. However, there is
not enough convincing evidence to assume that ;* was part of the
original text of either the LXX or of Hebrews.90
(2) The substitution of *)' .%4";(#"&(E by either *).%4";(#(' (v vg; Ambr)
or by *).%4";(#(' ;* (a2 D2 Y 0278. å a vgmss sy(p)). These substitutions
were most probably made later on the basis of the knowledge of LXX text
traditions. The LXX manuscripts, in turn, all read *).%4";(#(', but later
LXX traditions started to add ;*, as in the latter case: Ga(sub *) L# A# =
å. This inclusion by the later LXX traditions was possibly done on the
basis of knowledge of the New Testament quotation. In the light of the
discussion above regarding the differences between P.Bod. XXIV and
the LXX witnesses, there might be a case to be made that a LXX textual
version existed that read *)' .%4";(#"&(E, as the New Testament does, which
means that great care should be taken not to ascribe this alternative read-
85. See also Acts 1:16.

87. Cf., for instance, Matt 19:4 which cites Gen 2:24, and Acts 13:34 which cites
Isa 55:2.
88. Greek–Latin Psalter of the sixth century.
89. Lucian recension—possibly late third century by the elder Lucian in Antioch.
90. So also E. Ahlborn, “Die Septuaginta-Vorlage des Hebräerbriefes” (Ph.D.
diss.; Göttingen: Georg-August-Universität, 1966), 118; and Karrer: “…erkennbar
sekundär” (Hebräer, 203).
1
ing to the hand of the Hebrews’ author.91 Attridge is also of the opinion
that “the original reading was no doubt *)' .%4";(#"&(E,”92 and so thinks
Rüsen-Weinhold too.93 N%4";(#"&( is a hapax legomenon in the New
Testament and occurs only twice in the LXX: Pss. Sol. 16:14 and Sir 6:21.
(3) The substitution of $(1&$0E with *)4*"'0E by C D2 Y 0278. å a vgmss
sy bo. All the LXX witnesses read *)4*"'0E. The combination A*'*(2E $(1&$0E is
more frequent in the New Testament, but is found only once in the LXX.94
The combination A*'*(2E *)4*"'0E, however, is limited only to the LXX.95 One
can thus assume that the readings in both the reconstructed versions of
the LXX and the New Testament are the closest to the original. If that is
the case, then this change ought to be ascribed to the author of Hebrews.
(4) The substitution of $02E 4(8."&(E (1)$%": .*& with *)' $02E 4(8."&(E (1)$62'I
."% only by ¸13. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 657 (¸13), dated in the third to
fourth century C.E., contains Heb 2:14–5:5; 10:8–22; 10:29–11:13 and
11:28–12:17 with a large number of minor lacunae. P.Oxy 657 is the
most extensive papyrus outside the Beatty and Bodmer collections and
contains presumably the original, whole of Hebrews. It aligns frequently
with ¸46 and with B for the portions of Hebrews where both exist. It is
an extremely important witness that has not, so far, received suf!cient
attention.96 Head and Warren suggested that a re-inking of the scribe’s
pen was responsible for this change. This is, according to them, one of
four passages that are “of particular interest due to the fact that in these
places evidence of re-inking coincides with singular readings (readings
attested in no other Greek manuscript) in P. Oxy. 657.”97 There are no
LXX witnesses that support either reading. The change should also be
91. This reading exists in P.Bod. XXIV and thus contra E. Ahlborn, who wrote:
“So liest kein Zeuge der Septuaginta. Es gibt keine andere Lösung, als daß diese
Lesart auf den Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes selbst zurückgeht.” See his lengthy dis-
cussion that the author of Hebrews made this change on the basis of stylistic grounds
(“Septuaginta-Vorlage,” 118–19). Also Ellingworth sees this reading as one “prob-
ably made by the author”—“perhaps to avoid the unusual idea of human beings
testing God” (Hebrews, 218). Similarly Enns, “Interpretation,” 353, 356ff.
93. “Der Hebr hat jedenfalls diese Lesart, ein Hapax legomenon im Hebr, in
seiner Vorlage gefunden, wie sie durch P.Bodmer (2110) bezeugt ist” (Rüsen-
Weinhold, “Septuaginta-Psalter,” 204).
94. New Testament: Matt 12:45; Mark 8:12 (2×); Luke 11:30; Heb 3:10. LXX:
Gen 7:1.
95. Exod 1:6; Judg 2:10; Ps 95(94):10.
96. Cf. http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/ManuscriptsPapyri.html#P13.
97. P. M. Head and M. Warren, “Re-inking the Pen: Evidence from P.Oxy 657
(P13) Concerning Unintentional Scribal Errors,” NTS 43 (1997): 466–73.
1
treated as one which was made by the author of Hebrews. The question
is: Which one of these two alternatives is the most authentic one?
Attridge argued in favour of the reading of P.Oxy 657 (¸13): “Although
P13 may display a simple idiosyncratic corruption, it is likely that the
process of making the text of the psalm conform to the LXX was opera-
tive and that the unusual wording is original”98—an opinion which can be
supported by the fact that scribes often conformed their New Testament
text to readings they knew from the LXX.99 However, as the research of
Head and Warren on the re-inking of the scribe’s pen indicated, the read-
ings of P.Oxy 657 might in fact have resulted from “a simple idiosyn-
cratic corruption”—“supported by the observation that the relevant line
of script in P.Oxy 657 contains two clear cases of re-inking which relate
to the singular readings” and, therefore, “the implied exemplar for P.
Oxy 657 would not necessarily have re"ected the text represented by
NA27.” They conclude:
P. Oxy. 657’s *' $0 4(8."( (1$6' (cf. NA27: $0OE 4(8."&(E B P1)$%":) is not a
simple alteration but a re-organisation of the thought of the verse, so that
the pause for re-inking corresponds precisely with the end of the clause (for
P. Oxy 657 although not for NA27). One might argue that, having made
that alteration, .* would no longer make sense and so ."% is substituted by
the scribe. But such a view would necessarily attribute the text of P. Oxy
657 to the conscious activity of the scribe; if the variants re"ect deliberate
alteration this would strengthen the argument that conscious assimilation
towards the text of the LXX is more likely than otherwise inexplicable
conscious departure from it, and thus strengthen Attridge’s case.100
4.5. Differences between Psalm 94:7–11 (LXX) and Hebrews 3:7–11

Having worked our way through the text-critical aspects of the Hebrew
and Greek textual traditions of Ps 95(94):7–11 and through the possible
variant readings of Heb 3:7–11, it becomes clear that the author of
Hebrews used a Greek Vorlage for his quotation with very close simi-
larities to that of the LXX. These few deviations might actually represent
another LXX Vorlage which is lost to us today. Attridge thinks in the
same direction, although his reason for this assumption cannot be
accepted when he says: “These all may simply be due to a different LXX
text, since they do not seem to serve any particular purpose in Hebrew’s

99. This has been demonstrated in the case of Old Testament citations in
Hebrews by A. H. Cadwallader, “The Correction of the Text of Hebrews towards the
LXX,” Novum Testamentum 34 (1992): 257–92 (see n. 40 on pp. 264f. for a
discussion of this passage).
1
100. Head and Warren, Re-inking, 466–73.
application of the psalm.”101 Two changes do indeed serve a very parti-

cular purpose in the application of Ps 94 (LXX), as will be discussed
below. Closer to the truth might be the answer found in Kistemaker’s
conclusion, namely, that “the various textual divergencies are not so
much the work of the author, but most likely have been brought about by
constant usage in places of worship. It appears plausible that the writer
has taken the quotation in its present form out of the ritual of worship
services conducted in the Greek tongue.”102 However, due to the lack of
such evidence, the following changes between the two versions could
alternatively be ascribed very cautiously to the hand of the author of
Hebrews:
4.5.1. Linguistic adaptations towards Attic Greek. The substitution of

*"5.%#(' (Ps 94:9 LXX) with *"3.%' (Heb 10:9): The form *"5.%#(' is not to
be found in the New Testament at all, but is fairly common in Hellenistic
Greek and in the LXX—the latter where it occurs 28 times. The form
*"3.%' in turn, is closer to Classical (Attic) Greek. This change should thus
be treated as a mere linguistic alteration and one that is probably made
on the basis of our author’s Greek abilities. The change is of no theo-
logical value.
The substitution of *")!( (Ps 94:10 LXX) with *"5!%' (Heb 10:3): The
LXX uses here the more common Hellenistic !rst aorist indicative form
of 9*&A6 (*")!(), whereas the author of Hebrews prefers again—as with
*"3.%' above—the Classical (Attic) Greek second aorist indicative form,
*"5!%'. Ahlborn pointed out that the author’s use of the Attic aorist forms
here, is in line with his practice in the rest of Hebrews where there is a
preference for Attic forms.103
4.5.2. Contextual adaptations for the readers of Hebrews. The substi-

tution of $02E A*'*(E2 *)4*"&'0E (Ps 94:10 LXX) by $02E A*'*(2E $(1&$0E (Heb 10:3):
The author of Hebrews adapted his quotation from the original reference
in his Vorlage, “that generation,” to now referring to “this generation”—
“thus preparing the way for the psalm to be reapplied to his own read-
ers.”104 This coincides with the fact that the phrase $02E A*'*(2E *)4*"&'0E does
101. Attridge, Hebrews, 115–16.

103. “Wenn richtig ist, daß der Verfasser, wie wir annehmen, hellenistische
Aoristbildungen in seiner Vorlage hatte, so steht fest, daß er diese selbständig durch
attische ersetzte” (Ahlborn, “Septuaginta-Vorlage,” 119).
104. C. Spicq, L’épître aux Hebreux (Etudes Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1953),
74; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 218; Enns, “Interpretation,” 357. Contra Attridge, who
sees this as a “minor variation” (Hebrews, 115).
1
not occur in the New Testament and the author replaces it with the more
common $02E A*'*(2E $(1&$0E.105 In light of the fact that the quotation is
presented as “the Holy Spirit (who) says”—note the present tense,
9*&A*"—it is clear that the author intended this quotation to be the current
living words of God which are directed to his current audience.
Substitution of 4(": (1)$%" (Ps 94:10 LXX) by (1)$%": .* (Heb 3:10): The
difference between using 4("& and .*& is that 4("& would function more as a
copulative particle whereas .*& “is used to connect one clause with
another when it is felt that there is some contrast between them, though
the contrast is often scarcely discernible.”106 The number of sequential
vowels in the phrase 4(": (1)$%": %1)4 would probably also read easier in the
alternative (1)$%": .*: %1)4B>This may well be, again, a linguistic adaptation
by the author of Hebrews due to his own stylistic preferences.
The inclusion of ."%& between *3$0 and !8%#6&<+"#( in Heb 3:10: The
particle ."%& that occurs here in Hebrews is absent in both the MT and the
LXX and there is no manuscript evidence for this variant.107 The author
made an alternative division in the text of Ps 94 (LXX) with this inclu-
sion. This inferential conjunction results in an important point in the
quotation and has shifted the emphasis and changed the meaning signi-
!cantly. The period of forty years is no longer associated with God’s
wrath, but with the period of God’s activity in the desert when the Israel-
ites tested God’s works.108 Similarly, Num 14 and Ps 95 attest a negative
perception about the forty years in the desert. Whereas the MT and the
LXX is interpreted that God was angry for forty years, according to
Hebrews God was active in the desert for forty years and his anger
follows after that period. In the words of Enns: “It seems that he is con-
cerned to portray the wilderness period in a positive light—one that is
not characterized by wrath.”109 The difference between the interpretation
105. Ahlborn, “Septuaginta-Vorlage,” 120; Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 35–36;

K. K. Yeo, “The Meaning and Usage of the Theology of ‘Rest’ [katavpausi~ and
sabbatismov~] in Hebrews 3:7–4:13,” Asia Journal of Theology 5 (1991): 2–33 (5).
106. Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, Greek–English Lexicon, 171. Similarly
Ellingworth: “The main effect of reading (1)$%": .*& is to suggest a contrast”
(Hebrews, 218).
107. Enns, “Interpretation,” 353.
108. Attridge, Hebrews, 115. Following Ho!us, Attridge reckons that “it is
possible that the author conceived of two periods of forty years, one of disobedience
and one of punishment.” Similarly Ahlborn: “Nach dem Hebräerbrief gehören die
$*##*8(&4%'$( *3$0 zum vorausgehenden Passus; die Septuaginta (=Mas) hatte die
Zeitbestimmung zum folgenden gezogen” (“Septuaginta-Vorlage,” 120). Also
Ellingworth, Hebrews, 218; Schunack, Hebräerbrief, 48; Enns, “Interpretation,”
353; Rüsen-Weinhold, “Septuaginta-Psalter,” 205.
1
of the two texts, the LXX and Hebrews, can clearly be seen in the author
of Hebrews’ commentary on this in 3:17. There he interprets it, without
the ."%&, in the part of his exposition which refers to the original context
of the Exodus generation.
The author of Hebrews made very few changes to this long quotation
when citing it here. No drastic insertions or omissions occur. Neither are
there many substitutions. Those that do occur open the possibility to
interpret Ps 94 (LXX) with slightly different theological foci. Two kinds
of changes do occur, though: (a) a few basically minor linguistic adapta-
tions that resonate the author’s preference for Attic Greek, and (b) two
alterations within the quotation itself by which the author adapts his quo-
tation as a current appeal to the audience of his time: “that generation”
became “this generation,” and the addition of ."%& points to the reason
(“therefore”) for God’s anger with this generation. These alterations
bring the quotation in line with the author’s approach to, and theological
application of, Scripture as living, spoken and authoritative Word of God
which is normative for his generation.
4.6. Remarks Regarding the Vorlage of the Quotation

Not one of the verses of this psalm is anywhere else explicitly quoted by
any of the New Testament writers, as is the case with Pss 40, 45 and 102
in Hebrews. Looking at the extensive manner in which Ps 95(94) is
quoted here, referred to and explained by the author of Hebrews, one
could fairly safely assume that the author himself was responsible for
!nding and applying this quotation within his argument. The chances are
therefore good that the author of Hebrews was himself responsible for
the identi!cation and application of this psalm. In this sense, the identi-
!cation and application of the quotation from Ps 95 should not only
provide valuable insight into the author of Hebrews’ knowledge and use
of his Scriptures, but also insight into his hermeneutical integration of his
Scriptures into the context of his argument. This leaves us with the inter-
esting question of how he found it and in what version.
5. Interpretation: Exposition and Application (3:12–4:11):

The Ampli$catio
After presenting the quotation from Ps 94:7–11 (LXX) in Heb 3:7–11, the
author moves to an exposition and contemporary application of the
psalm for his readers110 which highlights his actual purpose with the
110. Kistemaker reckons that the long quotation “stand separate from the fore-
going and is quoted for the sake of exposition and application” (Psalm Citations, 85).
1
quotation.111 The “brothers” are exhorted to ensure that an attitude of

unbelief does not germinate in their midst and that they do not “turn
away from the living God” (Heb 3:12). What is at stake is their faith in
Christ (cf. 3:14), but the author of Hebrews argues that they would
actually become unfaithful to the living God himself. This unfaithfulness
to the living God is a strong reminder about the covenant that God
entered into with his people when he led them out of Egypt. He would
give them the Promised Land and they had to worship and obey him and
never forget him. The exodus motif is thus interwoven into the author’s
argument. (He probably also ends his book with this motif in Heb 13,
where he quotes from Ps 118, which was used as part of the Great Hallel
of the festival of the Passover, during which the Exodus from Egypt was
celebrated.) The idea of a new exodus in the existence of the Early
Church was not a foreign concept during New Testament times. The
suffering of Christ himself was linked to the Passover by John. Scholars
have also pointed out that this new exodus motif was also common in
some Jewish sectarian groups, such as the Essenes.
5.1. The Structure of the Author’s Commentary

Moody Smith already made reference to “the complex patterns of exe-
getical discussion in Hebrews.”112 The argument in which Ps 94 (LXX) is
used starts at Heb 3:1 and runs through to Heb 4:13. It ends in an impor-
tant remark regarding the author’s opinion of the %7 9%&A%, $%12 +*%12 in
Heb 4:12. It is important to take note of three important ways in which
the author of Hebrews deals with this quotation. First, he quotes fairly
substantially from this psalm. Secondly, he also presents a commentary,
or explanation, on the psalm in a midrashic manner, similar to the pesher
style to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls113 “in which a particular passage
is given an eschatological interpretation.”114 Thirdly, he refers four times

112. D. Moody Smith, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New,” in E!rd, ed.,
The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays, 3–65 (59).
113. Attridge calls this a “little homiletic midrash” (Hebrews, 114), while Karrer
talks of “Impulsen von Pesher und Midrasch” (Hebräer, 206) and Rüsen-Weinhold
sees it to be “midraschartig” (Septuagintapsalter, 202). Similarly Enns: “His exe-
getical technique is similar to what we !nd, for example, in the commentaries of the
Qumran community” (Interpretation, 362); and D. Flusser: “In this case, therefore,
the Essene exegesis and the rabbinic midrash do not represent two different
worlds—both belong together” (“ ‘Today if you will listen to his voice’: Creative
Jewish Exegesis in Hebrews 3–4,” in Creative Biblical Exegesis: Christian and
Jewish Hermeneutics Through the Centuries [ed. B. Uffenhemer and H. G. Revent-
low; JSOTSup 59; Shef!eld: JSOT, 1988], 55–62 [57]).
1
back to the explicit quotation (repetition) in a ring compositional manner.

He picks up the !rst verse quoted (Ps 94:7), then the last (Ps 94:11),
again the last (Ps 94:11) and then again the !rst (Ps 94:7).115 The two
references from Ps 94:11 are presented before and after a reference to
Gen 2:2, which stands in the centre of the ring composition. Structurally,
it can be illustrated as follows:
Quotation: Ps 94:7–11 (Heb 3:7–11)
Commentary: a. Ps 94:7 (Heb 3:15)
b. Ps 94:11 (Heb 4:3)
c. Gen 2:2 (Heb 4:4)
b’. Ps 94:11 (Heb 4:5)
a’. Ps 94:7 (Heb 4:7)
The train of thought develops in a circular fashion rather, than in a linear

manner.116 Just before he quoted the passage from Ps 94:7–11 (LXX), he
referred in 3:6 to the fact that they are holding on to “the courage and the
hope.” Then follows the introductory formula introducing the reason
why they hold on to this courage and hope, beginning with “therefore.”
Immediately following his quotation, the author uses Q9*&!*$* (impera-
tive) as an attention marker for his readers, who are addressed again as
().*9J%"& (vocative). He now picks up on a number of points in the quota-
tion as key aspects that he wants to draw their attention to. He does this
by switching between the contexts of the current readers (this generation)
and that of the exodus generation (that generation) to which the quota-
tion actually refers.117 He sides himself now and then with his current
readers, talking about “we” (!rst person plural), while at other times
addressing them as “you” (second person plural). These current readers
are then reminded that they should be cautious not to commit the same
acts of unfaithfulness and disobedience as “they” (third person plural),
i.e. their ancestors, did. Karrer aptly summarises the structural "ow by
saying that the author “verschmilzt…seinen rhetorischen Duktus (den
Weg vom Imperativ [3,8.12] über rhetorische Fragen [3,16–18] zur
Selbstaufforderung [4,1.11]) und jüdische Schriftdarlegung.”118 Attridge
noted that the exposition of the psalm, which is marked by an inclusio,
develops in three segments (3:12–19; 4:1–5, 6–11), of which each, in
115. Cf. also Schunack: “Das Schwergewicht in der Auslegung des Psalm-
Textes liegt auf der Anfangs- und der Schlussaussage” (Hebräerbrief, 47).
117. Flusser reckons that “in the whole of the epistle to the Hebrews there is no
contrast between Israel and Christianity, but an essential gradation” (“Creative
Jewish Exegesis,” 60).
1
turn, has an inclusio and quotes a part of the psalm.119 Within Attridge’s
scheme, the middle segment would then actually contain both the quota-
tions from Ps 94:11 (LXX), with the quotation from Gen 2:2 embedded
between them. The !rst segment (3:12–19) deals with the quotation in
the light of Num 14, concentrating attention on the past historical situa-
tion with a predominant note of warning.120 The second and third seg-
ments (4:1–11) relate the quotation to Gen 2:2, concentrating attention
on the application of Scripture to the readers’ situation with a predomi-
nant note of promise.121
5.2. Application to the Current Readers (Hebrews 3:12–15)—“We” or

“You.”
It cannot be agreed with Kistemaker that the author of Hebrews “begins
with a few sweeping statements in which he reveals the heart of the
matter.”122 It is a well-planned and well thought through exposition. The
!rst part of the commentary makes it clear that here are two distinct gen-
erations: “we” and “they.” The author starts with his current readers and
picks up on three key terms at the beginning of the quotation: 4(8."&(,
#0&;*8%' and ;0: #49081'+02E.
He appeals to his readers to take heed of their attitude, so that none of
them should have “a sinful, unbelieving heart (4(8."&( !%'08(: ()!"#$"&(,)
that turns away from the living God” (3:12). The references in the quota-
tion, “not to harden their hearts” (;0: #49081&'0$* $(:, 4(8."&(, 17;62', 3:8)
and “their hearts are always going astray” (()*": !9('62'$(" $02E 4(8."&(E,
3:10), would still have echoed in their minds. The command to reprove
one another probably stems from Lev 19:17.123
The urgency of their commitment and perseverance is pointed out by
linking back to #0&;*8%', the word with which he started his quotation.
They should “encourage each other daily as long as it is called ‘today’
(#0&;*8%')” (3:13)—a similar idea that resurfaces again in Heb 10:24.

120. H. Löhr labels 3:12–14 “Mahnung” (“Heute, wenn ihr seine Stimme
hört…”: Zur Kunst der Schriftanwendung im Hebräerbrief und in 1 Kor 10, 226–
248, in Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum [ed. M. Hengel
and H. Löhr; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994], 226–48 [229]).
123. Flusser, “Creative Jewish Exegesis,” 56. The motif of reproving each other
is to be found in Ben Sira 19:13–17. Josephus too, mentions that the Essenes “are
obliged ‘to be forever lovers of truth and to reprove and expose liars’ ” (Bell. 2.141).
Cf. CD 7:2–3; 9:2–8; 1QS 5:25–6:1.
1
The reason why ("D'() they should encourage each other is that sin’s
deceitfulness would not harden them (;0: #49081'+02E, 3:13)—which is the
warning at the beginning of the quotation: ;0: #49081&'0$* (3:8).
Yet again, he refers now back to the opening part of the quotation
(3:7b–8a) and does so by means of explicitly quoting it again with its
own introductory formula. This would be the third time that the readers
have heard the same words: !rst in the initial quotation itself, then in the
exposition, now in the re-quoting (3:15).
5.3. Explanation of the Original Context (Hebrews 3:16–18)—“They”

Moving back to the original context in which the quoted passage refers,
the author of Hebrews approaches his text by posing a number of
questions (!ve in total).124 He does this in three sets of questions and
answers—of which the !rst two sets of answers are also presented in
question form by means of rhetorical questions. Each of the three sets
focuses on the identity of the original group. Each set starts with an
interrogative: $"&'*, (who, 3:16); $"&#"' (with whom, 3:17); $"&#"' (to whom,
3:18).125 Kistemaker points to the importance of this: “Because the word
$"&'*, speci!es in this lesson from church history those that provoked,
sinned, died, and did not enter into the promised rest, the interrogative
pronoun is of great importance in this pericope.”126 Each of the three sets
picks up again some key phrases from the original quotation which were
not yet commented upon in the previous part: ()4%1&#0$*…*)' $62E !(8(-
!"48(#;62ER $*##*8(&4%'$( *3$0…!8%#6&<"#+( and 63;%#(…*")#*9*1&#%'$("
*"), $0:' 4($(&!(1#"&' ;%1. The author reminds his readers about the
unfaithfulness of the people of God during the time of their exodus from
Egypt.
Who was the group that rejected the rest? The subject that rejected this
rest is identi!ed: !(&'$*, %"7 *)/*9+%&'$*, *)/ P")A1&!$%1 (v. 16); $%"2, (7;(8-
$0&#(#"' (v. 17). The original exodus generation was intended for God’s
rest. But because of their disobedience to God and to Moses, they did not
succeed in achieving this rest. Now, through the call of Christ, a new
generation is called to this rest.127 The quotation referred to the exodus
generation that was called to “hear” (()4%1&#0$*, 3:7) but they were “in
124. Attridge points to a very similar feature in Philo’s expositions (Hebrews,

120).
125. Cf. also 3:12 ($"'" 17;62'), 13 ($", *)/ 17;62'); 4:1 ($", *)/ 17;62'), 6 ($"'(&,).
127. Cf. G. Reim: “Der Kyrios Jesus ist der große Hirte für diese Schafe (13,20)”
(“Vom Hebräerbrief zum Johannesevangelium, anhand der Psalmzitate,” BZ 44
[2000]: 92–99 [93]).
1
rebellion” (*)' $62E !(8(!"48(#;6E,2 3:8). The author of Hebrews asks now
(3:16): “Who were they who heard (()4%1&#('$*,) and rebelled (!(8*!"&-
48('(').” The answer is given by means of a rhetorical question, starting
with ()99 ) %1): “Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt?”
The quotation in 3:10 referred to the forty years that the Exodus
generation spent in the desert ($*##*8(&4%'$( *3$0) and that God was
angry (!8%#6&<+"#() with them. It was pointed out above that a shift in
emphasis took place from the forty years being a period of testing for the
exodus generation in the desert, to being a period now of God’s wrath.
Now, in his second set of questions and answers, the author of Hebrews
poses his third question: “With whom was he angry (!8%#6&<+"#*') for
forty years ($*##*8(&4%'$( *3$0)?” He answers again by means of a
rhetorical question, starting with %1)<"& (3:17): “Was it not with all those
who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert?”
This quotation refers to the fact that God took an oath (63;%#()128 that
they shall never enter his rest (*")#*9*1&#%'$(" *"), $0:' 4($(&!(1#"&' ;%1,
3:11). In his third set, the author of Hebrews asked the next question
(3:18): “And to whom did God swear (63;%#*') that they would never
enter his rest (;0: *")#*9*1&#*#+(" *"), $0:' 4($(&!(1#"' (1)$%12) if not to those
who disobeyed?” The use of *") and *")#*9*1&#%'$(" in the "ow of the
argument also needs to be noted here: *") *")#*9*1&#%'$(" (3:11);129 ;0:
*")#*9*1&#%'$(" BBB *") ;0: $%"2, ()!*"+0&#(#"' (3:18); *") (4:3, 5); %1)4 *")#029+%'
(4:6). The author responds again, though not this time by means of a
rhetorical question, but by means of a concluding statement: “So we see
(Q9*&!%;*'; cf. 3:12) that they were not able to enter (*")#*9+*"2'), because
of their unbelief (()!"#$"&(')” (3:19).
5.4. The Motif of “Rest”: S($(&!(1#", and T(QQ($"#;%&, (Hebrews

4:1–11)
The author starts this next section with the remark that the promise
(*)!(AA*9"&()130 about entering into God’s 4($(&!(1#",131 still stands (4:1).
He picks this issue up from 3:6, where he stated that the believers are
holding on to courage and hope. The term, 4($(&!(1#",, becomes a new
“Leitthema” that is to be found eleven times exclusively here between
3:11 and 4:11.132 The believers are exhorted to “be careful that none of
128. Cf. 7:21. See also Acts 2:30.

129. A strong negation and a Hebraism here and in 4:3, 5 (Karrer, Hebräer, 203).
130. A speci!cally Jewish-Christian term (ibid., 211).
131. For a comprehensive discussion of this term, see O. Ho!us, “Katapausis”:
Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT 11; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1970); Attridge, Hebrews, 126–28.
1
them (‘you’) be found to have fallen short of it.” The author now sides
him with his readers when he refers to “we” (4:2, 3); he calls them %"7
!"#$*1&#('$*, (4:3). He continues thus with his comparison of the two
groups—“we/you” and “they” (4(+(&!*8 4()4*"2'%", 4:2). That generation’s
exposure to the message and their reaction to it is compared with this
generation: “we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did;
but the message they heard (%7 9%&A%, $02, ()4%02, *)4*"&'%1,) was of no value
to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith” (;0:
#1A4*48(#;*&'%1, $02E !"&#$*" $%"2, ()4%1&#(#"', 4:2). There is a connection
between ()4%02, and ()4%1&#(#"' here in 4:2 and ()4%1&#0$* in the quoted
psalm (Heb 3:7b). God’s promise and the people’s response to it by faith
go hand in hand. The difference with that generation was, then, that they
merely heard the message, but did not blend it with faith. They are
contrasted with the group to which the author of Hebrews also belongs:
“Now, we who have believed enter that rest” (4:3).133 The bridge has
been built for a new group who could claim the very same promise.134
The promise thus remains the same but the previous group did not suc-
ceed in entering God’s rest. The current group has access to it because
they believe, blending the hearing of the promise with faith. The element
of faith becomes now a prerequisite for entering into the “rest”135 and he
contrasts warning and promise with each other.136
The author now re-quotes part of the initial quotation for a second
(Heb 4:3) and a third time (Heb 4:5). Both these are taken from Ps 94:11.
Between these two recurrences of Ps 94:11 stands the quotation from
Gen 2:2. The author uses Scripture here to explain Scripture by means of
the rabbinical gezera shewa midrash technique.137 It is on the basis of the
combined strength of the two Scripture passages (Ps 94:11 LXX and Gen
2:2) that the author draws the conclusion that those who believe shall
enter God’s rest.138 The reference to Gen 2:2 is dealt with again later in
Heb 4:9. It is at this point, at the core of his ring compositional argument,
133. In the words of Attridge: “…!delity is stressed as the way to attain the goal
of divine ‘rest’ ” (Hebrews, 104).
134. Attridge calls Ps 95 “the hinge in the development of the argument”
between the !rst phase where the old and new recipients of the promise are con-
trasted, and the where the second phase begins (Hebrews, 126).
135. Similarly Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 109.
137. So also Karrer, Hebräer, 216; Attridge, Hebrews, 128–29; A. Lincoln,
Hebrews: A Guide (London: Continuum, 2006), 71; H. Weiss, “Sabbatismos in the
Epistle to the Hebrews,” CBQ 58 (1996): 674–89 (681).
138. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 110. He states that Hebrews employs the
word “rest” sensu pleniore by combining the two passages (on p. 113).
1
in quoting Gen 2:2, where the transition from 4($(&!(1#"' as the prom-
ised land of that generation, to 4($(&!(1#"' as a Sabbatical period for this
generation, takes place.139 By using Gen 2:2 the author reinterprets his
key term 4($(&!(1#", in Ps 94 (LXX) in terms of the Sabbath.140
Kistemaker identi!es a “threefold rest” of which Ps 95 speaks: “God’s
rest after creation, Israel’s rest in Canaan, and the true rest for the people
of God.”141 Acknowledging such a threefold rest, one could actually
connect God’s creation rest with the quotation from Gen 2:2, Israel’s
Canaan rest with the quotation of Ps 94:11 just prior to Gen 2:2, and the
true rest of God’s people with the second quotation from Ps 94:11.
The motif of rest is !rmly rooted in the importance of the Sabbath as
such and substantiated on the basis of God who rested on the seventh day
after he created everything.142 This same motivation—that God rested on
the seventh day—is to be found in the quotation from Gen 2:2,143 pre-
sented by the author as the centre of his commentary on Ps 94:7–11
(LXX). “(T)he sabbath is the symbol of eschatological salvation.”144
Bauernfeind too highlights the role of Gen 2:2 in this regard, saying, “As
the Old Testament promise points beyond Moses to Christ, so the rest of
God in Gen. 2:2 points beyond Joshua and David (4:7–8) to the !nal rest
to which believers in Christ will attain if they hold fast to their faith.”145
The fact that the author mentions that “it is said somewhere” (*"3804*'
A(:8 !%1) when introducing this quotation, is most probably an indication
that he consciously refers here to the relevant passage but that he does so
from memory.
139. Kistemaker already pointed out that in Heb 4:4 the concept of rest is placed
in the realm of spiritual things (Psalm Citations, 110). So also Attridge who men-
tions that in the author’s suggestion in 4:4–5, “the term ‘rest’ has a different sense
from that accorded in the psalm, where it refers primarily to the resting place of
Canaan” (Hebrews, 116). Similarly Enns: “By citing Gen. 2.2, our author is arguing
that the rest that is the reward to the faithful new exodus community is to be under-
stood not as physical land, but as an eschatological rest; speci!cally the rest God has
enjoyed since the completion of his creative work” (“Interpretation,” 359).
140. Karrer states: “Die Ruhe, die Gottt den Vätern ihrer Anmaßung wegen
versagte, ist deshalb weit mehr als die Ruhe eines verheißenen irdischen Landes um
den irdischen Ruheort Gottes (den Tempel in Jerusalem)” (Hebräer, 216).
142. Attridge reminds about the fact that “in some apocalyptic texts, and
particularly in Philo, it is ultimately the primordial sabbath of God’s own rest that is
in view” (Hebrews, 129).
143. Cf. Gert J. Steyn, “A Note on the Vorlage of the Citation from Gen 2,2 in
Heb 4,4,” Ekklesiastikos Pharos 84 (2002): 43–50.
1
145. O. Bauernfeind, “4($(-!(1#",,” TDOT 3:628.
From the preceding exposition (3:16–18), 4($(&!(1#", would seem,

then, to refer to the Promised Land146 during the times of the exodus
generation, although it might have been used by the worshiper in Ps
95(94) in terms of the temple as the resting place.147 The author is at least
aware of the original context of the Promised Land, as his exposition
shows here in 3:16–18. However, as his exposition develops, the term is
being reinterpreted in terms of a Sabbatical period148 that does not need to
be detached necessarily from a temple context. The noun 4($(&!(1#", is
used in the LXX for the Promised Land (Deut 12:9), when the Ark of the
Covenant came to rest (Num 10:35/6; 1 Chr 6:31; 2 Chr 6:41), for the
Sabbath (Exod 34:21; 35:2) or for the Jubilee (Lev 25:28). An interesting
passage which also refers to 4($(&!(1#", is 3 Kgdms 8:56149: *1)9%A0$%:,
41&8"%, #0&;*8%'I %U, *3.64*' 4($(&!(1#"' $6E2 9(62E (1)$%12 ?#8(09 4($(:
!(&'$(I %D#( *)9(&90#*'. Both the motifs of “rest” and of “today” are com-
bined here with “his people Israel” (cf. 4:9: $62E 9(6E2 $%12 +*%12) and with
his promise. It is clear that God’s people already received the 4($(&-
!(1#", here in 3 Kingdoms.150 So, why would the author of Hebrews
state that they have not received it? In Heb 4:8 the author refers to the
fact that “if Joshua ( )?0#%12,) had given them rest, God would not have
spoken later about another day” ((3990, BBB 07;*&8(,, 4:8). Is he now
referring to another 4($(&!(1#",—perhaps rather a Sabbatical period—
than the land itself? Does he imply, then, that this “Joshua” (Jesus)
would be able to lead them to this “rest” (a Sabbath period)? Attridge
!nds the “key to understanding how it is that the promise remains open
[is] to see that God’s promised ‘rest’ is not the earthly land of Canaan
but a heavenly reality, which God entered upon the completion of crea-
tion (vv. 3b–5).” Furthermore, “…it remains open for those who
currently hear the psalm to join in the festive sabbath rest that God
enjoys (vv. 9–10).”151
146. Karrer writes: “Er ‘geht ein’ in die ‘Ruhe’ wie ein gelobtes Land”
(Hebräer, 205).
147. Cf. Braulik, Gottes Ruhe, 43. Also Karrer: “Sie werden anders als die
jetzigen Beter des Psalms nicht zu seiner Ruhestätte, dem Tempel kommen”
(Hebräer, 210).
148. “Die Verheißung ist…verblieben. Sie bestimmt für das Volk Gottes die
Ruhe des siebten Schöpfungstages, die Sabbatruhe und Sabbatfeier Gottes” (Karrer,
Hebräer, 218).
149. An “association of the temple with the divinely provided 4($(&!(1#",” is
probably to be found here in 3 Kgdms 8:54–56 (Attridge, Hebrews, 126).
150. See also Josh 1:13, 15; 21:44; 22:4; 23:1.
1
Slightly different is the theory of Käsemann,152 who wanted to empha-

size a “wandering motif”153 of God’s people (“das wandernde Gottes-
volk”) from the earthly world to the heavenly as the underlying motif
of Hebrews. He based his argument on Heb 3:7–4:13 and on Heb
10:19ff. and understands the “rest” as the “Gott verheißenen himmlische
Heimat.” “Das Gottesvolk verlasse die irdische Welt und wandere der
himmlischen Heimat zu.”154 Gäbel quite rightly pointed out that there is
no reference to a “wandering people of God” in Hebrews, but rather to
an “addressed people.”155 It is the faithful listening to the divine speech
that becomes the prerequisite for the entry into the heavenly “rest” at the
end of time.156 It is therefore, in this sense, a “gegenwärtige Teilnahme
am himmlischen Kult.” Gäbel makes it clear that one ought to distin-
guish here between the following: “Eines ist die Rede von dem von Gott
angeredeten Israel der Wüstenzeit, ein anderes die Rede vom himm-
lischen Vaterland, ein anderes das gegenwärtige Hinzugetreten-Sein der
Adressaten zum himmlischen Kult.”157 The suggestion of Ho!us, of entry
into the eschatological temple (i.e. that God’s 4($(&!(1#", is identi-
cal with the heavenly sanctuary), would perhaps make sense within the
broader context and theology of Hebrews—a viewpoint similar to that of
Gäbel: “Eintritt in die 4($(&!(1#", (4,1.11) bzw. in das himmlische
Allerheiligste in der Folge des Eintretens Christi (6,19f).” Do we have
here a connection between the rich cultic imagery of the temple,
sacri!ces and the high priest that will be discussed later in Hebrews on
the one hand, and the author’s understanding of a Sabbath period with its
liturgical setting, on the other hand? It was stated in Heb 2:17 that Jesus
became “a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God” and that he
makes atonement for the sins of the people. Attridge reminds us that: “In
Jewish tradition generally the sabbath was not simply a time of quiet and
152. Ernst Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk. Eine Untersuchung zum

Hebräerbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), 5.
153. Enns holds a similar view: “In the same way that the original exodus
community, which rebelled at Meribah and Massah, was a community wandering
through the wilderness, so too is the church a community of wilderness wanderers
living between Egypt and Canaan with the ever present possibility of rebellion”
(“Interpretation,” 352).
154. The position of Käsemann as summarised by G. Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie
des Hebr äerbriefes (WUNT 2/212: Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 427.
155. Gäbel (ibid.) writes “…es müsste nach Maßgabe der Einleitung dieses
Abschnitts (Hebr 3,7–11) mit dem Zitat aus Y 94(Ps 95),7 nicht vom ‘wan-
dernde[n]’, sondern vom angeredeten Gottesvolk gesprochen warden.”
156. Ibid.
1
157. Ibid., 428.
inactivity but of festive praise and celebration. Similarly, as noted

already, descriptions of heavenly or eschatological rest in Jewish sources
often depict it in terms of such ‘sabbatical’ activity as praise and thanks-
giving directed toward God.”158
There are indeed some indicators that con!rm this change from
4($(&!(1#", as the Promised Land to a Sabbath period: (a) the appli-
cation of Gen 2:2, which clearly refers to the Sabbath day (*)' $02E 07;*&8(E
$02E *7Q.%&;0E) in 4:4; (b) the identi!cation of this rest as “rest from work”
($62' *38A6') in 4:3, 4; (c) God’s setting of a “certain day” ($"'(: BBB
07;*&8(') in 4:7; (d) the reference to “another day” ((3990, BBB 07;*&8(,) in
4:8 and then (e) the sudden use of #(QQ($"#;%&, in 4:9. Ho!us pointed
out that “The New Testament offers in Heb 4:9 the oldest documentation
of the noun #(QQ($"#;%&,, which occurs several times in post-New Testa-
ment early Christian writings independently of Heb 4:9.”159 According to
Ho!us, the word should neither be seen as “identical in meaning nor
interchangeable with 4($(&!(1#", (3:11, 18; 4:1, 3, 5, 10f.); it designates
more closely what the people of God should expect when they enter the
4($(&!(1#", of God (cf. 4:9 with v. 6a).” “Accordingly, the author of
Hebrews understands by #(QQ($"#;%&, the eternal Sabbath celebration
of salvation, i.e. the perfected community’s worship before God’s
throne.”160 The Songs of the Sabbath Sacri!ces, or Angelic Liturgy, that
was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QShirShab), with a fragment
also found at Masada, comes to mind here. Here, we learn that the wor-
shiping community would proceed in a liturgical procession, reaching a
point in their liturgy at which they believed themselves to be worshiping
with the angels in heaven before God’s throne (cf. Heb 12:22ff.).
When looking at Heb 3:7–4:11 and the prominence of the motif of
“rest” or “resting place” ($0:' 4($(&!(1#"', Heb 3:18; #(QQ($"#;%&,, Heb
4:8), one becomes aware of the possibility that the author and his readers
might have been converts from a group that held the Sabbath in high
regard. The two keywords used by the author of Hebrews within this
motif of rest are #0&;*8%' and 4($(&!(1#"'. It is thus noteworthy that the

159. Cf. Justin, Dial. 23:3; Origen, Orat. 27:16; Epiphanius, Haer. 30.2.2;
66.85.9; Acts (Martyrdom) of Peter and Paul 1; Apostolic Constitutions 2.36.2;
pseudo-Macarius (Symeon), Homily 12.2.4. The only non-Christian occurrence is in
Plutarch (ca. 46–120 C.E.), Superst. 3 (Moralia 166a) (see O. Ho!us, “#(QQ($"#-
;%&,,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament [ed. H. Balz and G. Schneider;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 3:219).
160. Ho!us, “#(QQ($"#;%&,,” 219. Attridge (Hebrews, 130) refers to the term as
“sabbath observance.”
1
author’s delimitation of the quoted section, i.e. the beginning and end of
the section that he quotes, is probably chosen on the basis of the fact that
it starts with #0&;*8%' (Ps 94:7) and ends with 4($(&!(1#"' (Ps 94:11).
Both these terms are also playing a prominent role in Deuteronomy. For
#0&;*8%' compare, for instance, Deut 11:2, 8; 29:9, 14, and for 4($(&-
!(1#"' compare Deut 12:8–9. It is clear that one cannot argue in favour
of the author’s reliance on Deuteronomy here for these motifs in the light
of his use and application of Ps 94 (LXX). What is clear, though, is that
Deuteronomy equates the promise to “rest” with the “inheritance of the
promised land.”161
There are many indicators pointing to Egypt (Alexandria?) as a
possible context for the author of Hebrews and/or the group to whom he
writes. The good Greek, the overlap between the readings of the Torah
quotations of Philo, the close connections with the Alexandrian textual
traditions and the use of the LXX are but some of the clues that support
this theory—although they are not unique to Alexandria only. Yet if it is
assumed, as a working hypothesis, that this group is situated in Egypt,
and that they are to be identi!ed with converts to Christianity from a
group similar as the Therapeutae about whom Philo wrote in his De Vita
Contemplativa162 (remember the connection Moses—+*8(&!6' above),
and if it is further assumed that they share a similar theology as that
of the Qumran community (as Philo’s Therapeutae did also), then cer-
tainly they are not sharing in the “rest” of the Promised Land. That land
is far away and they are still in Egypt, descendants of the diaspora. The
Sabbath and the sabbatical periods, though, were central to their theology.
5.5. The Importance of “Today” (T0&;*8%')

Another keyword in the author’s argument is the word “today”
(#0&;*8%'). Already at the beginning of his book (Heb 1:5) the author
quoted Ps 2:7, where the word occurs. It was applied there in terms of
God who instituted Jesus as his Son. The author starts his quotation here
with the same word in Heb 3:7b and picks it up again in 3:13 and 3:15
when he comments on the quotation and in 4:7 when he re-quotes a
fourth time from Ps 94 (LXX). His discussion on this psalm also !nds its
conclusion with the focus on this word and an appeal to his readers to
grasp “today” as “it still remains that some will enter that rest” (4:6). The

162. Quite interestingly, R. T. Beckwith independently came to the same con-
clusion as I did (Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Inter-
testamental and Patristic Studies [Leiden: Brill, 2001], 44).
1
eschatological tone that was set in 1:2 continues here and resurfaces
again later when the author begins in 8:8 the longest quotation, taken
from Jer 31(38), with the words that “the time is coming.” By using and
applying Ps 94 (LXX), Moses and the people of God (that generation) are
compared with the new dispensation in Christ (this generation), who
share in the promise of God’s rest—today.
So when should this rest be pursued? The time is identi!ed as “today”
(#0&;*8%'). There is a sense of urgency in “the present time”—a phrase
used in 9:9. A de!nite appeal is made to his readers at this point—
something that was already touched upon in 4:1b. Some scholars suggest
that the author of Hebrews probably counted forty years after the death
of Jesus as similar to the period that Israel was journeying through the
desert, which brings the author to the urgency of this second oppor-
tunity—“today.” A forty-year typology certainly existed in the Dead Sea
Scrolls (CD 20:15; 4QpPs 37:1, 6). However, Attridge quite rightly
pointed out that there is no evidence that the author of Hebrews “attaches
any typological signi!cance to the !gure of forty years as indicative of
the period between Christ’s exaltation and parousia.”163
According to Flusser, there is an eschatological aspect164 in this
“today,” both according to Hebrews and the rabbinic sources. He refers
to the famous legend165 regarding Rabbi Joshua ben Levi who asked the
messiah when he will come, upon which the latter answers “today.” He
did not come that day and the prophet Elijah explained to the rabbi that it
means in the mouth of the messiah “today—if you listen to his voice” (Ps
95:7). The idea is connected with the day of the Sabbath by Rabbi Levi,
quoting Exod 16:25 and Isa 30:15 in connection with it. This illustrates
then, that the concept of “today” is connected with repentance and with
the Sabbath.166
6. Re%ection (4:12–13): The Peroratio

The Peroratio starts in an emphatic manner about the author’s perception
of Scripture, which for him is the spoken word (singular) of God. This
sections opens with %7 9%&A%, and ends with it as the very last word (pun
noted!)—thereby forming an inclusio. The nature of God’s word is

164. Flusser’s point makes sense as the book opens already on an eschatological
note in Heb 1:2 (“Creative Jewish Exegesis,” 59).
165. See b. Sanh. 98a.
1
166. Flusser, “Creative Jewish Exegesis,” 59.
described !rst, highlighting three elements: it is a living word (the sen-

tence starts with =62'), it is active and it is sharper than a double-edged
sword. Then follows the function or effect of God’s word, on three
levels: it divides soul and spirit, bone and marrow, and judges the
thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
7. Conclusion
7.1. The Author’s Approach to Psalm 95(94)
Introducing the quotation as the words that the Holy Spirit spoke and
with clear signs of following the text as closely as possible, the author’s
approach to Ps 95(94) is that it is authoritative and normative. Using
9*&A6 in the introductory formula corresponds with the author’s view that
this is God’s living word, which is still valid. “Simply by quoting this
psalm, the author is making a statement regarding the continuity between
Israel and the church…”167
7.2. The Author’s Method of Using Psalm 95(94)

The author quotes extensively from Ps 94 (LXX), presenting the latter
half of the whole psalm as the third longest quotation in the New Testa-
ment. No evidence exists that Ps 95(94) has been quoted before the time
of Hebrews in early Judaism or early Christianity and no explicit quota-
tions of it are thus to be found in any of the other New Testament docu-
ments.168 This points to the author of Hebrews for its identi!cation,
selection, presentation, exposition and application. Given his argumenta-
tion and the contrast between the exodus generation and the author’s
generation, he could just as well have used another passage from the
Torah. Yet he chose to use Ps 95(94). Why? According to Ellingworth,
“(t)he author appeals, not to the exodus as a bare fact of history, but to a
tradition in which its permanent signi!cance had been mediated through
Jewish, and doubtless also Christian, worship.”169
His Vorlage clearly follows a LXX text that already provides the author
with a more general text that adapts easier to the context of his readers.
The key words #0&;*8%' and 4($(&!(1#", determined the delimitation of
the quotation for our author. There are very few changes to the text of the
psalm itself and it might actually represent an existing but lost Vorlage.
If not, then the quotation displays the author’s preference for Attic above

168. The only possible allusions are to be found regarding Ps 95:7 in John 10:3
and Rev 21:3.
1
Hellenistic forms, and small adaptations to highlight the contrast between

that generation and this generation.170
A lengthy midrash171 on the quotation follows in which the author re-
quotes the beginning and the end of the initial quotation twice each,
strategically placing the quotation from Gen 2:2 in its centre. By using
this second passage, he follows the rabbinic method of a gezerah shawah
argument.172 Although there are clear signs of typology173 (Moses–Jesus,
and the Exodus generation–this generation), the spiritualization of “rest”
with its cultic and eschatological connotations cannot be denied either.
Lincoln recently summarised the author’s typological exposition as
follows:
(It) can be seen, for example, in 3.7–4.13, where the resting place of the
land becomes, via a link with God’s sabbath rest, a type of the rest of
eschatological salvation inaugurated by Christ in God’s new ‘today’ (cf.
3.13, 14). Since the consummation of the rest is still future, there is a
continuity because Christian believers need to be exhorted to make every
effort to enter the rest, lest they fall through the same sort of disobedience
that af"icted the wilderness generation (4.11). But there is also a dis-
continuity, because such believers can also be said to be already in the
process of entering the rest (4.3). The interplay between continuity and
discontinuity essential to typology is also what contributes to the effective-
ness of the writer’s paraenesis. The ful!lment in the antitype raises the
stakes for Christian believers. As a result of God’s oath, the wilderness
generation fell by the sword (cf. Num. 14.43), but Hebrews’ addressees
face something more fearful than any two-edged sword, the lethal weapon
of God’s word of judgment, which will expose the intentions of their heart
and render them defenceless before the consuming gaze of the one to
whom account must be given (4.11–13).174
7.3. The Author’s Purpose of Using Psalm 95(94)

Psalm 95(94) is used as an exhortation to remain faithful to God, which
is a reminder about God’s covenant with the Exodus generation, though
170. Cf. Enns: “We might say that in wishing to make this psalm more relevant
to his readers, he says things about Psalm 95 that are not actually found in Psalm 95”
(“Interpretation,” 353).
171. From all those commented upon in Hebrews, this is “the most extensive
piece of continuous exposition of an Old Testament text” (Ellingworth, Hebrews,
214).
172. Cf. Flusser: “This is the way of creative Jewish exegesis and it !ts also the
method and the spirit of rabbinic Judaism” (“Creative Jewish Exegesis,” 59).
173. So also Ellingworth, Hebrews, 215; Moody Smith, “Old Testament in the
New,” 59–60.
1
174. Lincoln, Hebrews, 73.
the word “covenant” is not yet used here (cf. Heb 8–10). They were not
able to enter “God’s rest,” according to the author, because of their
unbelief. They did not combine the message with faith. “With the aid of
the Scriptures he wishes to prove that the promise to enter into God’s
rest remains for those who believe.”175 This generation should, therefore,
hold on to courage and hope—a shift in the interpretation of Ps 95(94),
which is visible between his contrasting of the warning for that genera-
tion and the promise of this generation. The author understands this
promise as a repetitive one. After initially being offered to the exodus
generation, it is repeated in Ps 95(94), and again to this generation “so
long as it is called today (3:13)—this promise is extended, so that ‘there
remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God (4:9).”176 Elling-
worth aptly sums the argument up as follows: “(1) The wilderness gen-
eration was ‘unable to enter’ God’s resting-place ‘because of unbelief’
(3:19); (2) ‘There remains a sabbath rest for the people of God (4:9);
(3) ‘Let us therefore strive to enter that rest’ (4:11). The primary Old
Testament reference throughout is Ps. 95:7–11. This is predominantly a
warning… But the warning conceals an element of promise.”177
Building on an existing tradition that links the creation and the exodus
themes, a transition is made in the interpretation of 4($(&!(1#", from
referring to the Promised Land, to now referring to a sabbatical period.
The Sabbath is the symbol of eschatological salvation. The promise of
rest remains open because Ps 95(94)—actually, “God”—speaks about
“another day.” Just as the !rst “Jesus” (Joshua) led them to the Promised
Land, so this Jesus (the Son of God) would lead them to a sabbatical rest.
The eschatological tone is strengthened with the emphasis on, and
urgency of, #0&;*8%'.

176. Ibid.
1

09823897328975

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

09823897328975

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/

OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

Published by T & T Clark International

Visit the T & T Clark blog at www.tandtclarkblog.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN: 978-0567-15052-3 (hardback)

Typeset and copy-edited by Forthcoming Publications Ltd. (www.forthpub.com)

2. U. Rüsen-Weinhold, “Der Septuaginta-Psalter in seinen verschiedenen

Apart from evidence of existing combinations of texts prior to

2. The Reception of Psalm 94:7–11 (LXX) in Hebrews 3:1–4:13

3. Prelude (3:1–6): The Narratio

15. Paul Ellingworth also takes it to be a “concluding comment” (The Epistle to

seemed to have combined cultic and prophetical elements in its serving

32. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 207.

4. Quotation (3:7–11): The Hypodeigma

4.1. Tradition History of Psalm 95(94)

worship.”58 According to Kistemaker, Ps 95 was “regarded as a preamble

4.2. Text Variants and Vorlage

58. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 35.

whilst 1Q10 (1QPsa)62 contains Ps 95:11–96:263 and 11QPsa contains Ps

62. Cf. D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave I (DJD I; Oxford:

When turning to the Greek textual traditions of Ps 94 LXX, the !rst

73. Schunack, Hebräerbrief, 48.

! *"3.%#(' (*"5.%' in Hebrews) instead of "H.%#(' of P.Bod.

Ps 94:7–11 LXX80 P.Bod. XXIV (Rahlfs Ra 2110)81

4.3. Introductory Formula

Ps 95:7–11 is introduced in Heb 3:7 as if it is an utterance of the Holy

4.4. Alternative Readings of Hebrews 3:7–11

85. See also Acts 1:16.

4.5. Differences between Psalm 94:7–11 (LXX) and Hebrews 3:7–11

98. Attridge, Hebrews, 113.

application of the psalm.”101 Two changes do indeed serve a very parti-

4.5.1. Linguistic adaptations towards Attic Greek. The substitution of

4.5.2. Contextual adaptations for the readers of Hebrews. The substi-

101. Attridge, Hebrews, 115–16.

105. Ahlborn, “Septuaginta-Vorlage,” 120; Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 35–36;

4.6. Remarks Regarding the Vorlage of the Quotation

5. Interpretation: Exposition and Application (3:12–4:11):

quotation.111 The “brothers” are exhorted to ensure that an attitude of

5.1. The Structure of the Author’s Commentary

111. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 219.

back to the explicit quotation (repetition) in a ring compositional manner.

The train of thought develops in a circular fashion rather, than in a linear

5.2. Application to the Current Readers (Hebrews 3:12–15)—“We” or

119. Attridge, Hebrews, 114.

5.3. Explanation of the Original Context (Hebrews 3:16–18)—“They”

124. Attridge points to a very similar feature in Philo’s expositions (Hebrews,

5.4. The Motif of “Rest”: S($(&!(1#", and T(QQ($"#;%&, (Hebrews

128. Cf. 7:21. See also Acts 2:30.

From the preceding exposition (3:16–18), 4($(&!(1#", would seem,

Slightly different is the theory of Käsemann,152 who wanted to empha-

152. Ernst Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk. Eine Untersuchung zum

inactivity but of festive praise and celebration. Similarly, as noted

158. Attridge, Hebrews, 131.

5.5. The Importance of “Today” (T0&;*8%')

161. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 115.

6. Re%ection (4:12–13): The Peroratio

163. Attridge, Hebrews, 115.

described !rst, highlighting three elements: it is a living word (the sen-

7.2. The Author’s Method of Using Psalm 95(94)

167. Enns, “Interpretation,” 355.

Hellenistic forms, and small adaptations to highlight the contrast between

7.3. The Author’s Purpose of Using Psalm 95(94)

175. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 110.

! "3.%#(' ("5.%' in Hebrews) instead of "H.%#(' of P.Bod.