This is a bit of an aside, but I was interested in one of Peter’s (our Peter, not the Apostle) comments about looking for the common language that “stitches” (I believe that was his term or something like it) these passages together. One Psalm the author of Hebrews does not quote but which I find interesting in this context is Psalm 89.
In this Psalm, God’s promise to David from 2 Samuel 7 is recalled. The psalmist is calling out to God to remember and fulfill his promise. I was particularly struck by verse 27 where God says he will appoint (τίθημι) one of David’s descendants as his firstborn. The author of Hebrews uses very similar language in 1:2 (ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντω) and in 1:6, speaking of the Son specifically as πρωτότοκος.
Of course, this leaves open the exegetical question we struggled with a few weeks ago. In what sense does our author understood these terms? Like γενόμενος in 1:4, are these to be understood as timeless, referring to the pre-incarnate Son, or as a status or position of the anointed king (both God’s Son and David’s heir) at his resurrection and/or ascension to God’s right hand. Commentators I’ve seen so far are split on this.
Thanks Jim for uploading the above. I thought rather than add another document, I would just put a comment here of another reference I have been looking at. This is by: Son, Kiwoong. 2005. Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18-24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle. Milton Keynes: Paternoster.
The series editors are:
I. Howard Marshall, Honorary Research Professor of New Testament, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Richard J. Bauckham, Professor of New Testament Studies and Bishop Wardlaw Professor, University of St Andrews, Scotland, UK
Craig Blomberg, Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary, Colorado, USA
Robert P. Gordon, Regius Professor of Hebrew, University of Cambridge, UK
Tremper Longman III, Robert H. Gundry Professor and Chair of the Department of Biblical Studies, Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California, USA
Here is an excerpt:
“The difficulty with all these attempts to find the religious background of Hebrews is that while each of the proposals could explain some of the arguments of the epistle, nevertheless none of them could bring all the topics in Hebrews under discussion. Therefore, McCullough says:
The tendency in recent studies on the religious background of the epistle to the Hebrews has been to abandon the attempt to see the epistle’s background in terms of only one scheme of thought.… Rather scholars have concentrated on trying to gain clearer knowledge of the religious pluralism and diversity within heterodox Judaism and then to place the epistle to the Hebrews in that context.
It is unquestionable that the early church was born out of the diversity of religious traditions and philosophical thoughts, which influenced by and large the early church in the process of its formation. Therefore, it is important to understand the epistle in the context of the whole picture of the socio-historical context of the first century. The background study of Hebrews has revealed the fact that there are parallel concepts between Hebrews and the proposed background materials, and therefore it is possible to suppose at least the cultural and intellectual overlap between them. Nevertheless, it is unreasonable to imagine that the author of Hebrews incorporates all the suggested background sources into his discussion of the various themes of the epistle. Hebrews is a single theological treatise with a single task to achieve (i.e. the theological significance of the person and ministry of Jesus) rather than to deal with all the religious pluralism of the first century. The following consideration on the structural coherence and literary unity in spite of the various themes of the epistle will suggest that the discovery of a single predominant conceptual framework of the epistle is still required instead of supposing that the epistle was written under the influence of the various religious and intellectual thoughts of the first century. ”
Among the influences of pluralistic first century that Son mentions are:
Philo
Platonism
Qumran
Gnosticism
Merkabah mysticism
Thanks, Jeannie, for sharing this. I think this is helpful. There are certainly many parallels between Hebrews and a variety of sources, most prominent in my view be Philo and Qumran. I think there is a lot of merit to Zuntz’s view (The Text of the Epistles, pg. 286, quoted from FF Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT), “It is a midrash in rhetorical Greek prose – it is a homily”.