2.2. Bases teóricas – científicas
2.2.6. Defensas ribereñas
the ¿rst chapter. One expects—and many argue
90—that the author will demonstrate from the citation that the son rules the coming world. After all, at least four of the citations in the author’s ¿rst exposition describe the son’s enthronement (1.5a, 5b, 8-9, 13). The expectation is only encouraged by the catch-word association between the last enthronement text, Ps. 109.1
LXX(1.13), and Ps. 8.7
LXX(2.8). In both places God is described as subduing something under someone’s feet (see table 7).
91well-known opening chapters of Genesis (see, e.g., Attridge, Hebrews, pp. 70–1;
Koester, Hebrews, pp. 213–14). The rationale proposed here probably also accounts for its use in 4.4, where the text contains not a direct address to God but a narrative description of his actions. For other Christian and Jewish parallels, see Gert J. Steyn,
‘Some Observations About the Vorlage of Ps 8:5-7 in Heb 2:6-8’, VEccl 24 (2003), pp. 493–514 (500).
89. Tate notes that Ps. 8 is the only hymn in the Old Testament that is entirely given to such direct address to God (Marvin E. Tate, ‘An Exposition of Psalm 8’, PRSt 28 [2001], pp. 343–59 [344]).
90. C. K. Barrett is representative, noting, ‘It has not been subjected to angels; if not to them, to whom? The answer sometimes given, based upon the quotation of Psalm 8 that follows in 2.6-8, is, It is subjected to man, to the human race. This answer is, I think, mistaken. The ¿gure who stands over against angels is, as ch. 1 makes unmistakably clear, not man in general but the Son of God; it is to him that the world to come is made subject’ (On Paul: Aspects of His Life, Work and InÀuence in the Early Church [London: T&T Clark International, 2003], p. 202);
similarly, Moffatt, Hebrews, p. 21; along with, e.g., the representative list tallied by Hurst, Hebrews, p. 110 n. 18 (173). Blomberg says, moreover, that this view has
‘captured the majority vote’ presently, as it did, in fact, in the early Church (‘But We See Jesus’, p. 88).
91. Cf. Gleason, ‘Angels and Eschatology’, p. 101. The connection between the language of Pss. 2 and 8 is also noteworthy, not least considering the author’s allusive reference to the former psalm in 1.2: ğŠ쿾Á¼Å Á¾ÉÇÅŦÄÇÅ ÈŠÅÌÑÅ; see Ps.
2.8 ¸ċ̾ʸÀ ȸɒ ëÄÇı, Á¸Ė »ļÊÑ ÊÇÀ ì¿Å¾ ÌüÅ Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸Å ÊÇÍ Á¸Ė ÌüÅ Á¸ÌŠÊϼÊĕÅ ÊÇÍ ÌÛ ÈšÉ¸Ì¸ ÌýË ºýË. On this, see, e.g., Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, p. 97;
also George H. Guthrie and Russell D. Quinn, ‘A Discourse Analysis of the Use of Psalm 8:4-6 in Hebrews 2:5-9’, JETS 49 (2006), pp. 235–46 (240).
1
Table 7. Verbal Correspondence between Pss. 109.1b LXX and 8.7b LXX
Ps. 109.1b Ps. 8.7b
¿ľ ĨȚ̸ƸËa
ÌÇİË ëÏ¿ÉÇįË ÈŠÅ̸b
ĨÈÇÈŦ»ÀÇÅ ÌľÅ ÈÇ»ľÅ ĨÈÇÁŠÌÑ ÌľÅ ÈÇ»ľÅ
aCf. ĨȚ̸ƼŠin Heb. 2.5; also the participle Á¸ÌšÊÌ¾Ê¸Ë (from Á¸¿ţÊ̾ÄÀ; cf.
Ps. 109.1b) in Ps. 8.7a.
bCf. ÌľÅ ëÏ¿ÉľÅ in Ps. 8.3.
In fact, the extent of the ruler’s power is well-nigh limitless (2.8b-c), which was a commonplace notion in early Christology (cf. Col. 1.15-20;
Eph. 1.10).
92Moreover, that the one crowned in the psalm is a ‘son of man’ further points in this direction, since in its articular form, the phrase was well-known within early Christianity as one of Jesus’ forms of self-reference.
93The coup de grâce for this reading, however, is found in 2.9, when the one crowned in Ps. 8.6
LXXis speci¿cally identi¿ed as Jesus.
1. Proposal: Psalm 8 and the exaltation of humanity in Judaism and
Hebrews. Despite the apparent giveness of this reading and its currencyin the secondary literature, it has one signi¿cant drawback: Psalm 8 appears to address humanity.
94In its original context, the psalm celebrates
92. Leschert, e.g., thinks 2.8 could suggest the author is referring only to Jesus (Hermeneutical Foundations, p. 110; cf. also Buchanan, Hebrews, p. 28; Cockerill, Hebrews, p. 130; also p. 131). Similarly, Richard Bauckham thinks this language (speci¿cally, ruling over ‘all things’) put Jesus on the divine side of the ledger, since it was ‘the way Jewish monotheism distinguish[ed] God from all other reality’(Jesus and the God of Israel, pp. 176–7). The fact that the language comes from Ps. 8, however, seems to point decidedly against this.
93. Cf. the anarthrous form in Jn 5.27 (cf. Rev. 1.13; 14.14; also Dan. 7.13 LXX).
For the audience’s connection with traditions about the historical Jesus, see Heb. 2.3;
5.7-9. As Pauline Giles notes, ‘It would…appear almost inconceivable that they would fail to see in Psalm 8 a reference to Jesus as the Son of Man or the Second Adam’ (‘The Son of Man in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, ExpTim 86 [1975], pp.
328–32 [329]; so also France, ‘Biblical Expositor’, p. 262; Hagner, Hebrews, p. 45;
Bruce, Hebrews, p. 73; Guthrie and Quinn, ‘Discourse Analysis’, p. 244). Blomberg disagrees, however, arguing implausibly, esp. in light of what 2.3 implies (cf. also 5.7-9; 7.13-14), that since ‘Hebrews elsewhere betrays little or no dependence…on the oral traditions of Jesus’ sayings…’ that ‘[i]t considerably outruns the evidence…
to assume that Jesus’ exalted use of the title [i.e., his use of the title as a self-description] must have immediately come to Hebrews’ audience’s minds’ (‘But We See Jesus’, p. 94).
94. This observation is routinely made. See, e.g., Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, p. 92, and the literature he cites; Hurst, ‘Christology’, p. 153; Martin
1
God’s creative majesty (vv. 2, 10) and marvels at the unexpected glory invested in humanity (vv. 5-9). What is man when set alongside the splendor of the night sky—a sparkling tapestry created by God’s ¿ngers!
To the psalmist’s evident surprise,
95God not only watches over (v. 5a) and cares for (v. 5b) humanity,
96but he has created him just slightly lower than himself (v. 6a)
97and invested him with god-like sovereignty (vv. 6b-9). All of creation lies under his direction. The psalm’s anthro-pology clearly reÀects the creation narrative in Gen. 1.26-30,
98which likewise speaks of humanity’s dignity—made in God’s image (vv. 26, 27)
99—and dominion (vv. 26, 28).
100In fact, the delineation of human-ity’s domain in Ps. 8.7-9 nearly mirrors Gen. 1.26, 28.
Later reÀection on the psalm con¿rms this reading, especially with its accent on the insigni¿cance of humanity. In the Community Rule, for example, the author asks,
Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebräer (ÖTK, 20/1-2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2002), vol. 1, p. 169. Thus, it is puzzling that Cockerill thinks the anthropological reading of ¸ĤÌŊ in 2.8c lacks ‘clear contextual evidence…the kind of unambiguous substantiation provided by v. 9 for the identi¿cation of the “son of man” with Jesus’
(Hebrews, p. 130), esp. considering the fact that he thinks the audience would not, at least initially, have read ‘son of man’ in the psalm messianically (p. 128 n. 21).
95. Traditionally David. See v. 1. The relevance of this superscription to the reading given the psalm in Hebrews is dif¿cult to establish. Perhaps it, along with the regal language in v. 6 and the movement in v. 5 from humanity generally (fL1 ) to the individual (- ¡0 ), suggest the king should be seen as a representative of humanity (Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, p. 93). The ¿nal form of the Psalter, with its apparent democratization of Davidic ideology brought about by its introduction, may provide more evidence for this suggestion. On this, see, esp., Patrick D. Miller, ‘Books I–III and the Editorial Purpose of the Hebrew Psalter’, in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (ed. J. Clinton McCann, Jr.; JSOTSup, 159;
Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1993), pp. 83–92.
96. Cf. Ps. 143.3-4; contrast Job 7.17.
97. N.B.: -'!+ = !#!' in Pss. 3.7; 4.1; 5.2; 7.1, 2, 9, 11.
98. See, e.g., John Goldingay, Psalms 1–41 (BCOTWP; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), p. 159; James Luther Mays, Psalms (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1994), p. 69; cf., also Steyn, ‘Some Observations’, p. 496; and Guthrie, ‘Hebrews’, p. 945.
99. Cf. Tate, ‘Psalm 8’, p. 356. On whether -'!+ = !#!' in Gen. 1.26, see Gen.
Rab. 8.8-9; b. Sanh. 38b (v. 9); cf. Midr. Ps. 8.7 (‘Jacob was less than God only in that he had not the power to put the breath of life into [his Àocks; cf. Gen. 30.39]’).
100. In this way, the psalm’s vision of creation parallels other early Jewish reÀections: (1) on humanity’s original dignity, see Sir. 17.3; 4Q504, fr. 8 recto [I, 4-5]; Philo, Op. Mund. 51.146; (2) on humanity’s dominion, see Sir. 17.2; 4Q504, fr. 8 recto [I, 6-7]; 4Q422, fr. 1 [I, 9-10]; Jub. 2.13-16; Philo, Op. Mund. 52.148;
4 Ezra 6.54.
1
Who can endure Thy glory, and what is the son of man in the midst of Thy wonderful deeds? What shall one born of woman be accounted before Thee? Kneaded from the dust, his abode is the nourishment of worms. He is but a shape, but moulded clay, and inclines towards dust. What shall hand-moulded clay reply? What counsel shall it understand? (1QS XI, 20-22, emphasis added)