2.2. Bases teóricas – científicas
2.2.4. Parámetros geomorfológicos de la cuenca hidrográfica
!13 (! 1 4 = ‘answered’; BHS: ! ^ 4 = ‘broke’) and of the consonants #%)
43. Cf. Kraus, Theology, p. 115; Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, pp. 59, 62.These texts are absent from Bauckham’s argument that Jesus’ exaltation to Yhwh’s throne clearly implies his deity (Jesus and the God of Israel, pp. 165ff.).
44. An interesting example of this phenomenon is found in 11QMelchizedek (l. 10, citing Ps. 82.1 and ll. 24-25, citing Isa. 52.7), where the author transfers what was originally said of Yhwh to Melchizedek. Eric Mason thus talks about Melchizedek as ‘the agent of God’s judgment’ (‘You Are a Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews [STDJ, 74; Boston: Brill, 2008], p. 180). For a discussion of these lines, see Mason, You Are a Priest Forever, pp. 177–83; and Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), pp. 80–1.
45. Hurst thus talks about the author’s interpretation of Ps. 101.26-28 LXX as an
‘idea [that] was already built into his Bible’ (‘Christology’, p. 160); cf. also Radu Gheorghita: ‘The justi¿cation for extending this description of God to the Son, however, is found exclusively in the LXX context’ (The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews: An Investigation of Its InÀuence with Special Consideration to the Use of Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38 [WUNT, 2/160; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003], pp. 60–1); similarly, Simon Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam: Van Soest, 1961), p. 80; and Lane, Hebrews, p. 30, who notes, ‘In the LXX, a mistranslation of the unpointed Hebrew text opened the door for the christological appropriation of the passage’.
1
(L%V = ‘his strength’; BHS: # %V = ‘my strength’) and to the insertion of the object of ¸ࡑȼÁÉţ¿¾, viz. ¸ĤÌŊ.
46The reading, therefore, whether or not original,
47opens the way to seeing vv. 26-28 as words spoken by Yhwh.
48The psalm’s eschatological tenor,
49in fact, suggests this one might just be the messiah, especially if the referent of ¸ĤÌŊ in v. 24 is the ÁÍÉţĿ of v. 23 (cf. v. 16; also v. 26) to whom the kingdoms of the earth render obeisance.
50A similar idea is, of course, already present in Hebrews’
other citations (cf. Pss. 2.8-12; 44.4-6, 13
LXX; 88.23-24, 28
LXX; cf.
vv. 43-44; 109.2, 5-6
LXX). Moreover, while it would be out of the ordinary in the Psalter for the king to be assigned a role in creation, much the same could be said for the exalted language used of the king in Ps. 44.7
LXX(¿¼ŦË) and in Ps. 109.1
LXX(ÁįÉÀÇË).
51What is instructive
46. There is one more place where the Greek text differs from BHS. The Greek text renders '+ :/ with ÒÅŠºº¼ÀÂŦÅ ÄÇÀ and connects the phrase with v. 24, whereas in BHS the phrase is rendered ' + : / (‘I say, my God…’) and begins v. 25.
47. The alternate readings given in BHS suggest B. W. Bacon’s conclusion—the Greek text is a mistranslation—is probably premature (‘Heb 1, 10–12 and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps 102, 23’, ZNW 3 [1902], pp. 280–5 [282]).
48. Bacon, e.g., suggests vv. 24b-29 are the words of Yhwh (‘Heb 1, 10-12’, pp. 282–3); cf. Bruce, Hebrews, p. 62, esp. n. 102; Hurst, ‘Christology’, p. 160;
Lane, Hebrews, p. 30. Bacon supports the unusual reading he proposes for vv. 24b-25 by noting a handful of places with similar references to God’s reducing the length of Messiah’s delay (cf. Barn. 4.3 [citing an earlier author]; Mk 13.20//Mt. 24.22).
He suggests that in each of these, dependence on Ps. 102 is probable (e.g., cf.
'/' :89 with ÊÍÅÌšÌľÁ¼Å in Barnabas, ëÁÇÂŦ¹ÑʼŠin Mark, and ÁÇÂǹѿŢÊÇÅ̸À in Matthew). He also suggests that these other authors read Ps. 102 slightly differently than Hebrews, since they read the suf¿x of '/' as a reference not to God but to the Messiah (‘Heb 1, 10-12’, p. 284). See the slightly different proposal suggested by T. F. Glasson, who thinks only vv. 26-28 are Yhwh’s words (‘Plurality of Divine Persons and the Quotations in Hebrews 1:6ff.’, NTS 12 [1966], pp. 270–2).
49. Cf. Gen. Rab. 56.10-11, where the psalm is applied to the messianic age; see also Bacon, ‘Heb 1, 10-12’, p. 282; and Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150 (WBC, 21;
Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), pp. 14–16.
50. Motyer, ‘Psalm Quotations’, p. 20; cf. Glasson, who thinks the referent of ÁįÉÀ¼ in v. 26 is given in vv. 20-22, where the Lord is described as ‘look[ing] upon the earth from heaven…to proclaim in Zion the name of the Lord’ (‘Plurality of Divine Persons’, p. 271).
51. Glasson argues that it was the presence of a ‘plurality of divine persons’ in Ps. 101.26-28 LXX that caught the author’s attention, not its messianism. ‘[T]here is no need to bring the messianic of¿ce into the argument’, Glasson suggests, since
‘[t]he main concern of Heb. i is to show that Jesus is the Son, Lord, God, and as such superior to angels. The messianic emphasis comes elsewhere in the letter’ (‘Plurality of Divine Persons’, p. 271). He is clearly wrong, since Heb. 1, as we have already noted, is thoroughly messianic.
1
about these texts is that in both cases Yhwh and the king are nevertheless clearly distinguished (cf. Pss. 44.8
LXX; 109.1
LXX).
52Alongside of this, the idea that the messiah preceded—if not also facilitated—creation was itself not unprecedented.
53The idea is arguably present in Ps. 109.3
LXX,
54Mic. 5.2
LXX,
55and in the descriptions of the messianic ‘son of man’ from Dan. 7.13 in 1 En. 48.2 and 69.27,
56in whom dwells ‘the spirit of wisdom’ (49.3; cf. 48.2; 51.3).
57A messianic reading of Deut. 32.43, moreover, is possible when the text’s eschatological vision is placed in a Davidic setting, which the song’s relationship with the Psalter (i.e., Odes 2.43) and, especially, with Psalm 96
LXXfacilitates. The citation in Heb. 1.6 has no exact equivalent in the Greek Old Testament (see table 6).
5852. Mowinckel, e.g., insists that ‘nowhere are [the king’s] status and power so emphasized that they threaten the exclusive domain of Yahweh or the monotheism of the Old Testament’ (He That Cometh, p. 172). Dunn makes a similar point, noting that ‘only in the probably later text of III Enoch’ is monotheism ‘threatened’ (Christ-ology in the Making, p. 19). For a discussion of the similarities and, importantly, dissimilarities between Israel’s view of her king and her neighbor’s (e.g., Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt), see Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, pp. 6–7, 22, and esp. p. 204; John Baines, ‘Ancient Egyptian Kingship: Of¿cial Forms, Rhetoric, Context’, in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. John Day; JSOTSup, 270; Shef¿eld:
Shef¿eld Academic, 1998), pp. 16–53; Marc Zvi Brettler, ‘King, Kingship’, NIDB, vol. 3, p. 510; and Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, p. 60.
53. Cf. Pesiq. Rab. 36 (161a), cited by Bruce, Hebrews, p. 85 n. 77.
54. Cf. Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT, 2/76;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), pp. 104, 129, 140, 169, et al.
55. Cf. Hengel, Son of God, p. 69.
56. A messianic understanding of Daniel’s ‘son of man’ is based on the connec-tions drawn in 1 Enoch between this ¿gure and other clearly messianic texts: e.g., cf.
(1) 1 En. 49.3 with Isa. 11.2; 48.10, ‘messiah’; (2) 1 En. 46.3 with Isa. 11.4, also with 4Q252 and Tg. Jer. 33.15; (3) 1 En. 62.2 with Isa. 11.2-4; (4) 1 En. 45.3; 46.3-6; 62.1-3 with Ps. 110 and, perhaps, Pss. 2 and 48.4-6. Cf. also 2 Esd. 13.3 with Dan.
7.13; Isa. 11.4; Jn 12.34; and Justin, Dial. 32 (cf. with Dan. 7.9-28). See Horbury, Messianism, pp. 125–6, 129, and, esp., pp. 132–44.
57. On the son of man’s pre-existence, see Mowinckel, He that Cometh, pp. 370–
3. On his connection with wisdom, see Hengel, Son of God, pp. 74–5, which runs contrary to, e.g., Bacon’s (‘Heb 1, 10–12’, pp. 284–5) and Manson’s (Hebrews, pp.
94–5) suggestions that the author of Hebrews was the ¿rst to connect messiah with wisdom. (Manson adds in Paul and the author of the Johannine literature as well.) 58. Cf. Gareth Cockerill, ‘Hebrews 1:6: Source and Signi¿cance’, BBR 9 (1999), pp. 51–64; Buchanan, Hebrews, pp. 15–16; and Gert J. Steyn, ‘A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews’ (Ph.D. diss., Stellenbosch University, 2009), pp. 60, 61, 63.
1
Table 6. The Source of the Citation in Heb. 1.6 Heb. 1.6 Á¸Ė ÈÉÇÊÁÍžʊÌÑʸŠ¸ĤÌŊ ÈŠÅÌ¼Ë Óºº¼ÂÇÀ ¿¼Çı Deut. 32.43 ¼ĤÎÉŠÅ¿¾Ì¼, ÇĤɸÅÇţ, ×ĸ ¸ĤÌŊ,
Á¸Ė ÈÉÇÊÁÍžʊÌÑʸŠ¸ĤÌŊ ÈŠÅÌ¼Ë ÍĎÇĖ ¿¼Çı,
¼ĤÎÉŠÅ¿¾Ì¼, ì¿Å¾, ļÌÛ ÌÇı ¸Çı ¸ĤÌÇı, Á¸Ė ëÅÀÊÏÍÊŠÌÑʸŠ¸ĤÌŊ ÈŠÅÌ¼Ë Óºº¼ÂÇÀ ¿¼Çı Odes 2.43 Á¸Ė ÈÉÇÊÁÍžʊÌÑʸŠ¸ĤÌŊ ÈŠÅÌ¼Ë ÇĎ Óºº¼ÂÇÀ ¿¼Çı Ps. 96.7 (LXX) ÈÉÇÊÁÍÅŢʸ̼ ¸ĤÌŊ, ÈŠÅÌ¼Ë ÇĎ Óºº¼ÂÇÀ ¸ĤÌÇı
In Deut. 32.43
LXX, the text reads, ‘rejoice, O heavens with him and let all the sons of God (ÍĎÇĖ ¿¼Çı) worship him’. The
MT, we should note, has nothing equivalent to the Greek text here. Of course, the step from ‘sons of God’ (
LXX) to ‘angels’ (Hebrews) is not far, considering, for example, the several places in the
LXXwhere Óºº¼ÂÇÀ renders -'!+¡0 (Job 1.6;
2.1; 38.7; et al.).
59In fact, the Greek text was perhaps already moving in this direction if its Vorlage contained -'!+ +) (4QDeut
q= 4Q44).
60In any case, angels are mentioned two cola later in what is probably a parallel expression (‘let all the angels of God prevail [ëÅÀÊÏÍÊŠÌÑʸÅ] for him’ [
NETS]).
61Perhaps the author has deliberately conÀated the lines to serve his present interests.
62Equally likely is that the author’s Vorlage more closely approximated the Vorlage underlying the form of Deut. 32.43 preserved in Odes 2.43 (cf. Justin, Dial. 130.1): ‘and let all the angels of God [ÇĎ Óºº¼ÂÇÀ ¿¼Çı]
worship him’.
63The only remaining difference would be that Óºº¼ÂÇË is anarthrous in Hebrews (as in the
LXX).
64It could also be that the author
59. Cf. Buchanan, Hebrews, p. 16.
60. See M. Broshi et al., Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD, 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), p. 141; cf. Patrick W. Skehan, ‘A Fragment of the
“Song of Moses” (Deut. 32) from Qumran’, BASOR 136 (1954), pp. 12–15; Frank Moore Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (BSem, 30; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 3rd edn, 1995), p. 133, esp. n. 4 (133–35); Gourgues, A la Droite de Dieu, p. 102, incl. n. 50.
61. Cf. LEH.
62. See, e.g., Bruce, Hebrews, p. 57 n. 4; Susan Docherty, ‘The Text Form of the OT Citations in Hebrews Chapter 1 and the Implications for the Study of the Septuagint’, NTS 55 (2009), pp. 355–65 (361); and Steyn, ‘Quest’, p. 64.
63. Cf. Lane, Hebrews, p. 28; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, p. 98; and Steyn, ‘Quest’, pp. 55–69. In fact, like Deut. 32.43 LXX, the fourth line of the text preserved in Odes reads ÍĎÇĖ ¿¼Çı. See also the discussion in the apparatus of v. 43, ll. 6-7 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV, p. 141.
64. Strangely, this dissimilarity is often missed. See, e.g., Gheorghita, Septuagint in Hebrews, p. 42.
1