Abstract
An overview of the appendices in NA28 and UBS5 reveals that the editors agreed regarding the number of quotations in Hebrews on 37 occasions. They disagreed, however, as to whether an intertext was a quotation or an allusion on nine occasions. The compilers of these lists did not provide a basis for their conclusions, and inability to agree on the number of intertexts could be due to multiple reasons. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to develop a set of criteria by which to identify quotations in Hebrews. Auctor’s quotations were determined to possess four characteristics: (1) introductory formula, (2) a recognizable source, (3) verbal correspondence with the hypotext and (4) syntactical tension. These four characteristics were then utilized to assess the nine disputed intertexts between NA28 and UBS5. By assessing the nine intertexts for the presence of the criteria, four out of the nine were determined to be quotations, whereas five were deemed to be allusions.
Aside from the book of Revelation, the epistle to the Hebrews has more references to the Hebrew scriptures than any other book of the NT. A survey of the quotations and allusions in the appendices of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum (NA28) and the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament (UBS5) reveals as many as 423 intertexts, with as many as 52 quotations and 372 allusions (NA28: 836-78; UBS5: 857-83). A comparison of these lists reveals, however, that the editors of NA28 catalogued 47 quotations in Hebrews whereas the editors of UBS5 catalogued 39. Between the two sources, the editors of NA28 and UBS5 agreed on 37 quotations, but disagreed on 9 (Heb. 2.13; 3.5; 6.13, 14; 10.30; 11.5; 12.15, 20, 29).
In addition to NA28 and UBS5, scholars remain divided as to the number of quotations in Hebrews. In one of the earliest accounts, Brooke Westcott recorded 29 quotations (1892: 472). 1 Ceslas Spicq, in 1952, counted 36 (1952–1953: I, 331). Kenneth Thomas recognized 22 citations in Hebrews (1965: 303-25). Thomas Bratcher tallied as many as 56 (1969: 57-67), followed by Gleason Archer and Gregory Chirichigno with 42 (1983), and Richard Longenecker with 38 (1975: 164). The variance in opinion can be perceived in Table 1.
Comparative analysis of quotations in Hebrews
The number of quotations in Hebrews may range from 22 to 56 quotations, but the surveyed authors unanimously agreed on 15. Inability to agree is due to multiple reasons. First, no single definition of what qualifies as a quotation has been widely agreed upon. Second, even where a definition might exist, no single identifiable form has been accepted. Third, no set of criteria is available by which to identify quotations in Hebrews. 2 Therefore, the question driving this study is, by what standards can intertexts in the epistle to the Hebrews be identified as quotations?
As a starting point, Stanley Porter recommended four ‘definitional and methodological points’ that need to be taken into account when addressing how NT authors utilized the OT (1997: 94). First, the extent of the investigation must be specified. Second, ‘It is imperative that one define the categories under discussion, and then apply them rigorously’ (Porter 1997: 94). Third, he argued that an audience-centered approach is not beneficial to ascertain a particular author’s hermeneutic. Fourth, every intertext within a given NT book should be analyzed to account for how the author utilized and interpreted his sources.
Porter’s methodological points will be foundational for the present study, with two caveats. First, a comprehensive study of all the 423 possible intertexts in Hebrews is impossible in a study of this scope. Rather, the research will be delimited to the nine disputed quotations between NA28 and UBS5. Second, Porter’s dichotomy between authorial intention and audience competency is sensible, but not necessarily a criterion. 3
The study will be carried out in three steps. First, in order to ‘define the categories under discussion’, the various forms of intertexts that might appear in Hebrews will be defined. Next, the 15 undisputed quotations will be analyzed to discern what characteristics might be shared so as to serve as criteria by which to identify other quotations in Hebrews. Then, the nine disputed quotations between NA28 and UBS5 will be analyzed for the presence of the criteria.
Defining Quotations and Allusions
In order to ‘define the categories under discussion’, an acceptable lexicon of terms is necessary. As a starting point, intertexts can be divided principally into two forms: quotations and allusions. 4 Quotations can be defined broadly as verbatim or near verbatim recitations of another text and can be classified into three types: citations, direct quotations and indirect quotations. 5 Citations are verbatim quotations wherein the source is identified. 6 A direct quotation ‘occurs when an author clearly indicates that the words that follow are not his or her own but are taken from another source’ (Moyise 2008: 15). Direct and indirect quotations do not need to be verbatim and can be distinguished by the presence of introductory formulae (IF) – direct quotations have IF, indirect quotations do not have IF. Indirect quotations can be used when an IF might disrupt the author’s rhetoric or the quotation might be recognizable enough that an IF is unnecessary. 7
Allusions are less obvious references brought about by means of an intertextual trigger. 8 Allusions can take various forms, including paraphrase, exegesis, midrash, typology, and reminiscence, echo, allusive quotations, intertextuality, influence and tradition (Porter 1997: 80). A paraphrase is a summary of a previous text. Exegesis refers to the interpretation or explanation of a word, phrase or text. Midrash is a Jewish interpretation technique involving ‘the citation of a text, or texts, followed by exposition, often with reference to secondary texts’ (Guthrie 1994: 124). Typology is an interpretational method in which an aspect of the Hebrew scriptures was depicted as prefiguring a Christian tradition. Reminiscence is a story told about a past event from the narrator’s point of view. Echoes are ‘unintentional references to a particular passage, place, person, theme, action, or event, that are, in principle, able to be recognized by the audience or even by the author/speaker’ (Lucas 2014: 110). 9 Influences are unintentional references informed by an author’s cultural setting and context (Tooman 2011: 9). Traditions are intertexts attested throughout the textual history of a culture and therefore would be recognizable as such, even if unintended by the author. 10
Quotations in Hebrews
Now that all the categories of intertextuality have been defined, an attempt will now be made to establish the criteria by which to aid in the identification of quotations in Hebrews. To perform the study, patterns derived from the 15 undisputed quotations should provide the necessary criterion.
First, all of the 15 quotations are direct quotations. In Hebrews, direct quotations are most commonly prefaced by either verbs of writing (‘as it is written’) or verbs of speaking (‘as it is said’). Auctor preferred verbs of speaking, as 24 intertexts are introduced by a cognate of λέγω (Heb. 1.5, 7, 13; 2.6-8, 12; 3.7-11, 15; 4.4, 7; 5.5, 6; 16.13-14; 7.21; 8.8-12; 9.20; 10.5-7, 9; 10.30; 11.18; 12.5-6, 21, 26; 13.5, 6), two are introduced by λαλέω (Heb. 5.5; 11.18), one with μαρτυρεῖται (Heb. 7.17) and one with κεχρημάτισται (Heb. 8.5). Auctor also introduced quotations by expressions such as καὶ, γὰρ, ὅτι and καθὼς.
Second, quotations in Hebrews have a recognizable source (RS). This quality might seem negligible, but the language of the quotation should be distinct enough not to become confused with another. To illustrate, all the scholars listed in Table 1 (except Thomas) have agreed that Heb. 13.5 contains a quotation of Deut. 31.6. Yet, both NA28 and UBS5 also upheld, based on the language, that Heb. 13.5 alludes to Josh. 1.5. Additionally, the editors of NA28 have maintained that Auctor quoted Gen. 28.15 but alluded to Deut. 31.8. Most of the surveyed authors reversed this paradigm, however, insisting that Auctor alluded to Gen. 28.15 and quoted Deut. 31.8. Still, variations on the phrase οὐ μή σε ἀνῶ οὐδ᾿ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω can be found also in two other texts (1 Chron. 28.20 and Ps. 36.33), bringing the total number of possible sources to six.
Determining which text might serve as the source for Heb. 13.5 might be assisted by the third criterion: verbal correspondence (VC). Quotations need not be verbatim reproductions but have some degree of VC. The extent of VC remains a matter of debate, but Guthrie is correct, perhaps, when he acknowledged that quotations share some ‘extended formal correspondence’, but did not define the nature of the correspondence. 11 The nature of this formal correspondence (whether the number of words or the repetition of words in a certain order) might be better understood as contingent upon the style of the author under consideration. 12 Returning to Heb. 13.5, the similarities and differences with all the potential sources are as follows.
As can be seen, Auctor’s language has affinities with all six texts. The phrase οὐ μή σε is attested in Gen. 28.15 and Deut. 31.6. Auctor’s repetition of οὐ μή σε is paralleled only in 1 Chron. 28.20. Auctor’s use of οὐδ corresponds with οὐδὲ in Gen. 28.15 and Deut. 31.8. The verb ἀνῶ is unique to Hebrews, but the aorist, first person indicative ἐγκαταλίπω is paralleled only in Gen. 28.15. Thus, considering (1) the frequency of the phrase throughout the scriptures, (2) the instability of the phrase’s form and (3) the complexity of this intertextual reference, Auctor likely did not intend to quote a particular passage, but allusively quoted a phrase repeated throughout the scriptures. 13
Fourth, quotations in Hebrews generally have syntactical tension (ST) that distinguishes the intertext from the surrounding cotext. 14 Syntactical tension is the verbal dissonance resulting from the incorporation of language foreign to a discourse. Allusions would have less ST due to fewer lexical affinities with a hypotext and could be integrated into the discourse with less disruption. One manner in which ST occurs is through the presence of IF, which indicate that the language of the intertext is distinct from that of the author. The second indicator of syntactic tension is the presence of atypical vocabulary. To illustrate, Auctor’s quotation of Ps. 104.4 in Heb. 1.7 has three verbal peculiarities. The noun λειτουργὸς appears twice in the epistle (Heb. 1.7; 8.2). The noun πῦρ occurs five times throughout Hebrews (Heb. 1.7; 10.27; 11.34; 12.18, 29), with two of those instances taking place within quotations (Heb. 1.7; 12.29). Finally, Auctor’s use of φλόγα is exclusive to Heb. 1.7. These three examples, in the first of the 15 agreed-upon quotations, should suffice to illustrate the cogency of ST as a quality of quotations in Hebrews.
The four characteristics (introductory formula [IF], a recognizable source [RS], verbal correspondence [VC], and syntactical tension [ST]) will serve as criteria by which to assess the nine disputed quotations between NA28 and UBS5 (Heb. 2.13; 3.5; 6.13-14; 10.30; 11.5; 12.15, 20, 29; 13.5). 15 Quotations do not need to possess all four criteria, however. As the intertexts have fewer characteristics typical of quotations, it is less likely that intertext should be regarded as a quotation. As a preliminary hypothesis, quotations should possess no fewer than two of the four characteristics.
Hebrews 2.13/Isaiah 8.17-18; 12.2; 2 Samuel 22.3
Both NA28 and UBS5 have identified Isa. 8.17-18 in Heb. 2.13 as a quotation, but NA28 recognized 2 Sam. 22.3 as an additional quotation. The editors of UBS5 identified 2 Sam. 22.3 as an allusion and listed Isa. 12.2 as an additional source for the allusion. The question does not concern whether Auctor quoted Isa. 8.17-18, but 2 Sam. 22.3 and Isa. 12.2, and, if so, what type of quotation 2 Sam. 22.3 and Isa. 12.2 might be.
Hebrews 2.13 exemplifies all the qualities of a quotation. The reference has ST and an IF (λέγων) that links to Auctor’s previous quotation from Ps. 22.22 in Heb. 2.12. The πάλιν in Heb. 2.13 functions as an IF continuing the train of thought begun in Heb. 2.12. Hebrews 2.13 also stands in ST with Heb. 2.14. Again, that Auctor quotes Isa. 8.17-18 is beyond dispute – the issue pertains to whether Heb. 2.13 also contains references 2 Sam. 22.3, Isa. 12.2.
The phrase under consideration is πεποιθὼς ἔσομαι ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ. A variant can be found in Isa. 37.10 (πεποιθὼς εἶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ), meaning that the phrase πεποιθὼς ἔσομαι ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ (or some variant thereof) is attested in three instances throughout Isaiah (Isa. 12.2; 8.17-18; 37.10) and thereby has a seemingly thematic function throughout the prophet’s ministry. 16 Considering how (1) Auctor quoted Isa. 8.18 and (2) the phrase reoccurs in Isa. 12.2, 37.10, Auctor likely intended to quote Isa. 8.17-18, but could have alluded to or echoed 2 Sam. 22.3, Isa. 12.2 and 37.10.
Hebrews 3.5/Numbers 12.7
The editors of NA28 identified Num. 12.7 in Heb. 3.5 as a quotation. The editors of UBS5 regarded the intertext as an allusion. Numbers 12.7 undoubtedly influenced the rhetoric of Heb. 3.1-6, as Paul Ellingworth has regarded Heb. 3.1-6 ‘Essentially a midrash on Num. 12.7’ (Ellingworth 1993: 195). Several factors militate against Heb. 3.5 being a quotation of Num. 12.7, however. Hebrews 3.5 does not have an IF nor an ST. The intertext may share certain verbal qualities with Num. 12.7, but the catchwords are ordered differently (Table 2).
Differences in word order between Heb. 3.5 and Num. 12.7
The differences in word order reveal a change in emphasis. In Num. 12.7, Moses was regarded as a distinguished servant (θεράπων) of Yahweh beyond Aaron and Miriam. 17 In Heb. 3.5, however, Auctor rearranged the words of Num. 12.7 to compare Moses, who was a θεράπων in God’s house, to the Christ, who was a υἱὸς in God’s house (Heb. 3.6). Thus, Auctor’s statement in Heb. 3.5 is an alteration of Num. 12.7. In light of the lack of any IF, ST or altered VC, and the nature of Heb. 3.5 as a midrash, the intertext should be regarded as an allusion to Num. 12.7 by means of a typology between Moses and the Christ.
Hebrews 6.13-14/Genesis 22.16-17
In one of the more peculiar intertextual scenarios, the editors of UBS5 listed Gen. 22.16-17 in Heb. 6.13-14 as a quotation, while regarding Gen. 22.16 in Heb. 6.13 as an allusion. The editors of NA28 likewise identified Heb. 6.13 as an allusion to Gen. 22.16 but considered Heb. 6.14 as a quotation of Gen. 22.17. To determine which verse might be an allusion and which might be a quotation, the form of the intertext in both verses must be analyzed.
The intertext in Heb. 6.13 does not have an IF. Moreover, the only VC between Heb. 6.13 and Gen. 22.16 is a variation on the syntagm κατ᾿ ἐμαυτοῦ ὤμοσα. In Heb. 6.13, Finally, the reference has no ST. In conclusion, Heb. 6.13 does not possess any of the characteristics of a quotation and therefore might be better considered a paraphrase of the events recorded in Gen. 22.16. Auctor stressed the promise that God had made to Abraham (Ἀβραὰμ ἐπαγγειλάμενος ὁ θεός), whereas the author of Gen. 22.16 spoke of the promise that the Lord (κύριος) had made to Abraham.
The reference to Gen. 22.17 in Heb. 6.14 is syntactically and characteristically different, however. Hebrews 6.14 begins with an IF (the verb of speaking, λέγων). The phrase εἰ μὴν εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω σε καὶ πληθύνων πληθυνῶ σε is a verbatim rendering of Gen. 22.17. The only difference between the two texts is Auctor’s addition of the final σε (possibly to create parallelism). Finally, the phrase has a high degree of ST, allowing Heb. 6.14, unlike Heb. 6.13, to have all the indications of being a quotation. In this regard, Auctor could have oriented his audience to Gen. 22.17 by introducing his quotation with a paraphrase of Gen. 22.16.
Hebrews 10.30/Deuteronomy 32.35-36; Psalm 135.14
Hebrews 10.30 consists of two intertexts separated by πάλιν. The first is a quotation derived from Deut. 32.35. The second continues Deut. 32.36 but may also refer to Ps. 135.14. The editors of UBS5 regarded the reference to Ps. 135.14 as an allusion, whereas NA28 regarded the intertext as a quotation.
This intertext has both an IF as well as ST. The difficulty with identifying the source of this intertext concerns the pervasiveness of the phrase κρινεῖ κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, which also has affinities with Gen. 49.16 (Δαν κρινεῖ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λαὸν), Ps. 7.19 (κύριος κρινεῖ λαούς), and Pss. Sol. 2.36 (ὅτι κρινεῖ κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ [quoting Deut. 32.36]). Therefore, if Auctor’s language was capable of deriving from Ps. 135.14, these other verses should be considered as well.
Due to the VC with multiple sources, the phrase κρινεῖ κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ could be regarded as an allusive quotation. The language of Heb. 10.30, however, implies that Auctor intended to reference Deut. 32.35-36, exclusively. First, Auctor quoted Deut. 32.35-36 in Heb. 10.30a. Furthermore, the mention of ἐκδίκησις and ἀνταποδώσω, terms attested only in Deut. 32.35 (and Pss. Sol. 2.35), strengthens the relationship with Deuteronomy. Auctor’s construct may not be a verbatim rendering of the LXX but, in light of the prominence of Deuteronomy in Heb. 10.30, and the VC with Deut. 32.35-36, Auctor most reasonably quoted Deut. 32.35-36, but could have echoed other passages such as Gen. 49.16, Ps. 7.19, 135.14 and Pss. Sol. 2.36.
Hebrews 11.5/Genesis 5.24
The editors of UBS5 catalogued Gen. 5.24 as a quotation, whereas NA28 identified the intertext as an allusion. The disputed quotation occurs within the second portion of a three-part eulogy centered on the life of Enoch.
The intertext has an RS and, aside from the alteration of ὅτι to the inferential διότι, has identical VC. Lacking an IF, this intertext should qualify as an indirect quotation; yet, Auctor’s use of Gen. 5.24 is lacking ST. Without ST, that Auctor intended to quote Gen. 5.24, or that the audience would have been able to recognize the quotation, is questionable.
If, as discussed above, ST refers to the factors that distinguish an intertext from the surrounding cotext, then the cotext of Heb. 11.5 might help to account for the lack of ST. This cotext is unique since Auctor composed Heb. 11 in the style of a homily. This homily has the highest concentration of intertexts throughout the entirety of the epistle (with as many as 3 quotations and 115 allusions). By intertextually inundating the discourse, Auctor conceivably could have created a setting in which Gen. 5.24 was quoted (and/or recognized by the audiences) without the need for ST. The combination of an RS, strong VC, along with the intertextual qualities of the cotext (Heb. 11), leads to the conclusion that this intertext should be regarded as an indirect quotation – albeit an allusive one!
Hebrews 12.15/Deuteronomy 29.17
According to NA28, Deut. 29.17 is a quotation. The editors of UBS5 classified the intertext as an allusion. To identify Deut. 29.17 as a quotation is complicated by three factors. First, Heb. 12.15 does not have an IF. Second, the passage does not have ST with the cotext. Third, several words from Deut. 29.17, though present in Heb. 12.15, either have been rearranged or altered: (1) Auctor removed ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν; (2) the last word in Deut. 29.17, πικρίᾳ, was relocated to follow ῥίζα in Heb. 12.15; and (3) the syntagm ἐν χολῇ was changed to ἐνοχλῇ. 18 Based upon the redacted vocabulary, and the lack of IF and ST, this intertext might best be categorized as a paraphrase, whereby Auctor summarized the meaning of Deut. 29.17.
Hebrews 12.20/Exodus 19.12–13
The editors of NA28 listed Heb. 12.20 as an allusion to Exod. 19.12-13, whereas UBS5 labelled the intertext as a quotation. The intertext does not have an IF nor ST. The reference has a number of words that correspond to Exod. 19.12, the most apparent being the future passive indicative λιθοβοληθήσεται. Additionally, both verses share τοῦ ὄρους and θιγεῖν. Otherwise, Heb. 12.20 has no further similarities with Exod. 19.12-13, nor does it possess any qualities of a quotation. All things considered, Auctor more likely alluded to Exod. 19.12-13 by recalling the events contained in the account.
Hebrews 12.29/Deuteronomy 4.24; 9.3
Auctor, in Heb. 12.29, stated, καὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν πῦρ καταναλίσκον. The editors of NA28 regarded this statement as a dual quotation from Deut. 4.24 and 9.3, whereas UBS5 identified both as allusions. This quote has no IF and, in a manner similar to Heb. 11.5, has little-to-no ST. The phrase πῦρ καταναλίσκον can be located in Deut. 9.3, but the statement as contained in Heb. 12.29 is only attested in Deut. 4.24. The noun πῦρ is associated with καταναλίσκον a further ten times throughout the Hebrew scriptures. 19 The phrase differs from Deut. 4.24 in that Auctor changed the genitive ἡμῶν to σου, perhaps to make the statement more applicable to his audience. In sum, Heb. 12.29 likely represents an indirect quotation of Deut. 4.24, but Auctor’s language recalls a theme ubiquitous to the Hebrew scriptures and echoes other texts.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to address the nine disputed intertexts between NA28 and UBS5. This discrepancy led to the question, by what standards can quotations in the epistle to the Hebrews be identified? The study was carried out in three stages, following a precedent set forth by Stanley Porter. First, definitions of the various types of quotations and allusions were set forth. Then, characteristics were extrapolated from the 15 undisputed quotations in Hebrews to assess other quotations in Hebrews. The criteria included: (1) introductory formulae, (2) a recognizable source, (3) verbal correspondence and (4) syntactical tension. Finally, the nine disputed intertexts were evaluated for the presence of the four criteria. The findings can be outlined accordingly in Table 3.
Summary of findings
Four out of the nine passages under consideration were determined to be quotations (Heb. 2.13; 6.14; 10.30; 11.5; 12.20, 29), whereas the remaining five (Heb. 3.5; 6.13; 12.15; 13.5) were regarded as allusions. As the above table reveals, three of the intertexts shared identical criteria (Heb. 11.5; 12.15, 29), but only Heb. 11.5 was identified as a quotation. The reason for this decision was due to the higher degree of VC, the RS and the cotext of Heb. 11. The inclusion of cotext in this instance might indicate a need in future studies to make allowances for the compositional style of a cotext when accounting for ST (in addition to IF and atypical vocabulary, as discussed above).
Any work, such as what has been carried out in this study, is bound to contain a degree of subjectivity. Nevertheless, based on the findings, the method may be considered successful. The methodology can be substantiated if further research were to be performed on additional quotations/allusions in Hebrews (especially if Porter is correct and all 423 references would need to be analyzed). For further study, Thomas rejected five intertexts that were accepted by all the other scholars surveyed in the introduction. Additionally, five further intertexts were rejected as quotations by Westcott, Spicq and Thomas, but were accepted by Archer/Chirichigno, Bratcher, Longenecker, NA28 and UBS5. Combined, these ten intertexts should be evaluated to test the viability of the proposed methodology or determine if the intertexts could be identified as quotations. Until then, based upon the research in this study (and taking for granted the 15 unanimously agreed-upon quotations), the epistle to the Hebrews can be said to contain no less than 19 quotations.