¹ Bultmann, Rudolf, Theology of the New Testament I (London, 1952), 111.Google Scholar

² Ibid. p. 112.

³ Ibid. ii, 166–8.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Bultmann is questioned at this very point by Morgan, R., The Nature of New Testament Theology (London, 1973), p. 61.Google Scholar

⁶ See vv. 2, 3, 16, 17, 20, 23, 27.

⁷ Notably Montefiore, H. W., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1964), p. 144Google Scholar, and Synge, F. C., Hebrews and the Scriptures (London, 1959), p. 26.Google Scholar

⁸ Lev. 16. 33 (LXX) has τό άγιον τοũ άγίου.

⁹ For a convenient chart of translation variations see Salom, A. P., ‘Ta Hagia in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, Andrews University Seminary Studies 5 (1967), 61.Google Scholar For criticisms of the usual translations, see Synge, Hebrews, pp. 26 ff.

¹⁰ The most illustrious being Westcott, B. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, ² 1892), p. 252.Google Scholar

¹¹ The μ⋯ν…δ⋯ pattern links these two verses tightly, ‘on the one hand into the first tent…but on the other hand into the second [tent]’.

¹² Heb. 13. ii follows a pattern nearly identical with that of Heb. 9. 7, 11–12, 25 and again τά άγια refers to the Holy of Holies, for Heb. 13. ii is actually quoting from Lev. 16. 27. Further support is drawn from Heb. 6. 19 where & is a direct τό έσωΤερον τοũ καΤΤετάσματος is a direct quotation from Lev. 16. 2, 12, 15 where the phrase describes the Holy of Holies. Cf. Heb. 10. 19 f.

¹³ In ν. 2 ⋯ πоώτη is used elliptically for ή πоώτη оκηνή.

¹⁴ NEB has ‘earlier tent’. In support of this see Héring, J., The Epistle to the Hebrews (ET London, 1970), p. 74Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1964), pp. 194 f.Google Scholar; Spicq, C., L’Épître aux Hébreux II (Paris, 1953), 253 f.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Thus the RSV and the majority of commentators.

¹⁶ Hebrews, p. 74.

¹⁷ Michaelis, W., T.D.N.T. 5, 76.Google Scholar

¹⁸ This interpretation is strongly defended by Synge (Hebrews, p. 27) in a passage where he differs with A. S. Peake.

¹⁹ Koester, H., ‘“Outside the camp”: Hebrews 13. 9–14’, H.T.R. 55 (1962), 310.Google Scholar

²⁰ Michel, O., Der Brief an die Hebräer (Göttingen, ¹² 1966), p. 300).Google Scholar

²¹ Windisch, H., Der Hebräerbrief (Tübingen, ³ 1931), p. 77.Google Scholar

²² Michel, O., Hebräer ¹², p. 307.Google Scholar

²³ Bruce, F. F., Hebrews, pp. 295 ff.Google Scholar Bruce explains the feminine gender (έτις for ότι) as due to attraction to παραβολέ.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Cf. Josephus, BJ 5, 193–4, 208 f., 216.Google Scholar

²⁶ Synge (Hebrews, p. 26) argues strongly for this association between first covenant and first tent.

²⁷ Hofius, O., ‘Das “erste” und das “zweite” Zelt’, Z.N.W. 61 (1970), 276.Google Scholar

²⁸ Westcott, B. F., Hebrews ², p. 252.Google Scholar

²⁹ Hebrews, pp. 195 f.

³⁰ This remains true even if the reading mgr;ελλόν (χ A I) is preferred to γενομένων (ß⁴⁰ Β D*). If μελλόντων is accepted, the reference is descriptive not temporal, i.e., the future good things [now present], cf. Heb. 6. 5. For a contrary view see Montefiore, Hebrews, 151 and Klappert, B., Die Eschatologie des Hebräerbriefs (München, 1969), p. 15.Google Scholar

³¹ Buchanan, G. W., To the Hebrews (New York, 1972), pp. 139 f.Google Scholar

³² Michel, O., Hebräer ¹², p. 309.Google Scholar

³³ Nairne, A., The Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge, 1917), p. 89Google Scholar; von Hofmann, J. Chr., Die heilige Schrjft Neuen Testamentes 5 (1873), 335.Google Scholar

³⁴ Seeberg, A., Der Brief an die Hebräer (Leipzig, 1912), p. 100.Google Scholar

³⁵ Riggenbach, E., Der Brief an die Hebräer (Leipzig, 1922), p. 258.Google Scholar This criticism is also fatal for the position of Rendall, F. (The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1883), pp. 78 f.)Google Scholar, who attaches διά… σκηνñς to τ⋯ν γενομένων άγαθ⋯ν (see n. 33, above) and ούδέ δι' αίματος… διά δέ τοū λδλου αίματος to παραγλνομαι.

³⁶ Westcott, B. F., Hebrews ², p. 256.Google Scholar Cf. the comparative table on p. 199 of this essay where the parallels with 9. 7, 25 make it clear that ‘blood’ refers to the means of access into the Holy of Holies (i.e. αΤμα is used instrumentally with ελσέρχομαι or an equivalent verb).

³⁷ Montefiore, (Hebrews, p. 153)Google Scholar with superb understatement calls this ‘slightly clumsy’.

³⁸ Moffatt, J., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh, 1924), pp. 120 f.Google Scholar

³⁹ Forcefully argued by Vanhoye, A., ‘“”Par la tente plus grande et plus parfaite…“(Hé 9, ii)’, Biblica 46 (1965), 1–28.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Michel, O., Hebräer ¹², pp. 311 f.Google Scholar; Andriessen, P., ‘Das größere und vollkommenere Zelt (Hebr 9, II)’, B.Z. 15 (1971), 76–92.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Schierse, F. J., Verheiβung und Heilsrollendung (München, 1955), p. 57.Google Scholar See also his commentary, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1969)Google Scholar, ad loc. A similar view is found in Luck, U., ‘Himmlisches und irdisches im Hebräerbrief’, Nov. Test. 6 (1963), 192–215.Google Scholar

⁴² Michaelis, W., T.D.N.T. 8, 376 f.Google Scholar

⁴³ Moffatt's attempt (Hebrews, p. 121) to reduce the force of this by referring to verses in Hebrews where Bufs is used in close proximity with the genitive and accusative is hardly relevant. There is no such change of case in 9. 11–12.

⁴⁴ Synge, (Hebrews, p. 25)Google Scholar appears to limit this reference to the Holy of Holies. Hofius, O.(Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes (Tübingen, 1972), p. 60)Google Scholar, takes τά άγια in 8. 2 to be the Holy of Holies and ή σκηνή ή άληθινή to be the whole heavenly tabernacle. Koester, (H. T.R. 55 (1962), 309)Google Scholar, also denies that 8. 2 is a hendiadys but identifies τά άγιagr; with ‘heaven itself’ and ή σκηνή with ‘the heavenly regions’.

⁴⁵ This is strengthened if it is accepted that ειχε μέν οũngr; (9. i) goes with Χριοτός δέ (9. ii).

⁴⁶ E.g. Westcott, B. F., Hebrews ², pp. 257 f.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Vanhoye, A., Biblica 46, 2.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Swetnam, J., ‘“The greater and more perfect tent“. A contribution to the discussion of Hebrews, 9 11’, Biblica 47 (1966), 91–106Google Scholar; idem, ‘On the imagery and significance of Hebrews 9. 9–10’, C.B.Q,. XXVIII (1966), 155–73. For criticism of such views see Williamson, R., ‘The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews’, N.T.S. 21 (1974–1975), 300–12.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ungeheuer, J., Der Groβe Priester über dem Hause Gottes (Würzburg, 1939), pp. 118 ff.Google Scholar This appears to be Bruce's, F. F. view (Hebrews, pp. 199 f.).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Williamson, R. (Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews [Leiden, 1970), p. 146)Google Scholar, speaks of Heb. 9. ii as ‘the perfect illustration of how a Christian eschatologist’. speaks. Cf. Barrett, C. K., ‘The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews’ in The Background of the JVew Testament and its Eschatology, ed. Davies, W. D. and Daube, D. (Cambridge, 1956), p. 385.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Montefiore, , Hebrews, p. 153.Google Scholar

⁵² Our author has clearly never lost sight of his original discussion of the covenant (8. 13–9. i); indeed his view of the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries and their respective sacrificial atonements portrays his conception of the difference between the old and new covenant. Buchanan, (Hebrews, pp. 139 f.)Google Scholar is astray in referring 9. i not to the first covenant but to the first tent.

⁵³ I accept this reading

⁵⁴ In Lev. 8. 11 the Septuagint has π⋯ντα τ⋯ оκε⋯η, оκην⋯ς, þαίνω (Heb. 9.21 = þαντἱзω); Lev. 8. 15 has αIμα and έκχέω (cf. Heb. 9. 22).

⁵⁵ B. Yoma 4 a.

⁵⁶ AJ iii, 206.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Windisch, H., Hebräerbrief ², p. 82.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Gen. 37. 22; Lev. 17. 4; Num. 35. 33.

⁵⁹ Heb. 9. 15–16, 25–8. Thornton's, T. C. G. attempt (‘The Meaning of αλματεκχυσíα in Heb. x. 22’, J.T.S. 15 (1964), 63–5)Google Scholar to leave open the possibility that Christ's blood εκχυσις was something posterior to his death must be deemed a failure. See my comment in a forthcoming Expositary Times.

⁶⁰ Moffatt, , Hebrews, p. 132.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Michel, , Hebräer ¹², pp. 323 f.Google Scholar; Héring, , Hebrews, p. 82Google Scholar; found as early as Bleek, F., Der Brief an die Hebräer II (Berlin, 1836), 588.Google Scholar

⁶² Peake, A. S., The Century Bible: Hebrews (Edinburgh, 1914), p. 191.Google Scholar

⁶³ Riggenbach, E., Hebräer ³, p. 283.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Buchanan, G. W., Hebrews, p. 162.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ ‘Cleansing’ carries ideas of ‘inauguration’ as well as ‘expiation’ (Exod. 29. 36; Lev. 8. 15); hence Westcott's objection against ideas of ‘dedication’ (Hebrews ², p. 270) is not cogent. Cf. Heb. 9. 18; 10. 20.

⁶⁶ On Christ's heavenly session, see Hughes, P. E., ‘The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood in Hebrews’, Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (1973), 99–109; 195–212; 305–14 and CXXXI (1974), 26–33.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Brooks, W. E., ‘The Perpetuity of Christ's Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, J.B.L. 89 (1970), 209 n. 15.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Davies, J. H., ‘The Heavenly Work of Christ’, in Texte und Untersuchungen 102 (1968), 387.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Stott, W., ‘The Conception of “offering” in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, N.T.S. 9 (1962–1963), 65.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Ibid. p. 64.

⁷¹ Verses 6, 9, 11 and 20.

⁷² We might also mention that , which Stott considers a non-sacrificial term, outside of Lev. 16, is translated in the Septuagint by πρоσϕέρειν. Again showing the impossibility of limiting the meaning of πρоσϕέρειν to that of even if one goes outside Lev. 16.

⁷³ The Septuagint uses irpoodpeiv in Lev. 1. 5; 7. 33; 9. 9 to translate when the object is ‘blood’, but there is no reference to any blood application as occurred on the Day of Atonement.

⁷⁴ Texte und Untersuchungen CII (1968), 387.Google Scholar Cf. Schröger, F., Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schrjftausleger (Regensburg, 1968), p. 237.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Ibid.

⁷⁶ Moffatt, , Hebrews, p. 132.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ This is the error of those who, like Hicks, F. C. N. (The Fullness of Sacrfice [London, 1938], p. 241, passim)Google Scholar, argue constantly from the actual data of the Levitical ritual rather than from the creative way Hebrews uses the Levitical material.