¹ Among the more recent scholars who have been concerned with this question have been Spicq, C., L'Épître aux Hébreux (Paris, 1952), 1, 335Google Scholar; Thomas, K. J., ‘The use of the Septuagint in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, unpub. diss. Manchester, 1959 (referred to in the rest of the article as ‘The use of the Septuagint’)Google Scholar; Thomas, K. J., ‘The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews’, N.T.S. 11 (1964/1965), 303–25 (referred to in the rest of the article as ‘The Old Testament Citations’)Google Scholar; Barth, M., ‘The Old Testament in Hebrews’, in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, edited by Klassen, W. and Snyder, G. F. (London, 1962), p. 55Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1964), p. xlixGoogle Scholar; Michel, O., Der Brief an die Hebräer (Göttingen, 12 Auflage 1966), p. 156Google Scholar; Schröger, F., Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger (Regensburg, 1968), pp. 247 ff.Google Scholar

² Moffatt, J., The Epistle to the Hebrews, I.C.C. Series (1924), p. lxiiGoogle Scholar is fairly typical of the scholars of his day when he says: ‘As for the LXX, the text he used – and he uses it with some freedom in quotations – must have resembled that of A, upon the whole.’ Cf. O. Michel, op. cit. p. 151, for the same point by a more recent scholar.

³ The main Septuagintal research has been carried out by the Göttingen Commission. Cf. Jellicoe, S., The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford, 1968), pp. 9 ffGoogle Scholar. for an account of the work done by this commission. He also gives an evaluation of the alternative approach to Septuagintal research offered by those who believe there is no single Septuagintal Vorlage which can be recovered, but rather many attempts at translating the Old Testament into Greek. As regards Hebrews the main work has been done by Ahlborn, E., ‘Die Septuaginta-Vorlage des Hebräerbriefes’, unpub. diss. Göttingen, 1966Google Scholar and McCullough, J. C., ‘Hebrews and the Old Testament’, unpub. diss. Queen's University, Belfast, 1971, pp. 1–140Google Scholar.

⁴ Both above-mentioned theses are unpublished.

⁵ Ziegler, J., Septuaginta…, 15 (1957)Google Scholar and ‘Beiträge zur Ieremias-Septuaginta’, M.S.U. 6 (Göttingen, 1958).Google Scholar

⁶ E. Ahlborn, op. cit. considers that the author used a text similar to that of the B group. This not altogether certain, but it can be shown that the text the author used has strong affinities with three groups, B, A and Q; it is impossible to be more specific about the textual background. On the basis of this, however, the investigation can be continued.

⁷ E.g. in v. 32 the occurrence of αὐτν in u. 33 the omission of μου; the omission of δώσω and the phrase καί ψομαι αὐτοὐς in u. 34 the occurrence of the first μ; and of διδαξωσιν, and the omission of the third καί.

⁸ According to Hatch, E. / Redpath, H. A., A Concordance to the Septuagint (Oxford, 1897 and 1906)Google Scholarad loc., the phrase ϕησ κριος occurs almost thirty times in Jeremiah. Of these J. Ziegler in his Göttingen edition of Jeremiah considers nineteen to be original readings and of these nineteen original readings twelve have a variant λγει. (Cf. Jer. 30. 2, 15; 31. 12, 15; 36. 23; 37. 3; 38. 27, 31. 32. 37. 38; 49. 11.)

⁹ Q-V–26–46–86'–106–130–239–534–544–613.

¹⁰ The Text of the Epistles (London, 1953), pp. 171 f.Google Scholar

¹¹ This is the generally accepted conclusion. Cf. Westcott, B. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), p. 223Google Scholar; J. Moffatt, op. cit. p. no; C. Spicq, op. cit. 1, 424; F. F. Bruce, op. cit. p. 169.

¹² Cf. E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 84, who thinks that the author made the change himself but nevertheless admits that it was made ‘ohne ersichtlichen Grund’. In any case πιγρψω is uncommon in the NT, occurring only in Mark 15. 26; Acts 17. 23 and Rev. 21. 12 apart from this quotation in Hebrews. (Heb. 8. 10; 10. 16.)

¹³ LXX manuscripts B (-λειτ)-S BO Aeth and some Fathers.

¹⁴ .

¹⁵ In the LXX manuscripts A; 88-Sy^h.

¹⁶ J. Ziegler, op. cit. p. 26; cf. too E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 78.

¹⁷ Cf. J. Ziegler, op. cit. pp. 63 ff., for further examples.

¹⁸ Including ⁴⁸ ℵ A B D K with many minucules.

¹⁹ Including P with many minuscules.

²⁰ Cf. E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 78.

²¹ Cf. K. J. Thomas, ‘The use of the Septuagint’, op. cit. pp. 99 ff.

²² In Jer. 41 the author is dealing with the covenant made under King Zedekiah, a covenant which was broken.

²³ Cf. Büchel, C., ‘Der Hebräerbrief und das A.T.’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken (1906), p. 525.Google Scholar

²⁴ Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta…, 10 (Göttingen, 1931).Google Scholar

²⁵ Cf. S. Jellicoe's comment, op. cit. p. 297: ‘As a critical edition of the Psalter…[it] falls far short of the desiderata. The apparatus criticus is little more than that of an editio minor.’

²⁶ Cf. E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 135 and J. C. McCullough, op. cit. p. 476.

²⁷ Cf. the occurrence of τί and the omission of the phrase κα κατστησας…σου in Heb. 2. 6–8; the occurrence of σμα λοκαυτώματα and εὐδκησας in Heb. 10. 5–7; the occurrence of the phrase είς τòν αἰνα τοṽ αἰνος, the pronoun σου and the noun νομίαν in Heb. 1. 8–9; the omission of με in Heb. 3. 7 ff. and the occurrence of λίξεις in Heb. 1. 10–12; the occurrence of πυρòςϕλòγα in Heb. 1. 7; the omission of καί in Heb. 13. 6.

²⁸ This is accepted by Atkinson, B. F., ‘The textual background of the use of the Old Testament in the New’, Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, 79 (1947), 42.Google Scholar

²⁹ This is the opinion of most commentators. Cf. Padva, P., Les Citations de l'ancien testament dam l'Épître aux Hébreux (Paris, 1904), p. 101Google Scholar; Venard, L., ‘L'Utilisation des Psaumes dans l'Épt^tre aux Hébreux’, in Mélanges Podechard (Lyons, 1945), p. 255Google Scholar; C. Spicq, op. cit. 1, 334; Stendahl, K., The School of St. Matthew (Uppsala, 1954), p. 160Google Scholar; Kistemaker, S., The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam, 1961), p. 57Google Scholar; K. J. Thomas, ‘The Old Testament Citations’, op. cit. p. 303; F. F. Bruce, op. cit. p. xlix; O. Michel, op. cit. p. 155.

³⁰ Cf. K. J. Thomas, ‘The Use of the Septuagint…’, op. cit. p. 39.

³¹ According to Moulton, W. F. / Geden, A. S., A Concordance to the Greek New Testament (Edinburgh, 1963Google Scholar, reprinted 1967), ad loc, the verb occurs only eight times in the NT.

³² Cf. C. Büchel, op. cit. p. 522 and P. Padva, op. cit. pp. 49 f., who also postulates a mistranslation of the Hebrew.

³³ Cf. K. J. Thomas, ‘The Old Testament Citations…’, op. cit. p. 306.

³⁴ Cf. K. J. Thomas, ‘The Use of the Old Testament…’, op. cit. p. 40. It is used in the Epistles in I Cor. 14. 25; I Thess. 1. 9; Heb. 2. 12; I John 1. 2, 3.

³⁵ Cf. Schniewind, J., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed.by Kittel, G. and translated by Bromiley, G. W. (Michigan, 1964), 1Google Scholar, 66.

³⁶ In the LXX θεòς is transposed and the μου omitted in 2013 Sy, while μου is omitted without the other change in 55; βουλήθην is omitted in Sa.

³⁷ Cf. Heb. 2. 13; 10. 37. (In the former a πλιν is also added.)

³⁸ Op. cit. p. 26; cf. Bleek, F., Der Brief an die Hebräer (Berlin), part 1, vol. 1, p. 160Google Scholar; Riggenbach, E., Der Brief an die Hebräer (Leipzig, 1913), p. 23Google Scholar; E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 113.

³⁹ Cf. F. Schröger, op. cit. p. 62.

⁴⁰ This spelling occurs 21 times in the NT.

⁴¹ Cf. E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 118, who argues that the author made the changes himself.

⁴² L“A” = MT.

⁴³ K L, etc.

⁴⁴ Cf. E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 118.

⁴⁵ According to Hatch/Redpath, op. cit. ad loc., δοκιμω occurs at least 39 times in the LXX, while according to Moulton/Geden, op. cit. ad loc. it occurs 23 times in the NT.

⁴⁶ Cf. Rendall, F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1883), p. 31Google Scholar; Vaughan, C. J., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1890), p. 66Google Scholar; Wickham, E. C., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1910), pp. 22 f.Google Scholar; K. J. Thomas, ‘The Old Testament Citations…’, op. cit. p. 307.

⁴⁷ In the LXX manuscripts W 410 (πεσκ…)B-S*-239 Q.Syh Aeth Arab = MT.

⁴⁸ Cf. S. Kistemaker, op. cit. p. 35; E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 119.

⁴⁹ Op. cit. p. 35.

⁵⁰ Including C Sy Arm.

⁵¹ According to Moulton/Geden, op. cit. ad loc. γενε occurs 41 times in the NT, and on 16 of these occasions it is accompanied by some form of αῡτη.

⁵² Except Bo L^pau He 55.

⁵³ Cf. K. J. Thomas, ‘The Use of the Septuagint’, op. cit. ad loc. and E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 115.

⁵⁴ K. J. Thomas, ‘The Use of the Septuagint’, op. cit. p. 30.

⁵⁵ Cf. S. Kistemaker, op. cit. p. 27; Vanhoye, A., La structure littéaire de l'Épître aux Hébreux (Paris, 1962), p. 72.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Cf. G. Zuntz, op. cit. p. 173: ‘The words are meaningless and merely repeated from the previous verse.’

⁵⁷ L'A'.

⁵⁸ Cf. Hoskier, H. C., A Commentary on the various readings in the text of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Chester-Beatty papyrus P⁴⁵ (London, 1938)Google Scholar. Cf. G. Zuntz, op. cit. p. 253 n. 7.

⁵⁹ Cf. E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 121. He considers that the author found εί in bis Vorlage and omitted it, though ¹⁶ corrected the reading according to the LXX.

⁶⁰ Wevers, J. W., Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graectm…1, Genesis (Göttingen, 1974).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Op. cit. pp. 56 ff.

⁶² Cf. Gooding, D. W., The account of the Tabernacle (Cambridge, 1959), pp. 105–14Google Scholar; Ziegler, J., ‘Zur LXX-Vorlage im Deuteronomium’, Z.A.W. 72 (1960), 237–62Google Scholar; E. Ahlborn, op. cit. pp. 17 ff.

⁶³ Cf. in particular Heb. 8. 5; 9. 20; 10. 30; 13. 5.

⁶⁴ Cf. E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 62. For texts similar to those used by Philo cf. Heb. 8. 5; 11. 5; 13. 5.

⁶⁵ Cf. the following changes: the addition of θεóς in 4. 4 and the addition of ν; the occurrence of ηὑρίσκετο and διóτι in 11. 5; the addition of πντα and the occurrence of δειχθντα in 8. 5; the occurrence of ν, and οὐδ' oὐ and γκαταλίπω in 13. 5; the occurrence of μοί κδίκησις and the addition of γώ in 10. 30; the occurrence of ἄγγελοι in 1.6.

⁶⁶ J. W. Wevers gives this form as the primitive reading.

⁶⁷ They include ADLM I5*–17–82–135–381'–708* 130 318'–392'* 120' 54 55 319*. Cf. Gen. 42. 17; Ex. 22. 8; Jb. 13. 5; 27. 3.

⁶⁸ Op. cit. p. 33.

⁶⁹ Cf. K. J. Thomas, ‘The use of the Septuagint’, op. cit. p. 30; B. F. Westcott, op. cit. p. 159; E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 34.

⁷⁰ Cf. J. N. Kurtz, Der Brief an die Hebräer, p. a 11. He thought that the author did not know that Abraham lived to see the birth of Jacob, since Abraham's death is recorded in Genesis before Jacob's birth. It is clear from Gen. 21.5 and 25. 7, 26 that Abraham lived some 15 years after the birth of Jacob, and the author of Hebrews would have been fully aware of this.

⁷¹ Cf. Spicq, op. cit. 11, 160.

⁷² Cf. O. Michel, op. cit. p. 251.

⁷³ Cf. C. Büchel, op. cit. p. 524.

⁷⁴ Cf. S. Kistemaker, op. cit. p. 38.

⁷⁵ This is found in all the manuscripts apart from the minuscules from group b (omitting 103) and group n, along with 127–30 and 134, which were probably influenced by Hebrews.

⁷⁶ This addition is also found in a few LXX manuscripts, again probably under the influence of Hebrews.

⁷⁷ Cf. E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 41.

⁷⁸ This is the view of almost all scholars. Cf. K. J. Thomas, ‘The Use of the Septuagint…’, op. cit. p. 103.

⁷⁹ Apart from the minuscule 71 and Philo.

⁸⁰ Cf. E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 45. The contrary view was held by E. Riggenbach, op. cit. p. 276 n. 41. He thought that the change was made to stress the authoritative character of the covenant. For a fuller discussion cf. F. Bleek, op. cit. pt. 2,11, 576; Windisch, H., Dcr Hebräerbrief (Tübingen, 1913), p. 77Google Scholar; C. Spicq, op. cit. 11, 264; G. Vos, The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, edited and rewritten by Vos, J. G. (Michigan, 1956), p. 41.Google Scholar

⁸¹ The minuscule 71 and the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila.

⁸² Including 71 Bo Eth. Cf. K. J. Thomas, ‘The Use of the Septuagint…’, op. cit. p. 105.

⁸³ Septuaginta, 12 (Göttingen, 1943).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Together with Uncials W B V ℵ which refuse to fall into any group or family.

⁸⁵ Cf. E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 134; J. C. McCullough, op. cit. p. 477.

⁸⁶ Gf. Ziegler, Septuaginta ad loc.

⁸⁷ Cf. J. Moffatt, op. cit. p. 157; C. Spicq, op. cit. 11, 331 f.; F. F. Bruce, op. cit. p. 274; O. Michel, op. cit. p. 362.

⁸⁸ The term occurs with the article 22 times in the NT, and on all but 3 of these occasions it refers to Jesus Christ.

⁸⁹ Cf. H. Windisch, op. cit. p. 90; J. Moffatt, op. cit. p. 157; Manson, T. W., ‘The Argument from Prophecy’, J.T.S. 46 (1945), 132Google Scholar; C. Spicq, op. cit. 11, 332; G. Zuntz, op. cit. p. 173; K. J. Thomas, ‘The Use of the Septuagint…’, op. cit. p. 201; F. F. Bruce, op. cit. p. 266.

⁹⁰ Including W* and some Fathers.

⁹¹ Including A–106–49–407–36–46–86–711 87–91–490–68.

⁹² Cf. Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (London, 1961), p. 231Google Scholar; E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 94.

⁹³ Op. cit. p. 135.

⁹⁴ Ibid.

⁹⁵ The occurrence of τι in LXX 130 and σείω in V L''–407–613 233 544.

⁹⁶ Cf. Heb. 1.8–9; 10. 37, 38.

⁹⁷ It occurs in the LXX manuscripts 87–91–309–490.

⁹⁸ Cf. K. J. Thomas, ‘The Use of the Septuagint…’, ad loc.

⁹⁹ Ibid. pp. 51 f.

¹⁰⁰ Cf. E. Ahlborn, op. cit. p. 132.

¹⁰¹ Cf. the spelling and verb-form variations in Heb. 3. 7–11 and the occurrence of the phrase έν δοκιμασίᾳ; the occurrence of σε and εί μήν in Heb. 6. 14; the omission of εί in Heb. 7. 21; the occurrence of λγει and πιγρξω in Heb. 8. 8–12; the change of verb tense in Heb. 10. 37–8; the occurrence of νετείλατο in Heb. 9. so and καθώς in Heb. 11. 12. We also include in this section changes which occurred probably under the influence of other LXX passages. Cf. Heb. 11. 12.

¹⁰² The omission of 'ίσραήλ in Heb. 11. 21 and the addition of μου in Heb. 12. 5–6.

¹⁰³ The position of the definite article in Heb. 1. 8–9; the word order of the first line in 1. 10 and 2. 13; the occurrence of διó in Heb. 3. 9–10; the retention of the divine name to the end of the quotation in 10. 5–7; the addition of the definite article in 10. 37–8; the addition of οủ μóνον…in 12. 26. In addition we mentioned three quotations where the author divides two clauses by καί (πλιν) in Heb. 1. 8–9, 2. 13, 10. 37.

¹⁰⁴ The occurrence of θες in Heb. 9. 20.

¹⁰⁵ The acceptability of this method of exegesis to the present day is a question which falls outside the scope of this article.

¹⁰⁶ Faced with the task of interpreting the OT in the light of their time, they felt free to change the text at will where it could not easily be applied to their situation. Cf. Gartner, B., ‘The Habakkuk Commentary (DSH) and the Gospel of Matthew’, Studia Theologica 8 (1955)Google Scholar, a ff. On the other hand some scholars think that the sectaries simply selected different readings already known to them. Cf. K. Stendahl, op. cit. p. 190; Dupont-Sommer, A., ‘Le Commentaire d'Habacuc découvert près de la Mer Morte’, B.H.R. 137 (1950), 143Google Scholar. Brownlee, W. H., ‘Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the DSH’, Biblical Archaeologist 14 (1951), 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar