Some observations about the Vorlage of Ps 8 : 5-7 in Heb 2

Some observations about the Vorlage of Ps 8:5-7 in Heb 2:6-8 The following observations relate only to one of the approximately 30 explicit quotations to be found in Hebrews and is part of a broader project on the nature of the Vorlage of these quotations. The focus in this investigation is more of a text critical than a hermeneutical nature. It is rather on establishing the origin and text form of the text used by the unknown author of Hebrews than on the interpretation of the quotation itself within the broader context. Regarding the origin of the quotation from Ps 8:5-7 in Heb 2:6-8, it is clear from the investigation that the author of Hebrews probably knew the quotation already via the tradition, but that he quoted a longer section and that some conscious changes were made during the process of his application and re-interpretation of the quotation in its new context. The link with Ps 110(109):1 was already made prior to Hebrews. The author did not share a testimony book with Paul for this combination, but knew the combination either via Paul or independently from Paul via the tradition. Regarding the text form of the quotation, it becomes clear that it closely resembles the reading of our reconstructed LXX.


The problem
The late first century AD document, Ad Hebraeos, is the book in the New Testament which quotes the most from what we know today as the Old Testament.However, the Vorlage of these approximately 30 explicit quotations is to date an unresolved matter.This relates especially to the particular version being used (LXX, Hebrew, or neither).But it also relates to the origin and the selection of passages, as well as to the interpretation of the quotations in Hebrews.

Previous studies are dated
The few specialized and in-depth studies which were conducted on the quotations in Hebrews, although very thorough and in many ways still valid, are now dated, e.g.those of Kistemaker (1961) and Schröger (1968).Not only has more research been done in the mean time and been published in journal articles and commentaries relating to the quotations in Hebrews (cf, for instance, the text-critical contribution of Cadwallader 1992:257-292), but also newer textcritical editions on both the New Testament text as well as the LXX (Göttingen edition) have become available.This becomes clear when one compares the analysis of Schröger on Heb 4:4 -where Gn 2:2 is quoted -with the later LXX text-critical edition of Genesis regarding the presence of ej n in the LXX.It also becomes clear when one compares the analysis of Kistemaker on Heb 11:18 -where Gn 21:12 is quoted -with the presence of o{ ti in the LXX.

Importance of Dead Sea Scrolls
The texts that were found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls must also be taken into account -particularly regarding the Psalter, from which about one third of the explicit quotations in Hebrews were taken (Kistemaker 1961:14;Kistemaker 1984:9;Koch 1999:465).Some of them, such as 11QPs, is of little use here as none of the Psalms quoted in Hebrews preserved amongst the 41 canonical Psalms is found there.However, the relation between the text readings found amongst the Dead Sea scrolls and that of the quotations in Hebrews needs much more attention.(For an overview of studies in this regard, see Gräßer 1964:171-176;Bruce 1962/3:217-232;Batdorf 1972:16-35;Wilcox 1988:647-656).How do we explain, for instance, the fact that the subject matter of Heb 1:1-5 agrees closely with that of 4QFlorilegia (now known as 4QMidrEschat), that three of the seven texts quoted there overlap with Hebrews (2 Sam 7:10-14; Is 8:11 and Ps 2:7) and that Ps 45:1-2 is also quoted in the Dead Sea Scrolls?But apart from the Psalter, what do we do with the striking prominence of the Melchizedek motif between 11QMelch and Hebrews?Although one might differ on the detail of some similarities as briefly pointed out by De Waard, one ought to take note of the special affinity to the Dead Sea Scrolls that is shown by Hebrews (De Waard 1965:81-82.Cf. also Attridge 1989:28-29;Bruce 1985:li;Weiss 1991:381).Add to all this the fact that amongst all the known early rabbinical literature (such as the Mishnah), the Hebrew equivalents of the introductory formulae in the NT are found in greater abundance in the Qumran literature (Fitzmyer 1968: 253;Terry 1975:504;Metzger 1951:297-307) and that Hebrews shows close affinities in methodology with the midrash-pesher method of commentary on his quotations.

The focus
What is presented here, is one small step in the quest for the Vorlage of the explicit quotations in Hebrews.As the author of Hebrews quotes from the Psalms, the Torah and the Prophets, it would make sense to start the journey focusing on the quotations within those collections themselves, rather than to follow the author's order slavishly -particularly if a reconstruction of the Vorlage is the goal of this investigation.Only later in the journey will the next steps follow when the particular combinations, the interpretation within the broader context and the author's own explanations of his quotations are discussed.Given the fact that about half of all the quotations were taken from the Psalter, as well as the fact that Ad Hebraeos opens (1:5) and ends (13:6) with quotations from the Psalms, it also seems logical to begin the first steps on our journey within the Book of the Psalms.

Grouping the quotations
In a preliminary survey of the explicit quotations encountered in Hebrews, it became clear that the quotations can be grouped in three ways.The first group consists of quotations that the author found already in use by his tradition.He uses the same quotations, but sometimes quotes longer and comments on the quotations presented (eg Ps 8:5-7 in Heb 2:6-9).The second group represents possible knowledge of a quotation used in the tradition, but the author himself chose to quote from another part or section of the same passage (eg Ps 2:7 in Heb 1:5).The third group represents quotations which are not to be found anywhere in the existing Jewish or early Christian literature which pre-dates Hebrews (eg Ps 40:7-9 in Heb 10:5b-7).Many of these are long quotations including the longest in the NT, that of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8.It can be assumed, fairly safely, that the selection and origin of these quotations can be attributed to the author of Hebrews.

Psalm 8 in the early Jewish and early Christian pre-Hebrews tradition
There are no explicit quotations from Ps 8:5-7 to be found in the early Jewish literature.However, allusions to Ps 8:5 and 8:7 occur in 1QS3, 17-18 and 11:20 (McLean 1992:67).Turning to early christianity, it is clear that Ps 8 was known and used in early christianity.The following occurrences serve as evidence: A possible conflation is suggested in Mk 12:36 between Ps 8:7 and Ps 110(109):1 with the presence of uJ pokav tw in the Markan reading being taken as evidence for this possibility (Luz 1968:344-5;Breytenbach 1997:197-222).
Paul quotes Ps 8:7 explicitly in 1 Cor 15:27, and so does the author of Eph 1:22.Both readings are identical and no textual variations amongst the witnesses are to be found in either of these readings.It is specifically quoted in an eschatological manner (Koch 1986:287;Gräßer 1992b:164) with a christological application or interpretation in both instances (Schröger 1968:82;Hawthorne 1993:12).Both are also preceded and combined with Ps 110(109):1, and both are followed by a short exegetical commentary.After the failure of the first Adam, all things are subjected to the second Adam "who triumphs through obedience, and fulfils the destiny of race" (Kirkpatrick 1906:36;Van den Brink 1993b:212;Girdwood 1997).
Apart from the explicit quotations in the NT, the only possible reference (according to NA27) referring to verse 4 of Ps 8, is to be found in Rm 1:20.
Ps 8:3 is also explicitly quoted in Mt 21:16 by Jesus in connection with himself with no textual variations amongst the witnesses.
Hengel found an underlying christological template which corresponds with the early christological hymns (Hengel 1980:9).
A papyrus-fragment was found (Papyrus Wien Nr. 180) containing Ps 8:2 as a writing exercise of a pupil, probably from the Christian era.It indicates how the Psalter took over the same function as Homer had in the past for such excercises (Siegert 2001:97).
Hebrews' use and application of Ps 8 builds on this early Christian tradition in the sense that (a) it is used again by the author, (b) it is again linked with Ps 110(109):1, and (c) it is again briefly commented upon.Koch pointed out that it is less likely that both Paul and the author of Hebrews independently found the quotation from Ps 8:7.(The same also applies to Hab 2:4).Neither can literary dependency on Paul by Hebrews be proved (Kistemaker 1961:29), nor pre-Pauline christian usage of both quotations (Kistemaker 1961: 29;contra Dodd 1953:33).It was usually assumed in the past that Ps 8:7 had already acquired a traditional christological interpretation.However, according to Koch, one should rather assume that Ps 8:7 (and Hab 2:4) found an established place through Paul in the chris-tian tradition, and that the author of Hebrews took this up and reworked it independently.This is supported by the fact that Hebrews quotes every time a larger section than Paul (Koch 1986: 244-5).
Ps 8 is a song which probably was compiled from two tradition elements, the first is found in verses 2-3, the second in verses 4-9 (Kaiser 1994:207;Beyerlin 1976:1-22).This would mean that the quotation from Ps 8:3 in Mt 21:16 comes from the first element whilst the other NT writers (Paul and the authors of Ephesians and Hebrews) quoted from the second tradition element of Ps 8.The author of Hebrews quotes almost the whole of the second element, i.e. verses 5-7.Schematically, the situation could be presented as follows: The motif of everything which is submitted under the feet (Heb 2:8), reminds immediately of Ps 110(109):1 where the enemies become a footstool for the king (Pryor 1981:45;Lane 1998).This might actually have been the link which was made between the two passages and might explain why they were combined in the tradition so that Ps 110(109):1 and Ps 8:7 were quoted in close connection with each other in the early Christian tradition.Going back to Paul, it was pointed out that his quotation from Ps 8:7 in 1 Cor 15:27 was preceded by Ps 110(109):1 in 15:25.A similar phenomenon occurred in Eph 1:20-22 where Ps 110(109):1 is alluded to before the actual quotation from Ps 8:7 follows in Eph 1:22.Also here in Hebrews the last quotation cited before the quotation from Ps 8:5-7 in Heb 2:6-8, was the quotation from Ps 110(109):1 in Heb 1:13 (Kistemaker 1961:29;Lindars 1961:50-1, 168-9;Loader 1977/8:209-213;Attridge 1989:72;Weiss 1991:194;Gräßer 1990:117;Gräßer 1992a:192;Fensham 1998).According to Erich Gräßer, Hebrews stands with its demolishing of the diabolos doubtlessly in the tradition of old liturgical material, supported by the application of Ps 110 (109):1 and Ps 8:7 that acknowledge the submission of powers to the exalted Christ in the sense of the hellenistic acclamation (1992a: 192).This combination of Ps 110(109):1 and Ps 8:7 which already existed in the tradition (Weiss 1991:194;Gräßer 1990:117), supports the link between Heb 1:13 and 2:6ff (Luz 1968:343;Brandenburger 1962:235;Gräßer 1992a:192).
This raises again the question about the existence of a possible list of quotations, some sort of testimonia, similar to the list encountered in 4Q174.Evidence for the existence and use of such a written list of proof texts does not convince (Karrer 2002:169).The least that one could say, though, is that we are dealing here with "a common exegetical tradition upon which Christian writers drew" (Lane 1998).

PSALM 8:5-7 IN HEBREWS 2:6-8
Ps 2:7 served to substantiate the exalted position of the divine Son ("Son of God") in Heb 1:5 and 5:5.The quotation from Ps 8:5-7, however, is used to show how the earthly Jesus was made inferior to the angels ("Son of Man") for a short while in Heb 2:6-8.The author of Hebrews shifts in his argumentation from proving that Jesus is far above the angels, to a position where he explains now how "it came about that he had appeared as a man, and was known as a human being" (Clements 1985:39).Barth already pointed to the fact that, except for John's Gospel, no other book of the New Testament "puts the real deity and true humanity of Jesus Christ so clearly side by side" (Barth 1962:58).Ps 8, which expresses the exalted position of man in relation to the angels, is now almost ironically used to point to the inferior position of Jesus in relation to the angels.The "Son" who is now the reflection of the glory of God (Heb 1:3), was demoted to the state of a human being.
The quotation from Ps 8:5-7 is the first quotation encountered in Hebrews where the author presents a brief explanation, an exegetical exposition or commentary, on the passage that he quoted.More cases of similar expositions of the Scripture quoted by him, would be encountered later in his work, eg when he quotes Ps 96( 95) and comments on it in Heb 3:7-4,11 and when he quotes Ps 40 in Heb10:5-10.This methodology shows some resemblances with the pesher method as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Weiss 1991:194;Schröger 1968:25, 258, 260).As the question posed here is primarily a tradition historical one, this study will concentrate only on the explicit quotation from Ps 8 itself in Heb 2:6-8a and not on the author of Hebrew's commentary in Heb 2:8b-9.

Adaptation of the quotation in Hebrews
The author starts his quotation with the opening words of a rhetorical question: tiv ej stin (2:6).This surely appealed to him given his stylistic abilities and preferences -also towards rhetorical questions in his argumentation.This is the way in which he opened his catena of seven quotations in 1:5 (tiv ni ga; r -kai; pav lin) and this is the way in which he ended it in 1:13 (pro; ~ tiv na …).
Neither the specific place of the reference in Scripture, nor the human author of it is important for the author of Hebrews.The speaker's identity therefore remains here indefinite (Attridge 1989: 70).The Word is spoken word, i.e. living word, and the authority of the quoted words are contained rather in the words themselves (Müller 1986:238).In the words of Lane: "Precisely because it is God who speaks in the OT, the identity of the person through whom he uttered his word is relatively unimportant.A vague allusion is sufficient" (Lane 1998).This is a typical characteristic of the author of Hebrews.All the quotations are connected to God, to the Holy Spirit, or to the Son.Human authors do not feature here.The exception is 4:7 which has David as author of Ps 95, but even in this instance Ps 95 was quoted already before and connected to the Holy Spirit (3:7).No wonder that the author himself made no effort to ensure that future readers would know who he is.Similtanously, though, exactly this feature reveals a fundamental aspect of the author's character.
In Heb 2:6 the text as in NA27 with tiv is supported by a A B D. Other witnesses read here tiv ~: P 46 C * P 81.104.1881.2495 pc d vg mss bo.Zuntz suggested a reading where a[ nqrwpo~ is read as a{ nqrwpo~ and h[ ("or") as h\ ("indeed").This would allow for a meaningful reading which starts with tiv ~ instead of tiv (Zuntz 1953: 71, summarised by Attridge 1989:71).This proposed reading is, however, weak.Ellingworth has convincingly argued against this viewpoint (2000:148).It is also rejected by Kistemaker (1961:29) and Attridge (1989:71).Thomas reckoned that this latter reading "originated by a Christian scribe to emphasize the messianic interpretation and application to Jesus" (Thomas 1964/5:323).Weiss is of the opinion that the change from tiv to tiv ~ can be explained from the LXX text tradition itself, which is the reading of Ps 8:5a in Codex A (LXX) (1991:194).Attridge holds a similar viewpoint and sees the change to be due to "a scribal correction to bring the verse into conformity to the LXX text-type represented in A (Attridge 1989:71).Rüsen-Weinhold, in turn, suspects that the epsilon of the following e[ stin could have been easily confused with a sigma which could have resulted in either the inclusion or exclusion of sigma (2002:197).
During a personal discussion on this matter (March 2003), Barbara Aland was of the opinion that the change in P 46 should not be taken too seriously.The papyrus represents a hand which wrote fairly quickly and not always with mechanical correctness.Interesting is, though, that P 46 originally also read tiv ~ instead of tiv between bracuv and par j . It was, however, shortly afterwards corrected -probably even by the same hand as the one that wrote P 46 .
The choice could thus rather be made towards tiv, which is well supported by the strong external evidence of a A and B.

Omission of kai; katesthv sa~ auj to; n ej pi; ta; e[ rga twn ceirwǹ sou
None of the LXX witnesses testify to the possible omission of the phrase Kai; katesthv sa~ auj to; n ej pi; ta; e[ rga twn ceirwǹ sou and all the available texts include it.The same applies to Eusebius (Commentaria in Psalmos 23:37 and 23:48), John Chrysostom (Scr.Eccl.Prooemia in Psalmos (fragmenta) 55:3), John Philoponus (De opi-ficio mundi 25) and Theodoret (Scr.Eccl., Theol: Interpretatio in Psalmos 80:28) who all included it in their discussions on the Psalms -which means that it had been included in their texts.Some NT witnesses too include it: (a A C D * P Y 0121b.0243. 0278. 6. 33. 81. 104. 181. 330. 365. 629. 1505. 1739. 1881. 2464.al lat (sy p.h** ) co arm eth) (Cadwallader 1992:263).Origen (who first quotes Heb 2:9), included the phrase as if his version of the text of Hebrews contained it: Dov xh/ kai; timh/ ej stefav nwsa~ auj tov n kai; katev sthsa~ auj to; n ej pi; ta; e[ rga twǹ ceirwǹ sou (Selecta in Psalmos 12:25).The same applies to John Chrysostom (Scr.Eccl.In epistulam ad Hebraeos, Homiliae 1-34.63:40) and Theodoret (Scr.Eccl., Theol: Interpretationin xiv epistulas sancti Pauli 82:1) who repeat the complete quotation from Ps 8:5-7 in their expositions on Hebrews, by including the phrase under discussion.The external evidence thus prefer the inclusion, which was probably made afterwards due to scribal enlargement and in order to agree with the LXX reading (Metzger 1975:663;Weiss 1991:194;Schröger 1968:80;Attridge 1989:69).The later Coptic translation, which did the same, is a case in point.Ahlborn is of the opinion that the phrase belonged to the original reading in Hebrews.He lists three arguments for his assumption: (a) the fact that it is not a common feature of the author's style to omit parts of a quotation, (b) there are no clear theological reasons for its omission, and (c) the parallelismus membrorum would be broken by the omission (1966:117).Ellingworth pointed out, however, that the argument of breaking the parallelism in the Psalm is not convincing as the author of Hebrews does this in anyway in other places, as in Heb 10:7 where he quotes Ps 40:8a and in Heb 10:17 where he quotes Jer 31:34 (Ellingworth 2000:148).
The omission of this phrase, though, is supported by a few other important witnesses too (P 46 (Chester Beatty, folio 22) B D 2 M vg mss ).Text critics quite rightly prefer the omission of the phrase in their reconstruction of the Hebrews text, including NA27.Especially the weight of the second century Chester Beatty papyrus (P 46 ) and the fact that it is the shorter textual reading, are important text-critical considerations here.The internal evidence also supports the omission.A closer look at the author's commentary (2:8b-9) reveals that the last three phrases of the quotation are commented upon, without any reference to the phrase under debate here.The question is then: why did the author of Hebrews omit this phrase?It could have been a conscious omission based on the content and meaning of the phrase.Or it might have been a non-conscious omission due to the reading of his Vorlage, or to a parablepsis made by the author.
Looking at the possibilities for a non-conscious exclusion of the phrase, it is important to consider the following: according to the surviving evidence at our disposal, it is highly unlikely that the author's Vorlage had already contained the omission of this phrase.There are no textual witnesses to Ps 8 that testify to its exclusion.It is thus fairly certain that all the OT versions included the phrase and that the Vorlage at the disposal of the author to the Hebrews contained the phrase as well.The only possibility that is left, is therefore, that the author might have left the phrase out due to a possible parablepsis.However, the linguistic criteria to argue in favour of a parablapsis do not apply here, as the omission does not start and end with the same (or a similar) word which could have resulted in the jump of the eye.This leaves us then -in good company -with the option of a conscious omission of the phrase by the author of Hebrews himself (Pryor 1981:45;Attridge 1989:69, 71;Weiss 1991:194;Van den Brink 1993a:206;Rüsen-Weinhold 2002:197;Schunack 2002:33).But why would he do it?The principle of the author quoting shorter is possibly not foreign to the author of Hebrews.Possible examples might be his condensed versions of OT passages in Heb 7:1f., 10:6f., and the omission of three lines from the quotation of Dt 32:35f. in Heb 10:30 (Ellingworth 2000:148).It is clear that the omitted phrase here in Hebrews 2 describes human reign and man's dominion status in God's creation (Görg 1986:125-148;Steck 1982:221-231).The phrase would then stand against the author of Hebrews' overall argument which he actually made here, namely that Jesus was made lower than the angels.Because the argument then runs along the lines of Jesus' inferiority, the omitted phrase does not fit in the broader argument and is thus left out.Attridge argued along similar lines when he stated that the omission "was probably made because the clause refers quite clearly to the mastery of humanity over the present world and would make more difficult the interpretation in terms of Christ, his temporary subjection, and his eschatological reign" (1989:71; similar also Zuntz 1953:172;Vanhoye 1969:264;Laub 1980:64).Ellingworth sees the author's main concern to be "with human beings and their place in the 'world to come' not with creation as a whole (2000:149).If the omitted phrase is compared with the very similar line found in the quotation from Ps 102(101), 26ff in Heb 1:10, the pieces of the puzzle start to fall into placealthough for a different reason as suggested by scholars in the past (Schröger 1968:82;Ellingworth 2000:149).It was assumed that the phrase was left out because Heb 1:10 had already stated that the Son participated in the creation (Thomas 1964/5:306;Karrer 2002:168).But the emphasis is probably different.Heb 1:10 mentions that "the heavens are the works of the Lord's hands" (kai; e[ rga twǹ ceirwǹ souv eij sin oiJ ouj ranoiv ).The omitted phrase under discussion states that the "(son of) man" … "was appointed over the works of God's hands".If the "works of your hands" (ta; e[ rga ceirwǹ sou) was understood to be "the heavens" (oiJ ouj ranoiv -as in the quotation in Heb 1:10), then it certainly would not make sense in the author's argument that Jesus, who was now made lower than the angels, could have been appointed over the heavens during his inferior state.The heavens are, after all, the dwelling place of these angels!One could, however, struggle with the presence of the very next line (2:8) which provides a parallel thought (Bruce 1985:31).But there is a difference here.The omitted phrase would have appointed Jesus in his inferior state above the heavens as the work of God's hands and the dwelling place of the angels.The phrase in 2:8 probably allows for submission under his feet of "the world to come" (uJ pev taxen th; n oij koumev nhn th; n mev llousan, 2:5), i.e. of "his enemies" (tou; ~ ej cqrouv ~ sou uJ popov dion twǹ podwǹ sou -quoted from Ps 110 (109):1 in Heb 1:13).Even though it is a similar motif, the object of what is submitted is the difference between heaven and earth -"the world to come" (not yet now).Furthermore, the author would explain how he interprets the concept of "submission" here in his brief commentary that follows the explicit quotation.
Another position, taken here by Kistemaker, does not convince.According to him, "the author does not seem to be interested in retranslating the Hebrew, if he had any knowledge of this language; for Ps. 8 is known to his readers in its Greek translation of the LXX" (Kistemaker 1961:30).With all the textual witnesses to the LXX which include this line, the readers of Hebrews would no doubt know that this line is part of Ps 8.And why would the author anyway only exclude this particular phrase and nothing else?

Interpretation of bracuv ti
bracuv ti is a degree of indefinite approximation and may be translated with "somewhat" or "about", according to Louw and Nida (1988:domain 78.43).It is used as translation by the LXX for f[' M] .So also at 2 Ki 16:1 and Is 57:17.bracuv ~ itself is exclusively used as translation equivalent for f[' M, except once in Exodus.The Hebrew f[' M] usually only expresses the qualitative meaning ("a little"), whereas the LXX translation bracuv ti is taken by the majority of scholars in a temporal sense ("a short while") (Harder 1939: 35;Kistemaker 1961:30;Schröger 1968:82-3;Van den Brink 1993a: 206;Moyise 2001:101;Schunack 2002:33).There is a case to be made, though, for the fact that bracuv ~ could be taken in both the LXX and in Heb 2:7 also in a qualitative sense, as in the Hebrew, so that man was made "a little lower than the angels" and not "a little while".Louw and Nida supports this interpretation in saying that the expression bracuv ti as a lexical unit in Heb 2:7 refers to rank (Louw & Nida 1988:domain 78.43).Pryor also takes both the MT and the LXX to refer to degree rather than to time as "there is no hint of eschatological progression".The change from a qualitative to a temporal meaning was then made by the author of Hebrews (Kistemaker 1961:30).He found several indications "that the author has chosen to give this phrase a temporal meaning which it may not have had originally" (Pryor 1981:44-5).This viewpoint is confirmed by Louw and Nida who reckons that Heb 2:8-9 "…suggests that the writer of Hebrews probably interpreted βραχύ as meaning a small quantity and as referring to time in the sense of a 'little (while)'" (Louw & Nida 1988:domain78.43).The author comes back in his discussion on the quotation to this phrase, and it is especially in the light of his comments in 2:9 that it seems as if he intends the phrase to be taken in a temporal sense.He uses the word again in Heb 13: 22, saying that he wrote only "a few" words or "briefly".

Par j aj ggev lou~ as translation for µyhi l¿ aÔ me
The LXX uses a[ ggeloi as a translation for 'elohim, i.e. "a little lower than angels".It is also attested by the Psaltererium Gallicanum (G) of Hieronymus and Codex a. "Hiernonymus hat G entsprechend mit angelis, seine hebräische Vorlage aber mit a Deo übersetzt" (Kaiser 1994:208).The Coptic version also has "angels" here.The Hebrew, on the other hand, reads "a little lower than God / heavenly beings".The later versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, again translated elohim with qeov ~.The possible ambiguity in meaning (either "God" or "heavenly beings"/"gods") swayed the LXX translators to the latter.The translators of the Greek LXX clearly made their choice here on theological grounds in order to differentiate between the God of Israel und subordinate divine beings (Schenker 2001:191, 193).This interpretation is also to be found in Targum Jonathan (Kistemaker 1961:30;Lane 1998;Van den Brink 1993b:206).The "heavenly beings" were probably understood to be the members of the heavenly court, based on a Canaanite background (Attridge 1989:71;Cooke 1964:22-47).Schröger summarises the situation appropriately by saying: Es kommt aber dabei so heraus, daß der griechische Text von einer Erniedrigung im Vergleich zu den Engeln spricht, während im Urtext von einer sachlich geringfügigen 'Erniedrigung' im Vergleich mit Gott die Rede war; aber gerade das paßt dem Verfasser in sein Konzept (1968:83).

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE VORLAGE OF THE QUOTATION
The following conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the analysis and discussion above: The readings of the quotation from Ps 8:7b in 1 Cor 15:27 and Eph 1:22 correspond with each other.Both have the same reading with the same differences in comparison with that of the LXX.Both only quote Ps 8:7b, starting and ending at the same place.Hebrews, however, shows three major differences here: (i) He starts the quotation much earlier (Ps 8:5), but also ends with the quotation at the same place.This longer version is probably an indication that he independently reworked Ps 8:7 from the early Christian (Pauline?)tradition from which he received it (Koch 1986:245).(ii) The reading of the section from Ps 8:7b in Heb 2:8 corresponds closely with the reading of the LXX (uJ pev taxa~; uj pokav tw + gen.pl), against the readings of 1 Cor 15:27 and Eph 1:22 (uJ pev taxen; uJ pov + acc.pl).It should be noted, however, that although there might have been phrase of Ps 8:7a.In this investigation, it was argued that its exclusion should rather be preferred, based on the external evidence of Papyrus 45 and the internal evidence of the author's commentary on the Psalm quotation that excludes a discussion of this particular phrase.• The author of Hebrews thus reworked and interpreted the quotation that he had found from his tradition in order to fit within its newly given context.He (i) starts earlier with the quotation, (ii) omits a phrase from the known LXX readings and (iii) presents a short commentary (Heb 2:9ff).Karrer clearly pointed out how the author also masterly interpreted the quotation both anthropologically (according to its LXX context), as well as christologically (according to its early christian context) (Karrer 2002:169).

•
This quotatation was known to the early Christian tradition.It is quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 15:27.It is also quoted in Eph 1:22 and in Mt 21:16.There is a possibility that it was Paul who established its place in the early Christian tradition.The author of Hebrews got it somehow from this early Christian tradition.