P. Derek Overfield PhD Thesis - Research@StAndrews:FullText

llLindars, OPt cit. p.52, commenting on the relation~
ship between Eph 4:8 and the Targum to the Psalm text
believes that "it is much more likely that we have here
a real case of coincidence rather than actual
dependence".
12H•J • Thackeray, The Relation of Paul to Contemporary
Jewish Thought, London: 1900; p.182, suggests that
may have existed in the basic underlying MT
flpSll
tekt instead of .r Cl e S . But it is not likely, even
if this variant existed, that it would yield ~&cX€V
in the Greek text and ,~fl ~ n) in the Targums.
13E • E • Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament, London:
1957; p.144, argues that it is "more probable" that
~&wX€V represents an interpretation of fl pj than
the existence of a variant Hebrew tradition such as bpn
14This would not be so of course if the author of
Ephesians knew the psalm text as part of a collection
of proof texts. The argument for the existence of
such a collection of texts has gained new impetus
since the discovery of relatively brief collections
of Testimonia at Qumran (4Q Test; cf 4Q Flor).
Even if the existence of such a collection is admitted,
we believe that it was not used by the author of the
epistle. Our argument for this is as follows:
(I) The non-use of Introductory Formulae in the epistle.
Presumably the author would want his readers to know
that his use of OT citations was in line with the
rest of the early Church, and his proceedure for
establishing such a point would surely be his use of
OT formulae complete with Introductory Formulae and
so suggesting a previously established authentication
for his choice of OT text. But as the author seldom
makes use of Introductory Formulae this would not
appear to be the case. (On the use and non-use of
Introductory Formulae in the epistle see below pp.111-15.
(2) Ps 67:19. The fact that this citation is used
with an Introductory Formula may suggest, in light of
the above, that it did in fact come from a Testimonia
collection, but the fact that this is the only definite
occurence of this particular citation in the NT and,
furthermore, when it is used the author finds it
necessary to add his own interpretive comment, count
against any such suggestion that the author was using
a collection of proof-texts.
A brief survey of the material both prior and
subsequent to J.R. Harris, Testimonies, (2 vols.),
Cambridge: 1916, can be found in D. Moody Smith,
xxiv