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

We must now ask how it was that the
conflation of these two psalm citations came about.
Referring to 1 Cor 15:27 C.K. Barrett 130 writes
"The quotation of Ps CX.l leads Paul (by the exegetical
device qezerah shewah •••
passage in Ps VIII 7 ....
to a similarly worded
A different verb is
used (in Greek, in Hebrew it is the same) but verbal
parallelism between the Psalms is close."
There
seems nothing intrinsically wrong with this judgement
at first sight, but closer examination of the text
concerned reveals a startling deficiency: why should
the author of the epistle cite Ps 8:6 when it adds
nothing to the point of view expressed by Ps 109:1?
If we attempt to apply Barrett's reasoning to the
association of both psalms in Eph 1:20ff a further
difficulty arises, because in this epistle the author
has deliberately chosen to use Ps 8:6 in preference
to Ps 109:1 to express subjection because, having
already cited part of the latter psalm (Eph 1:20b)
he would surely have been able to call the rest of
the verse to mind.
That he does not do so can only
be deliberate.
There are two reasons for Paul's
choice of Ps 8:6 as over against Ps 109:1.
First,
Ps 8:6 had already established itself in preference
to Ps 109:1c in association with Ps 109:1b, a fact
that is reflected by the use made of both psalms in
Reb 1 and 2 and by Mk 12:36 and Mt 22:44.
Secondly,
Ps 8:6 expressed an idea or theological motif that,
-55-