1 Käsemann, E., Das wandernde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief (FRLANT 55/N.F. 37; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961 ⁴)Google Scholar; Theißen, G., Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief (SNT 2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1969)Google Scholar; Braun, H., An die Hebräer (HNT 14; Tübingen: Mohr, 1984) 93Google Scholar.

2 Hofius, O., Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT 11; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1970)Google Scholar.

3 Two recent studies arguing for an apocalyptic background are Moffitt, D. M., Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (NovTSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barnard, J. A., The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT ii/331; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012)Google Scholar.

4 Eisele, W., Ein unerschütterliches Reich: Die mittelplatonische Umformung des Parusiegedankens im Hebräerbrief (BZNW 116; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Svendsen, S. N., Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews (WUNT ii/269; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009)Google Scholar.

5 Mackie, S. D., Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT ii/223; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 114Google Scholar; cf. Sterling, G. E., ‘Ontology versus Eschatology: Tensions between Author and Community in Hebrews’, SPhiloA (2001) 190–211 Google Scholar. For an insightful discussion of the problem see also the contributions of J. W. Thompson, ‘What Has Middle Platonism to Do with Hebrews?’ and Mason, E. F., ‘Cosmology, Messianism, and Melchizedek: Apocalyptic Jewish Traditions and Hebrews’, in Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students (ed. Mason, E. F. and McCruden, K. B.; SBLRBS 66; Atlanta: SBL, 2011) 31–52 Google Scholar and 53–76, respectively.

6 Laansma, J., ‘I Will Give You Rest’: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4 (WUNT ii/98; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 354Google Scholar.

7 Laansma, Rest, 356; similarly Allen, D. L., Hebrews (NAC 35; Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2010) 298Google Scholar. See also Schenck, K. L., Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice (SNTSMS 143; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who comes to the same conclusion for Hebrews as a whole: ‘Even if it [sc. Hebrews] has motifs reminiscent of certain background traditions, the author surely was capable of putting such imagery to new and unique uses in the light of his own particular situation and theology. The identification of a general background and common language does not necessarily imply how an individual author has used that imagery in a specific context.’

8 For the structure and argumentation of Heb 3.7–4.11 see, besides the commentaries, Attridge, H. W., ‘“Let Us Strive to Enter that Rest”: The Logic of Hebrews 4:1–11’, HTR 73 (1980) 279–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Löhr, H., ‘“Heute, wenn ihr seine Stimme hört …”: Zur Kunst der Schriftanwendung im Hebräerbrief und in 1 Kor 10’, Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum (ed. Hengel, M. and Löhr, H.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994) 226–48Google Scholar; Enns, P., ‘The Interpretation of Psalm 95 in Hebrews 3.1–4.13’, Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (ed. Evans, C. A. and Sanders, J. A.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 352–63Google Scholar; DeSilva, D. A., ‘Entering God's Rest: Eschatology and the Socio-Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews’, TJ 21 (2000) 25–43 Google Scholar; Kraus, W., ‘Heb 3,7–4,11 as a Midrash on Ps 94 (LXX)’, Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism. FS F. García Martínez (ed. Ausloos, H., Lemmelijn, B. and Vervenne, M.; Leuven: Peeters, 2008) 275–90Google Scholar; Steyn, G. J., ‘The Reception of Psalm 95 (94):7–11 in Hebrews 3–4’, Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception (ed. Human, D. J. and Steyn, G. J.; New York: T & T Clark, 2010) 194–228 Google Scholar.

9 The author quotes the text with a number of variants, of which only one is important for the present study: the insertion of διό in 3.10 that will be discussed below. For a detailed discussion of the Vorlage and its adaptions by the author of Hebrews, see Steyn, G. J., A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews (FRLANT 235; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011) 172–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Cf. Ps 94.8 LXX/Heb 3.8: μὴ σκληρύνητε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν … From the psalm text itself it is not precisely clear if we hear the psalmist's or God's voice, since God is first referred to in the third person (v. 8: αὐτοῦ), but then from v. 9 on in the first person. The author of Hebrews, however, regards the whole quotation as words of the Holy Spirit (4.7).

11 Additionally, the author uses aspects of Num 14 in order to dramatise the destiny of the unfaithful, as has been pointed out by Vanhoye, A., ‘Longue marche ou accès toute proche? Le contexte biblique de Hébreux 3,7–4,11’, Bib 49 (1968) 9–26 Google Scholar and Hofius, Katapausis, 134–7.

12 In 1 Kings 8.56 Solomon explicitly states that the promise of rest has been fulfilled.

13 David is the writer, but not the author: for the author of Hebrews, the words of the psalm are those of the Holy Spirit (3.7) who speaks through David (ἐν Δαυὶδ λέγων, 4.7). The precedence of speech to writing in Hebrews’ use of Scripture has been elaborated by Theobald, M., zum, ‘Vom Text “lebendigen Wort” (Hebr 4,12)’, Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums. FS O. Hofius (ed. Landmesser, C.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997) 751–90Google Scholar.

14 The figure of Joshua in Hebrews has attracted much attention in recent scholarship as two monographs claim that there is a ‘Joshua typology’ in Hebrews: see Ounsworth, R., Joshua Typology in the New Testament (WUNT ii/328; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012)Google Scholar and Whitfield, B. J., Joshua Traditions and the Argument of Hebrews 3 and 4 (BZNW 194; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This may be supported by the fact that the author calls Joshua by his Greek name Ἰησοῦς without explicitly stating that he does not mean Jesus. I am, however, rather hesitant as to whether it is appropriate to speak of a typology, since both monographs must base their arguments on what is not said in Hebrews, but I can agree that the puzzling mention of a ‘Jesus’ in connection to Canaan may serve to prepare the reader for interpreting v. 10 as a reference to ‘the other Jesus’.

15 Most scholars connect this exegetical procedure to the rabbinic rule of gezerah shawah. However, the method of elucidating an unclear term by consulting other instances where the meaning of this term is more obvious is a scholarly method of interpretation often practised in antiquity: cf. Lanzinger, D., ‘Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefs als antiker Philologe: Zur Methodik der innerbiblischen Begriffsklärung in Hebr 4’, PZB (2011) 81–94 Google Scholar. The link between the two texts is possible only in Greek but not in Hebrew, where different terms are used (מנוחה vs שבת).

16 The author quotes this verse in 4.4 with two variants from our LXX text: he amends the subject ὁ θεός and inserts the preposition ἐν before τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. These variants are also found in Philo, Post. 64, which may be explained by ‘either a common Vorlage that was used by both, or dependence on Philo by Hebrews’: Steyn, Vorlage, 204.

17 Cf. Moore, N. J., ‘Jesus as “The One who Entered his Rest”: The Christological Reading of Hebrews 4.10’, JSNT 36 (2014) 383–400 Google Scholar. He argues from a comparison of the use of tenses in Hebrews that both verb forms in 4.10 are more likely to refer to the past. Accordingly, he suggests the translation: ‘For the one who entered God's rest has himself also rested from his works, just as God did from his’ (ibid., 393). See also DeSilva, D. A., Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 167–8Google Scholar.

18 Cf. Hofius, Katapausis, 102–6, who refers to Plutarch, Superst. 3 (166 A); Justin, Dial. 23.3; Epiphanius, Pan. 30.2.2; Mart. Pet. Paul 1; Apos. Con. 2.36.2.

19 Cf. Bornemann, E. and Risch, E., Griechische Grammatik (Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg, 1978 ²) 312 Google Scholar.

20 See especially Thompson, J. W., The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews (CBQMS 13; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982) 81–102 Google Scholar, who provides a useful collection of the relevant Philo parallels, but does not exhaust their potential for understanding Hebrews 4.

21 Schenck, K., ‘Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews: Ronald Williamson's Study after Thirty Years’, SPhiloA 14 (2002) 112–35Google Scholar. The commonalities between Philo and Hebrews allow him at least to conclude that ‘it is not unlikely that both had significant connections to the Egyptian city of Alexandria’ (126). Cf. also Runia, D. T., Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (CRINT 3.3; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993) 74–8Google Scholar.

22 Niehoff, M. R., Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 170–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with reference to Harker, A., Loyalty and Dissidence in Roman Egypt: The Case of the Acta Alexandrinorum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 10–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Niehoff, M. R., ‘Philo's Exposition in a Roman Context’, SPhiloA 23 (2011) 1–21 Google Scholar. Given the fact that the embassy led by Philo had only two encounters with the emperor, we can assume that Philo had a lot of time for writing, but also for introducing himself to the Jewish communities in Rome and for sharing his ideas with them.

23 A short summary of the arguments (cf. Backhaus, K., Der Hebräerbrief (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 2009) 25–6Google Scholar): (a) the greetings by οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας in 13.24; (b) the earliest reception of Hebrews by 1 Clem. and Herm.; (c) the placement of Hebrews directly after Romans in the earliest manuscript ( ⁴⁶); (d) the existence of ἡγούμενοι (13.7, 17 and 24), a function only attested in Rome in first-century Christianity; (e) a Roman context fitting some aspects of Hebrews well, see especially the probable reference to the Neronian persecution in 10.33–4, 12.4 and 13.3.

24 See Williamson, R., Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (ALGHJ 4; Leiden: Brill, 1970)Google Scholar, arguing against the assumption of a direct dependency made in the influential commentary of Spicq, C., L’épitre aux Hébreux (EtB; Paris: Gabalda, 1952/53²)Google Scholar, who regards the author of Hebrews as a Christian Philonist. See also Hurst, L. D., The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought (SNTSMS 65; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 7–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barrett, C. K., ‘The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology (ed. Davies, W. D. and Daube, D.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964) 363–93Google Scholar, at 396, on Philo's eschatology: ‘Nothing could be more remote from Hebrews.’

25 This has also been suggested by G. E. Sterling, ‘The Place of Philo of Alexandria in the Study of Christian Origins’, Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum, 1.–4. Mai 2003, Eisenach/Jena (ed. R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 21–52, at 25: he doubts that a direct connection to any NT author can be proven, but at the same time believes ‘that there is a very strong indirect connection between Philo's treatises and documents in the NT’. G. Holtz has recently suggested a similar model for grasping Philo's influence on Paul. She argues that the Hellenistic synagogues in Jerusalem may have been the place where Paul got acquainted with Philo's mindset, probably without having direct access to his writings: see Holtz, G., ‘Von Alexandrien nach Jerusalem: Überlegungen zur Vermittlung philonisch-alexandrinischer Tradition an Paulus’, ZNW 105 (2014) 228–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Cf. Sterling, G. E., ‘“A Man of the Highest Repute”: Did Josephus Know the Writings of Philo?’, SPhiloA 25 (2013) 101–13Google Scholar; Goodman, M., ‘Philo as Philosopher in Rome’, Philon d'Alexandrie: un penseur à l'intersection des cultures gréco-romaine, orientale, juive et chrétienne (ed. Decharneux, B. and Inowlocki, S.; Turnhout: Brepols, 2011) 37–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 On the following, see Calabi, F., ‘Le repos de Dieu chez Philon d'Alexandrie’, Philon d'Alexandrie, 185–204 Google Scholar. See also Burer, M. H., Divine Sabbath Work (BBRS 5; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012) 27–102 Google Scholar, who offers an overview of ancient Jewish understandings of Sabbath.

28 All translations are taken from the Loeb Classical Library volumes of Philo's works.

29 Philo prefers ἀνάπαυσις to κατάπαυσις; sometimes he also uses ἠρεμία (see the quotation of Post. 28 below). However, this difference in terminology between Philo and Hebrews should not be overstated as it can easily be explained by the fact that Hebrews draws on a text that explicitly uses κατάπαυσις, which is not the case with Philo.

30 A very similar statement is made by Aristobulus, fragment 5a ( Holladay, Carl R., ed. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. iii: Aristobulus (SBLTT 39; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995) 183 Google Scholar): ‘Thus God's resting does not imply, as some suppose, that God ceased from activity; for, being good, if he should ever cease from doing good, then he would cease being God, which is sacrilege even to say. His having “ceased” is, therefore, that he had arranged to preserve intact for all time the original arrangement of the created order, and that each of the things created had “ceased” being part of the primordial chaos.’ In Philo's times, this was probably a quite common idea in Alexandrian Judaism. On Aristobulus’ concept of Sabbath, see the insightful comments by de Vos, J. C., ‘Aristobulus and the Universal Sabbath’, Goochem in Mokum, Wisdom in Amsterdam: Papers on Biblical and Related Wisdom Read at the Fifteenth Joint Meeting of the Society of Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap, Amsterdam, July 2012 (ed. Brooke, G. J. and VanHecke, P.; Leiden: Brill, 2016) 138–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 See also Opif. 100, where the same idea is expressed in connection with the seventh day of creation.

32 In some of his writings Philo even suggests that creation is eternal: see Sterling, G. E., ‘Creatio temporalis, aeterna, vel continua? An Analysis of the Thought of Philo of Alexandria’, SPhiloA 4 (1992) 15–41 Google Scholar; Winston, D., ‘Philo's Theory of Eternal Creation: De Prov. 1.6–9’, PAAJR 46/7 (1980) 593–606 Google Scholar.

33 Philo has discussed first Noah's epithet ‘just’/δίκαιος (Gen 6.9) before proceeding to ‘rest’.

34 Cf. Weiss, H., ‘Philo on the Sabbath’, SPhiloA 3 (1991) 83–105 Google Scholar, at 102: ‘Sabbath observance means the change from practical to contemplative activity.’

35 Cf. e.g. Barrett, ‘Eschatology’; Sharp, J. R., ‘Philonism and the Eschatology of Hebrews: Another Look’, EAJT 2 (1984) 289–98Google Scholar.

36 The instances are discussed in Grabbe, L. L., ‘Eschatology in Philo and Josephus’, Judaism in Late Antiquity, part 4: Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity (ed. Avery-Peck, A. J. and Neusner, J.; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 163–88Google Scholar.

37 The author of Hebrews, however, does not engage with speculations on seven as a number. This is a difference not in the concept of rest but in the method of elaborating it: the author of Hebrews prefers to argue from the literal meaning of Scripture, while Philo additionally draws on arithmology.

38 Eisele, Reich, 237, describes Philo's approach accurately as ‘[e]ine Eschatologie als Aretalogie’.

39 This is also pointed out as the most significant difference by Weiss, H., ‘ Sabbatismos in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, CBQ 58 (1996) 674–89Google Scholar, at 689.

40 Cf. Steyn, Vorlage, 182–3. He ranks this variant among the ‘[c]ontextual adaptations for the readers of Hebrews’. The assumption that it is an intentional insertion by the author of Hebrews is supported by the fact that he shows awareness of the original reading in 3.17.

41 Enns, ‘Interpretation,’ 355; similarly Thompson, J. W., Hebrews (Paideia; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008) 84 Google Scholar, and many other commentaries.

42 This solution is suggested by Weiss, ‘Sabbatismos’, 683. Karrer, M., Der Brief an die Hebräer: Kapitel 1–5,10 (ÖTK 20/1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2002) 216 Google Scholar goes even further in suggesting reading τῶν ἔργων in 4.3 predominantly as a back-reference to τὰ ἕργα in 3.9. The ‘works’ would then be a second keyword which connects the two quotations.

43 Johnson, L. T., Hebrews: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006) 127 Google Scholar concludes for the interpretation of 4.3 that ‘we must take the aorist passive participle genēthentōn not as “done and finished” at the beginning, but as “still done and being done” from the time of the world's foundation’.

44 Cf. Attridge, ‘Rest’, 283.

45 Cf. Wray, J. H., Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth: Early Christian Homiletics of Rest (SBLDS 166; Atlanta: Scholars, 1998)Google Scholar.

46 Cf. Hofius, Katapausis, who insists that κατάπαυσις is a ‘Ruheort’; see also Lincoln, A. T., ‘Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the New Testament’, From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (ed. Carson, D. A.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983 ²) 197–220 Google Scholar. More recently, the spatial interpretation has been renewed by Laansma, Rest, 277–83.

47 de Vos, J. C., ‘Hebrews 3:7–4:11 and the Pragmatic Function of Mental Time-Space Landscapes’, Constructions of Space iii: Biblical Spatiality and the Sacred (ed. Økland, J., de Vos, J. C. and Wenell, K.; New York: Bloomsbury, 2016) 176–90Google Scholar.

48 Cf. Calaway, J. C., The Sabbath and the Sanctuary: Access to God in the Letter to the Hebrews and its Priestly Context (WUNT ii/349; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013)Google Scholar, who points out that a connection of both topics exists not only in Hebrews, but already within the Old Testament.

49 My considerations follow Moore, ‘Jesus’, 393–4.