hebrews as an instructional appendix to romans 257
predate paul’s letters—a majority of the other occurrences commenting on
Paul’s usage—suggests that ἐφάπαξ was not a common feature of written
or oral parlance. the relative obscurity of the two occurrences prior to
paul (i.e., eupolis and aristophanes of byzantium) strengthens the argu-
ment. Given its rarity and late attestation, this word alone suggests liter-
ary reliance of Hebrews on romans. However, at this point, context is of
interest. the next section, thus, addresses this topic.
’Εφάπαξ in the Context of Hebrews and Romans
the context of the occurrences of ἐφάπαξ in Hebrews also suggests liter-
ary reliance on romans. prior to computer search engines, scholars some-
times argued for literary reliance of one new testament text on another
on the basis of the proximity of thematic ideas. For example, in his 1932
university of chicago dissertation under e. J. Goodspeed, studying reli-
ance by “pre-catholic christian literature” on paul’s letters, albert edward
barnett argued that, for Jesus’ once-for-all death, Hebrews depends on
romans 6:
ἐφάπαξ is used in the new testament in rom 6:10, 1 cor. 15:6 and Heb 7:27,
9:12, 10:10. Its meaning in Hebrews is in exact agreement with its use in Romans,
denoting something that is final in the sense of not being repeated. Its appli-
cation in 10:10 to the sacrifice of christ makes dependence on romans par-
ticularly probable.60
on his scale of literary reliance, barnett rates this thematic comparison
with a “b” indicating “high degree of probability.”61 barnett arrives at this
conclusion without statistics demonstrating the rarity of the word ἐφάπαξ
outside of early christian literature.
what is more, multiple uses of both the signature expression ἐφάπαξ
and its shortened version ἅπαξ testify to the prominence of Jesus’ once-
for-all death as a theme of Hebrews. montefiore refers to the “once for
all” theme signified by ἐφάπαξ and ἅπαξ in Hebrews as one of the “key
60 “the use of the letters of paul in pre-catholic christian literature” (unpublished
ph.d. diss., university of chicago, 1932), 100, emphasis added.
61 on barnett’s scale for evaluating literary reliance of pre-catholic christian literature
on paul’s epistles, a = “practical certainty”; b = “high degree of probability”; c = “reason-
able degree of probability”; d = “possibility”; and e = “resemblance worthy of note but
which the evidence indicates should not be explained in terms of literary reminiscence”
(“the use of the letters of paul in pre-catholic christian literature,” 2–3). barnett’s table
of results shows an average rating of between c and d for reliance of post-pauline letters
on the seven undisputed letters of paul (111).