258 clare k. rothschild
concepts of the epistle.”62 westcott refers to ἅπαξ as “characteristic of
the epistle.”63 recently, James thompson devotes an entire article to this
concept in Hebrews.64 thompson not only refers to “once-for-all” as a
“consistent feature of the argument of Hebrews,”65 he also underscores
its importance in Hebrews as “distinctive”:
the importance of this focus on the “once for all” quality of the christ event
is evident in the fact that the term [ἅπαξ or ἐφάπαξ] is used more in Hebrews
than in all other new testament books combined.... this contrast between
the one and the many is a distinctive feature of Hebrews.66
the significance of ἐφάπαξ in Hebrews coupled with the unmistakable rar-
ity of the expression in both literary and documentary evidence demands
an explanation.67 If we assume that Hebrews was written after romans
(I am not aware of any scholar who reverses this order), then three pos-
sible causes for occurrences of ἐφάπαξ in romans and Hebrews emerge:
(1) separate occurrences represent coincidence; (2) both romans and
Hebrews relied on a common “source”; and (3) Hebrews relied on romans.
absence of occurrences of ἐφάπαξ prior to romans radically diminishes
the cogency of explanation (1). absence of occurrences of ἐφάπαξ prior
to romans likewise reduces the likelihood of explanation (2). with fur-
ther reference to explanation (2), as I have stated previously, although
appealing to stock traditions is viewed as a more cautious explanation
than literary reliance on paul’s letters, literary reliance on the pauline cor-
pus is provable, whereas hypotheses concerning shared access are not.68
Identical applications of the word in romans and Hebrews commend
explanation (3). what is more, prominence of the theme that “once-for-
all” signifies in Hebrews suggests that a primary motivation for its compo-
sition was precisely to explain and interpret certain compact and important
sententia in Rom 6:10.69 demand for an explanation of paul’s summative
62 Epistle to the Hebrews, 131.
63 Epistle to the Hebrews, 148.
64 “EPHAPAX,” 566–81.
65 “EPHAPAX,” 566.
66 “EPHAPAX,” 567.
67 cf. outi leppä’s criteria for establishing literary reliance in The Making of Colossians:
A Study on the Foundation and Purpose of a Deutero-Pauline Letter (publications of the
Finnish exegetical society 86; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2003), 28–32. leppä
agrees that a single exceptional word is sufficient for establishing reliance.
68 an expanded version of this claim appears in rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigra-
phon, 117.
69 In romans, paul extends the application of the maxim to believers. see Jewett,
Romans, 407.