GNT2012 - Matthew 2-3

The “Magi [μάγοι]” are unique to Matthew’s gospel and fit awkwardly in the story. Nearly everything that occurs in Matthew’s infancy narrative is described as the fulfillment of prophecy (Mt 1.23; 2.6, 15, 18, 23). Even minute details, such as the escape to Egypt or settling in Nazareth, are fulfilled prophecy. Shockingly, the one exception to this fulfillment theme is the conspicuous Magi. Surely, Matthew’s creative exegesis could have made use of Isaiah 18.7, Isaiah 56.6-8, or Ps 72.10-11.  Or why not Isaiah 60.4-6, a text that mentions foreigners carrying “gold” and “frankincense” to Jerusalem in celebration of God’s glory dwelling in Israel? Yet Matthew’s Magi are not depicted as fulfilling prophecy. Matthew surely knew these texts for he cites Isa 56.7 later in his gospel (Mt 21.13). Why, then, are these significant characters uniquely not portrayed fulfilling prophecy? Perhaps Matthew intends an oblique allusion hoping his readers will make the connection? Maybe he hopes to focus his hearers’ attention on Jesus as Israel’s Messiah?

There are not many interesting textual variants in Matthew 2-3, save one. When Jesus comes out of the Jordan River, Matthew 3.17 reads, “And behold a voice from heaven saying, ‘This is my beloved son, in whom I am pleased.” Codex Bezea, a fifth century western text reads otherwise, “And behold a voice from heaven saying to him [προς αυτον], ‘You are [συ ει] my beloved son, in whom I am pleased.” The Western text turns Matthew’s public announcement into a personal message directed explicitly to Jesus. This reading is also found in synoptic parallels (Mk 1.11; Lk 3.22) which both read, “you are [σὺ εἶ] my son.” All three texts allude to the LXX Ps 2.7, an enthronement song of David that reads, “The Lord said to me, ‘You are [εἶ σύ] my son, today I have begotten you.’” This variant is possibly an attempt at harmonization with both the other gospels and Psalm 2. The allusion to Psalm 2 is also an interesting example of an instance where Matthew chose not to exploit an OT text for his fulfillment theme. It is curious to attempt to follow Matthew’s logic in applying the fulfillment theme.

Exciting Fall

It’s the fall again, my favorite time of year. As a sports fan fall is exciting because football is available for mass consumption every weekend at every level, from high school boys to professional athletes. Fall is a fantastic season because of the colors, smells and temperatures. Summer heat gives way to breezy sweat-shirt weather.  The rich green leaves yield to bright yellows, brilliant reds and explosive oranges. The scent of burning charcoal briquettes wafts from tailgates and backyards. The reason I love fall most is the beginning of a new academic year. New students are beginning the journey. Seasoned students are starting the routine again. It’s just a wonderful time to be studying.

This fall I embark on my newest and most challenging research project yet – my thesis. For the sake of what I hope this project will become, I will only say that it concerns Paul’s use of the OT in Romans, and it’s not focused on Romans 1-4 or 9-11. Intrigued? I hope so.

An important part of producing a good thesis is having helpful readers to provide advice, critique and encouragement at appropriate times. Despite the untimely loss of my primary advisor in Dr. Robert Lowery to a lengthy battle with cancer, I am thankful to have Dr. Anthony Le Donne as my primary reader. Anthony is an accomplished scholar who specializes in Jesus studies and Second Temple Judaism. His PhD dissertation, published as The Historiographical Jesus, focused on social memory and historiography applied to historical Jesus studies, which he wrote under James Dunn and John M. G. Barclay at Durham. His more recent book, Historical Jesus: What we can know and how we can know it?, is a popular-level account of what social memory can teach us about Jesus. Needless to say, Anthony is an accomplished scholar.

Anthony also happens to be an incredibly generous person. He has been an invaluable guide in navigating this research project already. After challenging me to produce a “history of interpretation” on my passage, Anthony encouraged me to do an inductive study of Romans and write a paper articulating how my passage fits and functions in Romans. I’m in the middle of this project now and it has been an extremely helpful exercise. Even if the entirety of the final product does not end up in my thesis it has been crucial to solidify my own thoughts.

My second reader, who just recently agreed, is Dr. Mark Reasoner. I do not know Dr. Reasoner personally, and had only passing familiarity with his work until he agreed to participate in this project. Dr. Reasoner wrote his dissertation The Strong and the Weak on Rom 14.1-15.13 under H. D. Betz at University of Chicago and it was published in the prestigious Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series through Cambridge. His most recent book, Romans in Full Circle provides a history of interpretation on some major texts in Romans. I am excited for our first face-to-face meeting in October.

I am beyond grateful to have these two fine scholars interested in my project. I only pray that my collected work, offered for their critique would be acceptable. Perhaps by God’s will we might be refreshed together in Paul’s master epistle and God’s grace.

PhD Dissertation on Paul's use of OT Available for Free

Pastor-scholar Brian J. Abasciano has done a great service and made his PhD dissertation available online, for free no less. It baffles me that PhD dissertations are so difficult to access when they ought to represent some of the best work available. Of course, I do realize that these projects are intended to be converted into books, which Abasciano did. In fact, you can purchase the published version from the publisher for a mere $ 170! Or, you could check out Abasciano's expanded work for free.

Basically, Abasciano follows Richard Hay's argument in Echoes of Scripture that when Paul cites or alludes to an OT passage he his drawing from the larger context of the passage. He also follows Hays's criteria for hearing echoes of Scripture, though he does make expansions to it. In sum, he develops a very clear method for approaching Paul's use of the OT. Abasciano is currently working to expand his thesis to cover all of Romans 9-11, which he hopes will result in the most in depth treatment of the text anywhere.

I'm very much looking forward to interacting with Abasciano's dissertation as I develop my thesis on Romans and as he publishes his lengthy treatment. Until then curious readers should check out a review of Abasciano's dissertation (the published version) by Steve Moyise here. Both Abasciano and Moyise are scholars who take Paul seriously as he interacts with the OT.

My First SBL

After being thoroughly forewarned that a first SBL experience can be quite "off putting," I was prepared for the worst. Thankfully, I enjoyed my time immensely. I met PhD candidates from Notre Dame, Fuller, Durham and Baylor. They were all congenial, showing interest in me and my research interests. In addition to students, I was able to meet with professors from Baylor, Marquette and Durham. They seemed interested in me as a student and answered my questions patiently. There was nothing "off putting" about it. On the contrary, I had a lot of fun.

I owe a special thanks to Mike Whitenton (Ecce Homo) for allowing me to pick his brain on the application process, his experience with applying for a PhD in NT, and GRE advice. All in all, I found the meetings with Mike and others to be helpful, but mostly a confirmation of the track that I was already on. I suppose that's a good sign.

Aside from meetings, I went to numerous papers. I spent my time in sessions focused on Paul and intertextuality. In retrospect, it would have been good to broaden a bit, but alas this was my first time. I quickly learned that the papers can be "hit or miss." Some papers are quite good while others are not very interesting.

One highlight paper was from Matthew Bates, a PhD. candidate at Notre Dame. Bates presented a compelling paper in which he suggested applying principles of "intertextuality" to broaden the hermeneutical net of intertextuality. He considers including Jewish and early Christian texts to be instructive for reading Paul (and I would imagine other NT writers as well). So, for example, reading Paul not only in light of the LXX (source text), but also other Second Temple texts which share the same source text (co-texts), and early Christian literature that shares the same source text (post-texts). I have been very interested in this kind of an approach for quite some time, and I think Bates work might provide a helpful model for appropriating this material into a hermeneutical method. You can read his paper here.

I also found a paper by Ben Witherington III to be quite interesting. He wrote to address intertextuality in an oral world. I confess that I missed his summary, but I found the subsequent discussion quite interesting. You can read his paper here.

Somehow I managed to limit myself to three books:




My first SBL was a whirlwind, but I enjoyed it immensely.

Paul and Scripture: A Welcome Introduction

Steve Moyise has produced a much needed introduction to Paul's use of the Old Testament in his recently published, Paul and Scripture: Studying the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Moyise found his way into this specialized area of NT studies through his work on the book of Revelation‒ the most heavily allusive NT book. Since then, he has made a name for himself participating in a number of collaborative projects and publishing on the use of the OT among various NT writers. In his most recent book, he addresses Paul's use of the OT.

Rather than presenting a new argument about what Paul is doing with scripture, Moyise offers a broad overview of the relevant texts and an introduction to the current methods. The book is comprised of eight chapters preceded by an introduction to Paul and the issues surrounding how he uses the OT. The first seven chapters focus on how Paul uses different sections and genres of scripture. Throughout his analysis Moyise adopts an eclectic approach. "In our study of Paul's explicit quotations we have taken an eclectic view, using whatever methods or approaches were helpful for understanding the particular quotation" (111). His final chapter provides an overview of the three primary methods of analysis‒intertexual, narrative and rhetorical analyses. Moyise has produced a thoughtful introduction that deserves much attention.

The first chapter focuses on Paul's use of creation accounts with particular reference to Adam. Along the way Moyise places Paul's exegesis in the context of second-temple Judaism by observing the various uses of Genesis 1-3 in relevant literature (i.e. Philo, Wisdom of Solomon, Jubilees, 1 Enoch, etc.). Moyise shows how Paul inherits a fundamentally Jewish cosmology and how that informs Paul's understanding of resurrection (16‒20), ethics (21) and anthropology (22‒3). Paul's understanding of the fall is somewhat unique and raises the question of whether or not Paul's soteriology was prospective (plight to solution as in Luther) or retrospective (solution to plight as in Sanders). To begin answering the question Moyise points to the fallen Adam tradition (Romans 5.12-21; 7; Phil 2.6-11; pgs 25‒27) as well the curse tradition (Rom 8; cf. 1 Tim 2.11-15; pgs 27‒29). Moyise concludes that Paul's use of the creation narratives is "primarily christological [. . .] Paul wants to assert that God is recreating humanity in Christ, and the story of Adam gives him a conceptual framework to do so" (30). Moyise, then, considers Paul's theology retrospective. 

The second chapter addresses Paul's most important OT character‒ Abraham. The father of faith is mentioned by name seventeen times in Paul's work, his story is retold in two different Pauline passages (Gal 3-4; Rom 4.1ff.) and is mentioned in reference to Paul's own identity (Rom 11.1; 2 Cor 11.22). Moyise is absolutely correct to point out the significance of other retellings of the Abraham story in second-temple Judaism, "Paul's exposition of Abraham did not take place in a vacuum. It competes with other interpretations [. . .] sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing" (31). After recounting the Abraham story in Genesis and some other common retellings (Gen 12-25; Sirach 44; 2 Macc 1.50-52; James 2.1ff.; pgs 30‒4) Moyise unpacks Paul's retelling (34‒44). Moyise considers Paul's focus on Abraham's faith to be a response to the common retelling of Abraham's story retold to justify uncircumcised Gentiles as part of God's people.

Moyise's third chapter mirrors the structure of the second but focusing on the character of Moses. After describing Moses from the Pentateuch and second-temple stories, Moyise looks at how Paul uses Moses' story. He looks at Paul's use of the Moses and Pharaoh story (Rom 9.15-18; pgs 49‒50), Sinai (Gal 4.21-31; pgs 50‒2), Israel's rebellion under Moses (1 Cor 10.7-10; 52‒55), the contrast of Paul and Moses' ministries (2 Cor 3; 55-7) and the use of Deuteronomy to describe Paul's gospel (Rom 10.5‒13). In the end, "it would appear that Moses is an ambiguous figure for Paul," who has both, "a ministry of death" and a prefiguration of Paul's gospel (59).

Chapter four looks at Paul's confusing statements and use of the "law" or "Torah." Here Moyise provides a helpful introduction to the New Perspective and the issues it raises (62‒8). He also gives attention to Francis Watson's suggestion that Paul is following the antithetical statements of the Law itself, ultimately allowing Gen 15.6 and Hab 2.4 to be the most determinative voice in his theology (68‒71). With a brief nod to the suggestions that Paul's view of the Law developed considerably (Hans Hübner), or that he did not have a coherent 'view' (Heikki Räisänen), Moyise concludes with an appreciative affirmation to all sides of the debate.

Chapters five and six look at how Paul used the prophetic literature. In chapter five Moyise shows how Paul used the prophets in relation to Israel and the Gentiles. Paul saw the prophets as proclaiming his gospel (74‒6), including Gentiles (76‒80) and explaining both the current unbelief of the Jews (80‒3) and their future salvation (83‒4). Chapter six analyzes Paul's use of prophetic literature to "help him discern the pattern of life God expects of the Christian community" (86). One might expect this chapter to focus on purely ethical issues, but Moyise looks at Paul's use of the prophets to address the definition of "faith" and "resurrection" as well as purity and orderly worship. Moyise it seems follows Hays's suggestion of a teleological hermeneutic, "Paul's interpretation is driven by the belief that God's plan to redeem humanity is being realized in the Church, a community of both Jews and Gentiles" (96).

In his seventh chapter Moyise looks at how Paul uses the wisdom literature of Psalms, Proverbs and Job. The psalms, not surprisingly, receive the most attention. Paul explicitly quotes Psalms nineteen times along with two allusive references to Job (5.13; 35.7) and one proverb (25.21-22). It is interesting to observe that the psalms Paul quotes (5, 8, 10, 14, 18, 19, 24, 32, 36, 44, 51, 69, 94, 112, 116, 117, 140) are unique in that no other NT writers quote these psalms (with the exceptions of Pss 8 and 69). Moreover, the most frequently cited psalms in the NT (2, 110, 118) do not appear in Paul's writing at all. These facts suggest that Paul's use of Psalms is some of his most distinctive exegesis (97). Still, Moyise finds Paul's use of Psalms to fit the same categories as his use of the prophets. 

Chapter eight, Moyise's last, addresses the three approaches to Paul's use of the OT in vogue among contemporary interpreters. First, there is the intertextual approach which "focuses on the surrounding context from which the quote is taken" to bring the "connotations and associations from the surrounding verses" (111) represented in the work of Richard Hays (112‒14) and Timothy Berkley (115‒17). Second, there is the narrative approach which "adopts a similar principle [as intertextuality] but suggests that what a text brings with it is not so much the local context but the narrative framework to which it belongs" (111) embodied in the work of N. T. Wright (117‒18), J. Ross Wagner (118), Sylvia Keesmaat (118‒19) and Francis Watson (119‒20). Third, there is the rhetorical approach that "focuses on what Paul does with the text in order to persuade his readers to accept his interpretation" (111) seen in the work of Christopher Stanley (120‒22) and John Paul Heil (122‒23). Moyise's book utilizes all three approaches at various times even while recognizing that they are, in some places, mutually exclusive.

Anyone interested in Paul's use of the OT is sure to benefit from Paul and Scripture. It will, no doubt, raise more questions than offer solutions. Often times one wonders where Moyise lands on a particular issue, but he plays the part of the passive descriptor. He is offering a "state of affairs" on Paul's use of the OT not an argument for what Paul is doing. Nowhere does Moyise adopt a specific approach to Paul's use of scripture but uses each as it suits a particular text. This book is a welcome introduction that introduces the range of approaches and appreciates the complexity of trying to follow Paul as he reads the OT scriptures.

Arguing With Scripture

How might a first-century Christian have heard or understood Paul's argument as he cited the Jewish Scriptures (OT)? This is a particularly relevant question in light of the fact that all of Paul's churches were outside of the land of Israel, often heavily populated by gentiles with very little familiarity with the OT and that Paul quotes the Jewish Scriptures with marked frequency. Most treatments of Paul's use of the OT focus almost exclusively on Paul and his theology. Rarely does one ask what rhetorical affects these quotations were intended to evoke or what unintended affects they may have had. Christopher Stanley seeks to address precisely these issues in his most recent publication, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul.

The central question of Stanley's book is, "Why did Paul [. . .] quote so often from the Jewish Scriptures when writing to predominantly illiterate Gentile audiences who would have been unable to read the Biblical text for themselves?" (x). He betrays some obvious assumptions in the question‒ most glaringly that gentiles would have been unable to read the Biblical texts. There are two assumptions, or insights, from which Stanley developed the book. First, a "configurational" model of rhetoric ought to be able to measure the effectiveness of Paul's citations. Second, the historical reality of widespread illiteracy in the ancient world ought to caution against assuming that Paul's audiences had much, if any, access to the scriptures. Stanley's conclusion is that Paul mainly used scripture to legitimize his authority among churches that questioned him and that he did so with varying degrees of success.

Stanley reaches his conclusion in a two part argument. In part one he lays out his rhetorical approach to evaluating Paul's use of the OT in four chapters. This first part is concerned exclusively with methodolog. The second part is composed of four case studies of his methodology and conclusions derived. Part two evaluates some of Paul's OT citations in 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. The goal of these case studies is to understand Paul's use of the OT from the perspective of his audience and answer whether or not he was effective in using OT quotations. It is time to unpack Stanley's methodology outlined in part one.

Chapter one develops a "configurational" model of rhetoric based on the work of Eugene E. White. White argues that rhetoric ought to be measurable and that since all rhetoric is situational the criteria of evaluation must be "configurational" ‒ that is the criteria of evaluation are configured "in relation to other events and their developments" (The Context of Human Discourse, 12). It sounds complicated but it isn't. Basically, since all rhetoric is prompted by a situation it ought to be measured accordingly. So a politician speaks at a fundraising event differently than at a campaign event or a preacher speaks differently on a Sunday morning than at a funeral. How these rhetorical acts are measured in effectiveness cannot be dependent on some arbitrary standard. Instead, the standard must be "configured" by the rhetorical situation that that prompts the rhetorical act. So a preacher must be measured by the standards of a funeral at a funeral and a Sunday morning sermon on a Sunday morning. It is clear that rhetoric, according to White, is chiefly measurable by the audience's response. "The effective communicator is one who takes full account of the capabilities and likely responses of the audience within a given rhetorical context" (19). Measuring Paul's effectiveness in using quotation depends on how his audience heard them.

Having established a rhetorical model Stanley moves to literary theory since Paul's letters are both oral rhetoric and literary rhetoric. Drawing from the "Speech-Act Theory" Stanley ends up endorsing most strongly the work of Gillian Lane-Mercier. She is a postmodern literary theorist who describes the act of quotation as essentially "a covert attempt by the quoting author to assert power over both the source text and the audience" (34). Quotation is thus a form of domination and manipulation (35) which allows us to "look beyond the apparent innocence of Paul's appeals to Scripture in order to ask about his underlying motives" (36‒37). Stanely sees Paul using the OT primarily to exercise his authority over people ignorant of the Biblical text but willing to submit to it.

Chapter three is the most polemical toward other treatments of Paul's quotations. Stanley is critical of scholarship that has worked under nine assumptions that he suggests are mostly or completely false. All of these assumptions revolve around access to the Scriptures. Based on literacy rates Stanley argues that most of the people in Paul's churches did not have access to the scriptures at all and the ones that could read did not have access to the biblical texts due to expense and the lack of physical evidence indicating otherwise. According to Stanley, these false assumptions must be thrown out in order to evaluate Paul's use of the OT. Despite the fact that Stanley is fairly convinced almost no one had access to the scriptures he cedes to the possibility that Paul's recipients were composed of an eclectic audience (60‒61).

Assuming varying levels of competence in the Scriptures, chapter four sets out to describe a methodology for analyzing Paul's quotations. This amounts to reading Paul's letters from three different perspectives. First, the "informed audience" represents "a person who knows the original context of every one of Paul's quotations and is willing to engage in critical dialog with Paul about his handling of the biblical text" (68). Second, the "competent audience" is composed of people who know "just enough of the Jewish Scriptures to grasp the point of Paul's quotations in their current rhetorical context" (68). Third, the "minimal audience," which Stanley thinks makes up the majority of Paul's churches, consists of those "with little specific knowledge about the content of the Jewish scriptures" usually "illiterate Gentiles" (69). From this method Stanley approaches examples of citation in the case studies of part two (chapters five through nine).

Rather than critique each of Stanley's case studies it is better to evaluate his methodology. It must be observed, first of all, that Stanley has done much to bring methodological clarity to analysis of Paul's use of the OT. Also, he has brought much needed perspective to the complexity of quotation and what it does to an audience, not just how it is used by an author. Still, Stanley's questions will probably outlive his answers which have numerous problems.

The very first assumption of scholarly approach to Paul's citation of the OT that Stanley critiques is the belief that "Paul's audiences acknowledged the authority of the Jewish Scriptures as a source of truth and a guide for Christian conduct" (40 emphasis original). Stanley points out that Jewish scripture was hardly revered in the wider world of the first century. This is a major issue that Stanley never really addresses. In fact, it could undermine his whole project and essentially shows that he hasn't come close to answering the very question he suggests frames his whole argument. Why would Gentiles listen to the Jewish Scriptures as authoritative words from God? If they did not respect the Jewish Scriptures why would Paul appeal to them so frequently and with so much importance? Stanley never adequately addresses these important questions.

Stanley assumes a stance of suspicion towards Paul's use of the OT. This suspicion is based on the assumption that Paul uses the OT as a grasp for power. He describes quotations in Foucaultian language in multiple places suggesting, "even quotations that look like innocent ornamental devices can be heavily 'power coded' when taken from an authoritative source" (14, cf. 34‒37), or more pointedly, "Paul assumed a stance of social and ideological dominance/power over his intended audience, a dominance for which he claimed divine support" (171). So, Scripture in Paul's hands is little more than a "weapon," one that "he did not hesitate to deploy [. . .] when he felt that it would advance his cause" (181). This pomo reading of Paul's citation of the OT is an ideologically charged argument that sounds like a poor description of the author of 1 Corinthians. Scripture citation does have rhetorical effects but assuming the intentions behind the rhetoric are always about domination is unwarranted.

Stanley's book is an important step forward in moving rhetorical analysis beyond structural analysis. Unfortunately, it is almost entirely conjectural to read Paul's writing from the perspective of the audiences about whom we know very little. The mere fact that Stanley is forced to create categories of readers and then assume their responses to Paul's arguments based on no evidence at all is indicative of the fact that this approach can easily become little more than a reader-response guessing game. Arguing with Scripture ought to be a book that forces interpreters to wrestle with the historical realities of widespread illiteracy and the "power" of books and citation. It does not, however, manage to answer the very important question it raises.

Studying Paul’s Citation Practice

Unfortunately it seems that Christopher Stanley's fine work Paul and the Language of Scripture has gone relatively unnoticed in the world of NT academics. An ATLAS search for book reviews yields only six results and only three of those results are from major journals (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Journal of Theological Studies, and Evangelical Quarterly). Despite the general lack of response, Stanley's work appears in numerous bibliographies and has much to commend it. I recently became aware of the book through a bibliographic reference while studying Paul's use of the OT and decided I needed to give it a read. I'm not only glad to have read it, but I had difficulty putting it down – which is something to be said for a book that was originally a PhD dissertation.

First published in 1992 in the SNTS monograph series, Paul and the Language of Scripture (PLS) is an adaptation of Christopher Stanley's PhD. dissertation at Duke University under D. Moody Smith. Smith is now the George Washington Ivey Professor Emeritus of NT at Duke and distinguished scholar of Johannine literature. Filled with untranslated Hebrew, Greek and German the book is certainly identifiable as a PhD. dissertation in NT studies. However, it is also well written lucidly argued and relatively easy to follow. His argument is so fascinating that I've already taken 14 pages of notes and I'm not finished taking notes on the second half!

Stanley seeks to establish two points beyond doubt. First, he argues that "Paul actively adapted the wording of his biblical quotations to communicate his own understanding of the passage in question and to obviate other possible readings of the same text." To establish this point he develops a rigorous methodology for identifying, classifying and analyzing Paul's citations of the OT. Second, Stanley suggests that, "In offering such 'interpretive readings' of the biblical text, Paul was working consciously but unreflectively within the accepted literary conventions of his day" (29). This second thesis is established by analysis of both Greco-Roman and Jewish citation patterns in the first century. Though I might contest some of Stanley's arguments, it seems to me that he has well-proven these two theses.

The book consists of nine chapters in three parts. Part one focuses on bringing much needed clarity to a difficult issue and determining a methodologically sound approach to Paul's citations of the OT. The first part has two chapters that provide a very helpful overview of the methodological issues. Part two, consisting of four chapters, focuses on identifying the source(s) of Paul's quotations (chap 3) and then analyzing his use of the sources (chapters 4‒6). Identifying Paul's sources is an important but often overlooked step in the whole discussion of Paul's use of the OT. To make an anachronistic, but I think still helpful comparison, it is crucial to know which text a preacher is using while preaching. It would be unfair to evaluate a preacher's "use of the text" while looking at the KJV when the preacher was using the NIV. Similarly, one cannot evaluate Paul's use of the OT based on the Masoretic Text (MT) or even the LXX when Paul was most likely using a Greek translation of a Hebrew text that predates the MT and has affinities with a textual tradition not dominate in the LXX tradition. This is of course a difficult task since there aren't copies of "Paul's Bible" lying around. So, Stanley suggests a nuanced method for reconstructing the source Paul used so as to identify his adaptations. After establishing an admittedly minimalistic methodology (56) Stanley launches into his analysis of Paul's use of the text (chapters 4-5) then offers his summary conclusions (chapter 6).

Part three of PLS (chapters 7‒8) focuses on comparing Paul's use of scripture with surrounding literature. In chapter seven, Stanley analyzes Greco-Roman citations of Homer's work (the "Bible" of the Greeks) and compares it with Paul's use of the OT. In chapter eight, Paul is placed alongside other Jewish writers and their citation practice. In the end, Stanley concludes that Paul fits nicely with both Greco-Roman and Jewish citation practices.

There is much to be learned from Stanley especially as it relates to methodology, but let me highlight one of the arguments I found particularly interesting. The issue of Paul's written source is hotly debated. Some have suggested early Christian "testimonia" like what has been found at Qumran (4QTestimonia) while others have advocated the position that Paul quoted from memory. While appreciating but critiquing these arguments Stanley suggests that Paul's citations came from a written source – his own notes. Note taking was, as Stanley cogently argues, widely practiced in Greco-Roman culture and established as regular practice by Paul's day (see pages 73-79). This argument does not leave out the possibility that Paul may have on occasion quoted from memory, particularly more well-known passages (79), but that his usual practice was a written source probably compiled as he wrote.

For anyone interested in Paul's use of the OT this book is a "must-read." If nothing else, it will bring clarity to the host of complex and exciting questions that must be asked in order to appreciate what Paul is doing and how he went about incorporating the OT into his writing.

Child of Promise and Child of Judgment

In an effort to further articulate how the New Testament authors use the OT, I'll be highlighting a number of examples from different New Testament authors. The format I'm using is a comparative chart followed by commentary. In the far left column I've placed my translation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). In the middle column I've placed the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the OT abbreviated by the Latin numerals for "seventy" (LXX) based on a legend about the seventy translators who produced it. It is widely recognized the LXX was the Bible of the early Church and my comparisons will show the NT authors often follow the LXX, though in many cases they seem aware of the MT. There are lots of questions surrounding the textual issues of how the NT uses the OT, but my goal is primarily interpretive. In the far right column I've placed my translation of the NT text. I include the quotation formulas (i.e. "to fulfill what was said" or "as it is written") because I think they are often part of how the NT writers want to use the OT text.

After the comparative chart I've placed commentary. The commentary breaks down into three parts. In part one I discuss the textual issues. Is the NT writer following the LXX or the MT? How closely? What changes are evident? What might these changes signify? I'll admittedly spend less time on these issues than they deserve, but only because they've been rehearsed by those more capable than me in numerous journal articles commentaries and in the very helpful tool‒ Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. In part two, I'll do a brief overview of the OT passage in its original context. More could be said here as well, but the goal is to get a picture of the main point of the passage not capture every interpretive nuance. In part three, I'll look at what the NT author is doing with the passage. I'll answer what context the NT author is placing the OT passage in and then try to answer what the NT writer seems to be "doing."

My goal is to articulate what a NT writer, in this case Matthew, thought he was doing when he quoted the OT. A question I plan to pursue later his how well his audience would have picked up on his interpretive intentions and how much it matters, but I don't have time for that here. To dive right in I've compared Matthew's use of Isaiah 7.14 in Matthew 2:23 which upon even a surface comparative reading is quite problematic for those who suggest the NT writers are doing historical-grammatical exegesis (i.e. Walter Kaiser Jr.).

Isaiah 7.14; 8.8, 10		Matthew 1.22-23
MT (BHS)	LXX	NT
[7.14] Therefore, the lord himself will give to you a sign‒ Behold, the young woman is pregnant and is giving birth to a son, and you will call his name Immanuel. [8.8] "Immanuel." [8.10] "For God is with us."	[7.14] On account of this the Lord himself will give to you a sign‒ Behold, the virgin will be pregnant and she will bear a son, and you will call his name Immanuel. [8.8] "God is with us." [8.10] "Because the Lord God is with us."	[22] So this all happened in order that the word by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled saying, "Behold the virgin will be pregnant and she will bear a son, and you will call his name Immanuel, Which means, "God with us."

Textual Issues:

Much ink has been spilled over this verse. Textually, there are only a couple of features of significant debate. Matthew follows the Septuagint exactly adding only an interpretive gloss on the name Immanuel, which though often overlooked but indicated in my chart, is clearly drawn from later in Isaiah's prophecy (8.8, 10). Both the LXX and Matthew have two interesting differences from the MT. The first, and most significant, is the translation "virgin" parthenos for "young woman" 'al^emâ. There is a lot of debate about this difference since "young woman" does not necessarily imply virginity but simply a woman of marriageable age. The typical Hebrew word for "virgin" is b^etūlâ. The question is why did the LXX translators use parthenos rather than the Greek word neanis appearing elsewhere as the LXX for the Hebrew 'al^emâ (Exod 2.8; Ps 67.26; Song 1.3; 6.8)? There is nothing in the context of Isaiah that would seem to imply this woman is a virgin, but the LXX translators use parthenos. It should be pointed out that in Genesis 24.43 parthenos translates 'al^emâ and contextually the woman, Rebekah, was in fact a virgin. It is difficult to draw much in the way of a conclusion because of the scarcity of the word 'al^emâ in the OT. Suffice it to say Isaiah did not mean virgin but the LXX translators may have meant "virgin."

The second issue is the aspect of the verb for the birth. The MT text has a Qal participle translated "is giving birth" while the LXX and NT have the future indicative "will give birth." The Hebrew text emphasizes the process is happening where as the Greek places the birth in the future. This is not a drastic difference, but it does seem to imply that the Hebrew is indicating a more immediate fulfillment of Isaiah's words.

Context in Isaiah:

Ahaz, the king of Judah, was terrified to learn that Syria and Israel were mounting an attack against Judah (Isa 7.1‒2). In response, Isaiah was sent to reassure Ahaz to trust that God would not allow these renegade kingdoms to overtake Judah (Isa 7.4‒9). To reassure Ahaz Isaiah said, "Ask for a sign of the Lord your God, let it be as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven" (Isa 7.10). Unfortunately, Ahaz out of fear but in the guise of piety refuses to ask for a sign (cf. Num 14.22; Deut 6.16). In a response of judgment, Ahaz is promised the child "Immanuel" from a young girl (Isa 7.14-17). Before the child is old enough to discern right and wrong, Syria and Israel will be deserted by the power of Assyria. The child, then, would seem to be none other than Maher-shala-hash-baz‒ Isaiah's unborn son (Isa 8.1-3). Or it is possible this is a separate child to be named Immanuel and will serve the same symbolic purpose as the later born child. Either way, this "Immanuel" child is intended to serve as a sign of God's trustworthy presence as well as judgment upon Ahaz who is not established in faith, and thus will not be established at all (7.9). 
Fulfillment of the Immanuel prophecy is tricky. On the one hand, the sign must surely have had a referent that would have made sense as a sign to Ahaz (Isa 7.14, 17ff.; 8.8; 9.1). Yet, it is clear that the gathering of Israel and unprecedented importance is attached to the promised child (Isa 9.1-7; 10.20-23; 11.1-16). John Walton observes three problems with arguing that Immanuel is Maher-shalal-hash-baz or even a separate child to serve as a sign to Ahaz. First, Isaiah prompts Ahaz to ask for a remarkable sign, but there is nothing particularly unusual about the birth of a child. Second, the use of the rare Hebrew word "young woman" (occurs only 7x in the OT: Gen 24.43; Exod 2.8; Ps 68.25[26]; Prov 30.19; Song 1.3; 6.8; Isa 7.14), complicated by the LXX translation "virgin" parthenos, suggests that this might be more remarkable than Shear-Jashub or Maher-shalal-hash-baz (7.3; 8.3). Third, the choice of the name Immanuel is lofty and does not seem to fit the specific historical situation like Isaiah's other sons' names. These complications are not convincing to suggest that the child is not Maher-shala-hash-baz, the position that Walton ends up taking.

The judgment theme of the "Immanuel" prophecy is too often overlooked. The overarching context of Isaiah 1‒6 concerns God's judgment on a wayward people. Isaiah 6 especially focuses on Isaiah's role as the prophet who will be ignored and thus proclaim judgment. The phrase "God with us" or its variations can imply protection (Ps 46.7, 11), salvation (Ps 48.8, 12), divine support (2 Sam 7.3), success in battle (2 Chron 13.12; 32.8; Judg 6.13-14), God's military support in taking possession of the land (Num 14.9; 32.32) or Yahweh's presence as a result of repentance and obedience (Amos 5.14; Zeph 3.15). It is Yahweh's presence that sets Israel apart as God's people (Exod 33.16; 1 Kgs 8.57). Still, God's presence does not always serve these positive functions and contextually Isaiah 7:14 would seem to be very antithesis to this support because Ahaz has been neither repentant nor obedient.

There are other indicators that God being with Israel is not just roses and success. The shift from "your God" (Isa 7.10) to "my God" (Isa 7.13) points to an increased distance not a comforting divine presence. There is also a consistent picture in the OT of God's presence among his people meaning judgment. Consider just a few examples: exodus judgment in the wilderness (Num 14, 16), the ark and judgment for unfaithfulness (1 Sam 4.3-5, 10-11, 18, 20-22; cf. Mal 3.11), Isaiah's own experience in the temple implies judgment is a sign of God's presence not his absence (Isa 6.1, 9-12; cf. Mal 3.1-5; 4.1-6). Yahweh's exaltation is a repeated theme in Isa 1‒6 but his exaltation is over proud and disobedient Judah (Isa 2.9-14, 17; 5.11-17; cf. 1.21-26, 28, 31; 3.12-15; 6.1; 12.4). Yahweh's presence as judgment fits with the covenant language of Isaiah, echoing the OT, that highlight's Israel's failure. Violation of the covenant, however, implies that Israel has a unique covenant relationship with Yahweh (cf. Jer 25.29; Ezek 9.6; Amos 3.2). This same theme is carried over into the NT as well (1 Pet 4.17; cf. James 3.1). God being "with Israel" means not only that he loves and protects her but also that she falls under God's judgment first and foremost.

In its original context, Isaiah 7:14 was a prophecy intended to be fulfilled in Isaiah's day with drastic implications for God's people. This child would serve as a symbol of both God's miraculous salvation and his judgment on those who fail to give ear to his words. In spite of Ahaz's failures God would bring salvation from the coalition rising against Judah, but Israel still stood under God's judgment for consistently failing to trust him.

Context in Matthew:

Before Matthew's gospel even gets started it looks as though the purposes of God might be thwarted. Mary, the pregnant virgin, faces shame of divorce from her soon-to-be husband (Mt 1.18‒19). Yet God intervenes through an angel to instruct Joseph to take Mary as his wife because the child is "from the Holy Spirit" (1.20). The angel also instructs Joseph that the child will be named "Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" (1.21). Matthew then adds an interpretive gloss from scripture to indicate that the whole ordeal‒ Mary's Immaculate Conception, Joseph's decision for divorce, the visit from the angel and the name Jesus‒is a fulfillment of scripture.

This interpretive gloss is the first of his twelve fulfillment formulas (Mt 1.22-23; cf. 2.15, 17, 23; 4.14-16; 8.17; 12.17-21; 13.35; 21.4; 26.54, 56; 27.9). Ten of these formulas are identified with specific OT texts by Matthew (Mt 1.22-23; 2.15, 17, 23; 4.14-16; 8.17; 12.17-21; 13.35; 21.4; 27.9). Here Matthew simply describes this OT text as "the word of the Lord through the prophet," but Matthew has no problem identifying the specific prophet he is quoting especially when it comes to Isaiah (Mt 4.14-16; 8.17; 12.17-21; cf. 3.3; textual variant in 13.35 as well). Further significance is attached to this formula by making this a word "from God" added to the fulfillment formula only twice (Mt 1.22, 2.15). Both fulfillments summarize angelic appearances in Joseph's dreams. This word from God, via divine messenger (an angel of the Lord) and ancient prophet makes the text especially important. Furthermore, the fact that this quotation is the first of the fulfillment texts suggests that it is programmatic for Matthew.

It is somewhat odd, and not often pointed out, that "Immanuel" is a name, but Jesus has already been given a name. "Jesus" is connected with the Hebrew word yāša meaning "to save" which apparently requires no explanation (cf. Philo Names 121‒122; Note that in Isaiah salvation is connected with the end of exile: Isa 40.2; 43.25; 59.2). "Immanuel," in contrast, requires interpretation‒ "God with us" (1.23b). This interpretation comes not from Isaiah 7:14, but Isaiah 8.8 and 10. Matthew, then, seems to be aware of the broader context of Isaiah 7‒9 and is putting this passage next to the birth narrative to make a theological comparison that will serve a programmatic function in his gospel. Jesus will not only save people from their sins but will serve as a sign of God's judging presence. Rejecting him is tantamount to rejecting Yahweh, but following him brings salvation.

This passage cannot adequately be described as a prophetic fulfillment. Isaiah never intended this verse to refer to the Messiah. No one before Matthew ever connected this text with the Messiah. Matthew is himself not trying to "prove" the virgin birth from scripture because such an argument would have been completely unconvincing to anyone who actually read Isaiah. Instead, Matthew is describing Jesus' identity by using an OT text for the birth of a child who would be a sign of both salvation and judgment.

Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

As early as the second chapter of the New Testament (Mt 2.15) the careful reader comes across the puzzling way in which the OT is used in the NT. Actually, it happens before Matthew 2.15 = Hosea 11.1 (e.g. Mt 1.22 = Isa 7.1), but this example graces the cover of Zondervan's most recent book in their "Counterpoints" series‒Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. The goal of the book is "to expose [. . .] readers to a range of approaches to some of the question posed by this issue, in hope that their understanding will be deepened at various levels" (10). To this end, they pose five questions to three contributors. The five questions are as follows:

1. Is Sensus Plenior (SP) an appropriate way of explaining the NT use of the OT?
   

   -Following Raymond Brown, SP is "that additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a biblical text [. . .] when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation" (14, quoted from Brown's book The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture).
   

2. How is "typology" best understood?
   
3. Do the NT authors take into account the contexts of the OT passages they cite?
   
4. Do the NT writers' use of Jewish exegetical methods of the first century explain NT use of the OT?
   
5. Are contemporary Christians valid in using the same exegetical approach as the NT writers? If so what does that mean?
   

As with any anthology or compilation some parts of the book are far better than others. The introduction and conclusion were very well done, offering a brief but comprehensive overview of the issues and relevant bibliographic material as well as a succinct summary conclusion. Still, the main issue with this book is that there was not enough diversity of perspective to represent a broad "a range of approaches." All three contributors are placed on the evangelical point of the theological spectrum. It would have been nice to hear from another scholar who has done a lot of work in this area who would not necessarily identify with the title "evangelical" (i.e. Richard Hays, Steve Moyise, Christopher D. Stanley, Francis Watson). While these scholars are certainly experts in the field, it is not beyond them to write for a lay audience. On this very issue, Moyise and Watson have specifically endeavored to do so. Despite this lack of non-evangelical perspective, as an introduction to the issues of how the NT uses the OT this is a helpful book.

Here is a very basic summary/critique of the three positions offered in book followed by a summary of their answers to the five questions posed above:

Representing the, in my opinion, completely untenable view that the NT uses the OT consistently with historical-grammatical exegesis is Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Kaiser is a reformed OT scholar who served as both president and professor, at different times, at Gordon-Conwell. He has a laundry list of publications including contributions to almost forty books and numerous journal articles. Still, his argument is based entirely on the hermeneutical assumption that a text can only mean one thing. He spends his first eight pages arguing that the NT writers cannot possibly mean something not intended by the OT writers. In Kaiser's view, if the writers of the NT did use scripture in ways that the OT writers did not mean then they would do violence to the OT text. Kaiser tellingly quotes John Owen, "If the Scripture has more than one meaning, it has no meaning at all" (75). In the end, it is clear that Kaiser is seeing this as a matter of faith predetermined. He suggests, "It is only when we begin to doubt that the NT writers were faithful to what had been written in the OT that we begin to face problems" (88). I would humbly suggest that as we read passages and think about how they do and don't relate "problems" are aplenty.

Kaiser's answers:

1. No SP. The prophets knew they were talking about Jesus even if no one else did.
   
2. Typology? Sure, but only if by foresight of the OT, not retrospectively.
   
3. Context? The immediate context as well as the larger canonical and theological context are crucial for how the NT uses the OT.
   
4. Using 2^nd temple literature to understand NT use of the OT is misguided at best.
   
5. We better replicate the way NT authors use the OT because they used sound historical-grammatical exegesis.
   

The middle-ground is taken by Darrell Bock, professor of NT studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. Bock is a NT scholar who has made a name for himself writing on Luke, but is expertise is not limited as such. Though Bocks' argument is mostly a reprint of earlier work elsewhere, his suggestions are helpful. Basically, he argues that the NT writers used the OT in ways that went beyond the intention of the OT writers, but they did so in line with the meaning of the OT passage. So, in Bock's view, "the NT meaning can develop or complement what the OT meant, but not in a way that ends up denying what the OT originally affirmed" (116). Bock's argument is, I think, much more representative of the evidence than Kaiser, but still comes off as special pleading to save the NT writer from critique for failing to do his exegesis properly.

Bock's answers:

1. SP is okay in a nuanced form. The NT writers did not always know what the SP was, but the two cannot contradict.
   
2. Typology is present and is a necessary tool for understanding the NT use of the OT. Unlike Kaiser, Bock thinks it can be retrospective.
   
3. Both the immediate context and canonical context are relevant to the NT use of an OT passage.
   
4. 2^nd temple literature can be helpful, but only in subordinate ways to canonical readings.
   
5. Contemporary interpreters can use the methods of the early church particularly in their canonical exegesis.
   

The third position is written by the OT scholar Peter Enns. Recently, Enns has been the subject of much controversy. After publishing his book Inspiration and Incarnation, Enns was suspended from his teaching post at Westminster Theological Seminary where he served for 14 years (read the story here). Later he was fired. The main contention of the Westminster trustees is that Enns' analogy of scripture as incarnational is inconsistent with the Westminster Confession's doctrine on scripture. In the Three Views book Enns continues to use that same analogy to describe the "humiliation of scripture as a positive theological construct" (202‒204). The point he makes is that, "the 'creatureliness' of Scripture is not an obstacle to be overcome, but the very means by which Scripture's divinity can be seen" (204). His theology and work are interesting and, in my opinion, an example of robust faith thinking critically about the discipline of OT studies and theology.

Enns' chapter in Three Views is, I think, the best of the three. Instead of assuming what Scripture can say, or must say, Enns takes an inductive approach. He looks at NT examples of the OT that do not seem to reflect the OT original author's (or authors as the case may be) intended meaning. Paul's argument from the singular noun "seed" in (Gal 3.15‒29), for example, clearly does not accord exactly with the point of Genesis (13.14‒16; cf. 12.7; 15.5; 21.12; 24.6–7; Three views pgs 180‒185). Enns also points out that NT authors reflect interpretive traditions that are not found in the OT but rather second temple literature (Gal 3.19; Acts 7.43; Heb 2.2; 2 Tim 3.8; Jude 9, 14‒15; 2 Pet 2.5; Three Views pg 196). He suggests, then, that "how the NT authors approached the task of biblical interpretation (their methods) and how they understood certain OT episodes (their traditions) boldly bear the unmistakable stamp of their historical setting" (202). The NT writers, according to Enns, use scripture in new and different ways than OT authors may have intended, but that's okay because they reflect their historical setting and the eschatological advent of the Messiah. I was intrigued by Enn's approach, but I still wonder how it all works out. If scripture is humiliated, what becomes the most authoritative voice for the faith community?

Enns' answers:

1. SP makes sense in like of a christotelic orientation toward the OT text. This does not eliminate hermeneutical tensions, but shows the theology behind the tensions.
   
2. Typology is helpful but cannot serve as an apologetic to exonerate the NT authors of using the exegetical methods of their time.
   
3. The context of an OT passage is sometimes helpful, but not always.
   
4. Of course the NT writers used exegetical methods of 2^nd temple literature. To expect something different would be to expect them to not be first century interpreters. Understanding the significance of these interpretive practices is the key to understanding the NT authors' hermeneutical approach.
   
5. Contemporary interpreters can replicate the theological motives behind the exegetical imagination but not necessarily their methods.
   

This short book is certainly not the only thing out there in pursuing questions about the NT's use of the OT, but it is a helpful introduction.