Jesus often fought about how sacred words should be interpreted. Indeed, his conflict with the Pharisees often concerns how the law should be observed (Mt 9.11-13 || Mk 2.16-17; Mt 12.1-8 || Mk 2.23-28; Mt 12.19-14 || Mk 3.1-6; Mt 15.1-20 || Mk 7.1-23). Likewise, church history is fraught with division over interpretations. One group claims to understand the true meaning of a text against another. Interpretive disagreement continues to divide churches today.
In light of Jesus’ debates, disputes throughout church history and in the contemporary church, it is important to develop a consistent and logical method of interpretation – a hermeneutic. Most seminaries and Bible colleges are concerned precisely with this training. In her book, Hermeneutics and the Rhetorical Tradition, Kathy Eden traces the development of Christian hermeneutics from the rhetorical tradition of Quintilian and Cicero to early protestant hermeneutics in Erasmus and Philip Melanchthon. Eden is a distinguished classics professor at Columbia University and provides a fascinating study of the development of humanist hermeneutics.
Eden thoughtfully observes that it is in the rhetorical handbooks that one finds the reflection on interpretation that was appropriated by the church fathers. Her first chapter is devoted to works of Quintilian and Cicero showing how these rhetoricians were concerned with the interpretation of texts for legal disputes. There were three main problems that arose in interpretation:
- Discrepancy between the letter of the law and the intent
- Ambiguity with a particular word or a passage
- Contradiction either between two related texts or within a single text
According to Cicero and Quintilian, the solution to these interpretive problems was to learn from Aristotle how to read with “equity” (ἐπιείκεια / aequitas). Equity is the ability to read a text graciously or tolerantly rather than in its “exactness” or “strictness” (ἀκρίβεια). So, Paul exhorts the Corinthians with the “humility and gentleness [ἐπιεικείας] of Christ” (2 Cor 10.1). Equity is a sought after characteristic in a judge (Acts 24.4) or ruler (Josephus, Ant. 12.122; 19.246; Against. Ap. 2.209) and frequently appears in appeals to God as a righteous judge in Hellenistic Jewish literature (2 Macc 2.22; 10.4; Wis 12.18; Bar. 2.27; LXX Dan 3.42; cf. Philo, Mos. 1.198; Virt. 106; Josephus, Ag. Apion 2.214). Equity, then, is an accommodation to a particular need or circumstance rather than a rigorous devotion to the letters themselves.
As a hermeneutical guide from Aristotle, equity aids in solving interpretive problems. An equitable reading allows discrepancies between letter and intention to be resolved by recognizing that written texts cannot take into account every eventuality or circumstance that might fall under their application. Thus, the intention of the law takes precedence when read equitably. Likewise, ambiguity is resolved by reading equitably to accommodate the particular use of a word or passage for a particular circumstance. So equity takes into account the historical and textual (or literary) context of a text. Equity also resolves contradictions by reading the parts of a text in light of the whole text and even the author’s life, again accommodating the particularity of the author.
In her second chapter, Eden shows the same interpretive principles at work in the grammatical tradition of Plato and later Plutarch. Using the poetry of Homer via Platonic allegory, Plutarch describes good reading as a journey home to true knowledge (philosophy). Eden shows that the grammatical texts use the concepts of “suitability” (τὸ πρέπον /decorum) which is “the ability to accommodate the occasion” (Eden, 26). Similar was the concept of “economy” or “order” (οἰκονομία) which was used by the grammarians to refer to the arrangement of the text. Suitability and economy, again, emphasized the same concept as equity among the grammarians – reading a text in light of its particularities.
In her third and longest chapter (pgs 41-63), Eden shows how these same concepts of learning to read a text in light of its particularities were employed by the church fathers Basil of Caesarea and Augustine of Hippo. She convincingly argues that Basil appears to have been influenced significantly by Plutarch in his exhortation to the young on reading. Likewise, she illuminates Augustine’s De doctrina as an example of Christianized hermeneutic from the rhetorical tradition. The last three chapters follow this trajectory in Erasmus (pgs 64-78), Melanchthon (pgs 79-89) and Flacius (90-100).
I first heard about Eden’s fine book in a presentation from a Patristics scholar, Professor Ronald Heine. Dr. Heine was presenting on Origen’s interpretation of Matthew’s divorce passage, one of the key examples of interpretive conflict in the gospels. Essentially, Heine argued that Origen, like Basil and Augustine, co-opted the concept of equity to defend Jesus’ reading of the OT against the Pharisees. It was a brilliant paper and well-received by all. After the presentation I asked where I might explore the concept further and he pointed me to Eden’s book. It was a wonderful find. Hermeneutics in the Rhetorical Tradition makes a great contribution to charting the development of patristic exegesis and prompts numerous questions about how these hermeneutical insights might be profitable for following the NT writers’ readings of the OT. If nothing else, Eden teaches what it means to read equitably.
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.
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.
