In his work on the theory of Midrash, Boyarin presents his view that the Midrash is an intertextual reading of the canonical texts of Scripture that is driven, on the one hand, by the gaps and fractures in the texts (which exist because the scriptural texts themselves are intertextual in nature) and, on the other hand, by the ‘ideological intertextual code of the rabbinic culture’.62 Thus, the Midrash is
61 Adapted from diagram presented in ibid., 27.
62 Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), 15.
22
not simply a biblical commentary that is produced in response to exegetical difficulties that are present in the text, nor a homiletic that is wholly focused on addressing the contemporary situation. Rather, ‘Midrash is a portrayal of the reality which the rabbis perceived in the Bible through their ideologically colored eyeglasses’.63 It is the product of an intertextual dialogue between Scripture and the ‘cultural codes’ of the rabbis. For Boyarin, these cultural codes are a ‘language that is a construction of the historical, ideological, and social system of a people.’64 While scholars of the Midrash may distinguish between the paradigmatic and syntagmatic references to the scriptural texts,65 Boyarin notes their inability to offer an explanation for the structural connection between these two sub-genres and argues that it is the characterisation of the Midrash as a ‘method of intertextual reading’ that sufficiently defines the category.66
Although it is not specifically mentioned, Boyarin’s formulation certainly implies the inclusion of the collection of biblical texts itself when he speaks of these ‘cultural codes’, given the prominent position of Scripture in the cultural and ideological landscape of Second Temple Judaism. These texts (which Boyarin is not reticent to call ‘canon’)67 collectively shape the ideological and cultural framework, constituting the lens through which the specific scriptural passages are read by the rabbis.68 That which is only implicit in Boyarin is made explicit by later writers (such as Keesmaat and Wakefield) who draw from his ideas of intertextuality, when they speak of the OT texts as forming an intertextual framework through which the writings of Paul are to be understood by his
63 Ibid. 64 Ibid., 14.
65 Briefly explained, ‘paradigmatic’ Midrash refers to the exposition of biblical verses that are brought together on the basis of a common theme or idea, while ‘syntagmatic’ Midrash refers to the structuring of narratives on the basis of a verse or concatenation of verses. Cf. Ibid., 27.
66 Ibid., 28. 67 E.g. Ibid., 16.
68 This observation by Boyarin supports my argument that the LXX is an authoritative text that shapes the language and ideas of Paul and the early Christians, and which functions essentially as a fund of lexical and ideational resources for their communication.
23
readers.69
What is significant here is Boyarin’s view that any writing is essentially engaged in an intertextual dialogue which draws from ‘cultural codes’ that are generated by the historical, ideological and social system in which the writer and his readers are located. These ‘cultural codes’, in my view, are tantamount to being a language sub-system that the writer has in common with his readers, and which allows for his work to be appreciated at a deeper level than what is evident on the surface of the text. It goes beyond talking about specific citation or allusion to any text, to the use of language that is drawn from an intertextual matrix where the specific sources may not necessarily be identifiable.
Translating this into our discussion of biblical intertextuality in the letters of Paul, the modern reader is directed to the need to investigate the wider language- system (the ‘cultural codes’) that is shared between Paul and his readers, and which is shaped in large measure by the collection of authoritative writings (the writings of the LXX) that is read, studied and memorised in the church. These are, presumably, the same texts that influence the language and expressions in the letters of Paul, in varying degrees of depth and explicitness. This view of biblical intertextuality is certainly broader than that taken up in Hays’ framework and one which, I submit, would lead to a fuller understanding of the role that the Old Testament plays in the writings of the New Testament, mediated through the writers who are themselves readers and interpreters of Scripture.
69 I am thinking here of Paul’s original readers, both Jews and Gentiles, as well as his modern reader—as one who seeks to recover these intertextual insights. The ability of both Jewish and Gentile converts to understand Paul’s letters in the context of the OT is discussed by Abasciano in one section of his original dissertation, which was omitted in the published volume; cf. Brian J. Abasciano, “Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis” (PhD Thesis, Aberdeen University, 2004), 35-40.
24
2.4.2 Sylvia C. Keesmaat (1999)
The work of Keesmaat presents an especially interesting case study. Her analysis of the intertextuality behind Romans 8 draws partially on the framework devised by Hays.70 There are, however, material differences in understanding between Keesmaat and Hays, with respect to what constitutes an allusion or echo. Hays regards allusion and echo as being on the same spectrum or continuum, each differing from the other only in terms of explicitness in making the intertextual reference.71 Nonetheless, there is an implicit assumption of an authorial intent in making the reference, as implied in Hays’ criterion of volume—the extent of the verbal and syntactical correspondences between the specific texts in question.72 Keesmaat, on the other hand, speaks of allusion as an intentional reference, and echo as an unintentional reference, to a prior text.73 The term ‘inner-biblical exegesis’, for Keesmaat, refers to the relationship between the text of Israel’s Scriptures and their subsequent reinterpretations. ‘Intertextuality,’ however, does not presume authorial intent.74 Furthermore, while Hays’ intertextual model is decidedly textual in nature, Keesmaat speaks of an intertextuality to a biblical tradition rather than to the text (in the sense of the written word) per se. This broader view of intertextuality is evident when Keesmaat writes:
Texts occur not only in relation to other texts but also in dialogue with other aspects of the cultures in which they occur. Hence an intertextual reference may be to a ritual or a work of art, or indeed to a matrix of
70 Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Paul and His Story (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 52. See also an article written earlier, Eadem, "Exodus and the Intertextual Transformation of Tradition in Romans 8.14-30," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 16, no. 54 (1994): 34-35.
71 Hays, Echoes, 23. 72 Ibid., 30.
73 Keesmaat, Paul and His Story, 48-49. In referring to Hays’ framework in her earlier article, Keesmaat seems to be less clear and speaks of ‘both intentional and unintentional echoes’, a few paragraphs after stating that one is intentional while the other is not, cf. Keesmaat, "Exodus," 32, 34. This is corrected in her monograph, where allusions are deemed to be intentional, whereas echoes are not, cf. Keesmaat, Paul and His Story, 52. 74 Keesmaat, Paul and His Story, 48-49.
25
ideas which is informed by specific texts, but is not a text in itself.75
Thus, instead of looking primarily at the connections between the OT and the writings of Paul at the verbal and syntactical level, Keesmaat looks at them in the context of ‘cultural codes’76 that consist of ‘a matrix of ideas which cannot be linked to any specific text but which is shaped and formed by a number of texts (and traditions) within his (Paul’s) culture.’77 In her analysis of the expression ‘those led by the Spirit [of God]’ (o¢soi ga»r pneu/mati qeouv a‡gontai) in Rom 8:14-30, for example, rather than looking for an intertextual connection to any specific text (as those who follow the approach taken by Hays or Wagner might do), Keesmaat develops a construal of the intertextual matrix from which Paul could be drawing, based on a combination of various texts from Exodus, the Psalms, Isaiah and Jeremiah.78 Thus, whether or not Paul was consciously using this ‘cultural code’, he is speaking in a language that is derived from the pool of common texts shared between him and his readers.
By examining these texts as an intertextual matrix that provides a deeper signification to Paul’s words, Keesmaat attempts to understand the relationship between the OT and Rom 8:14-30 in a way that does not depend on the verbal and syntactical correspondences, nor necessarily presuming authorial intention in making the intertextual reference. Therefore, despite using the ‘seven tests’ devised by Hays as a control,79 Keesmaat’s approach to examining the intertextuality in the biblical texts is fundamentally different. The point of departure lies with the different ideas regarding the concept of biblical intertextuality, which I think Keesmaat is not differentiating enough.
75 Ibid., 50.
76 Cf. Boyarin, Intertextuality, 14.
77 Keesmaat, Paul and His Story, 50. Also, Keesmaat, "Exodus," 33. 78 Keesmaat, Paul and His Story, 55-59.
26
2.4.3 John P. Heil (2005)
Another work that should be mentioned is the one by John Paul Heil.80 While Hays’ methodology is marked by the search for intertextual connections to specific texts, Heil’s approach moves in the opposite direction, even in the case of an apparent scriptural citation. For example, while many would see a reference to Jer 9:23 in 1 Cor 1:31 (‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord’), Heil notes that some would also include the possibility of a reference to 1 Kgdms 2:10 (=1 Sam 2:10). Rather than a verbatim quotation from either text, Heil notes that they contain elements taken from both passages. This, coupled with the use of a general formula in introducing the quote (‘so that as it is written’ rather than a specific formula such as ‘in Jeremiah it is written’) and the general theme of ‘boasting’ throughout the OT, leads Heil to propose that Paul is not referring to any particular texts. To him, Paul is evoking ‘in a metonymic way any and all of the scriptural texts that refer to “boasting” or placing one’s trust in God alone’.81 As far as authorial intent is concerned, Heil evidently holds that Paul consciously makes the intertextual reference, and expects his readers to recall the texts of the OT that are evoked by means of citation. However, rather than pointing to any particular text, the reader is expected to recall the general teaching of the OT on the subject matter that is invoked through the citation. This generally sums up Heil’s view of Paul’s use of the OT in 1 Corinthians in the work. Paul’s specific references to the Old Testament are not traced to specific passages, but invoke ‘the OT scriptures as a whole’.82 Thus, Heil says at the conclusion of his book: ‘The significance of each scriptural quote or reference derives not only from a particular context within the scriptures but from the global context of all the scriptures’.83
80 John Paul Heil, The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005).
81 Ibid., 38.
82 E.g. see ibid., 57. 83 Ibid., 261.
27
Heil’s approach is helpful in that he sees the non sequitur of associating authorial intent with the specificity of the intertextual connections (such as those which depend on the verbal and syntactical correspondences between the texts). As I argue later, Paul may intentionally use the language of Scripture so as to lead his readers to recall certain OT writings that add to the significance of what he is saying to them, yet without necessarily having a particular text in mind. It involves the use of scriptural language (be it words, metaphors or images), and not necessarily any explicit citation of Scripture itself.
In Heil’s view, however, even the specific texts which are cited by Paul are said to introduce not only the specific literary context from which the citations are derived, but the global context of the Old Testament as a whole. To me, this is contrary to our understanding of how citations (or even allusions) work in the letters of Paul. As demonstrated in many of the works mentioned thus far, the specific literary contexts underlying the citations (not the general, global contexts) are usually significant to Paul’s discourse. Therefore, where I differ from Heil is that, whereas Heil essentially redefines how the specific categories of citation and allusion would work in the letters of Paul, I am only proposing that these categories are in themselves inadequate to account for the use of the Old Testament in Paul’s letters.
2.4.4 Existing Works on the Use of the Narrative Summary
The literature highlighted thus far does not treat Paul’s use of the Narrative Summary as a separate category for intertextual analysis. Among those who use Hays’ framework (e.g. Wagner), the use of the Narrative Summary has often been regarded either as a citation, allusion or echo (even if this is not explicitly stated). This does not fully account for an important aspect of Paul’s use of Scripture. It does not mean that Paul’s references to the OT historical narratives are never discussed by scholars. On the contrary, scholars have traditionally scrutinised
28
how these narratives function in Paul’s argumentation. My observation, however, is that in examining Paul’s use of these OT materials, there is rarely any systematic analysis of how the narratives are extracted from their base texts, and the considerations that go into shaping and making them suitable for use as literary devices in the discourse. Perhaps, to put it in another way (and with the help of a simple diagram), it could be said that while there is much focus on how the OT materials function in the current discourse, less attention is paid to the relationship between the OT texts and the manner in which the extracted materials are presented as Narrative Summary in the discourse (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: OT Materials, Narrative Summary and Paul's Discourse
For example, in his treatment of Romans 4, Cranfield highlights the role that Abraham plays in Paul’s argument.84 The focus of the analysis is on the point that Paul is making through the use of the Abrahamic material. What is missing, however, is a detailed analysis of the relationship between the base texts (Genesis 15 and 17) and the form that is used in Paul’s discourse, before analysing how it functions in Paul’s argument (which is what Cranfield is doing). As discussed in Chapter 4 of this dissertation, a great deal of consideration goes into Paul’s use of
84 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 1:224-52.
29
the OT material as found in Genesis 15 and 17, and this shapes the way in which the Abrahamic narrative is presented in Romans 4. This kind of analysis might have been undertaken for those using Hays’ framework, if it were to be a citation, allusion or echo. However, as I already mentioned, exactly because the Narrative Summary is treated simply as such in the current framework, there are also significant limitations that prevent us from examining the use of the OT historical narratives more fully.
Similar observations would obtain when we survey some of our standard biblical commentaries, where OT historical narratives are used (in the form of a Narrative Summary) in the letters of Paul. It is my aim, through this dissertation, to demonstrate the usefulness of attending to the relationship between the base texts (OT) and Paul’s use of the Narrative Summary, in order to appreciate the place of the OT in his discourses more fully.
3 The Direction of this Dissertation
Based on the foregoing discussion, the key premise for this dissertation is that, in order for the intertextual relationship between the texts of the OT and the letters of Paul to be properly accounted for, it is necessary to deal with the various levels at which the OT impacts the writings of the apostle Paul. The framework which Hays devised has been a good starting point. However, it does not capture all the modes of biblical intertextuality, and I am suggesting two ways in which it should be extended. At the micro level, the concept of what constitutes biblical intertextuality should be broadened, in order to accommodate a more comprehensive study of how the OT shapes the writing of the Pauline letters. At the macro level, Paul’s use of the Narrative Summary should be treated as a separate category in the intertextual framework. These two proposals support the primary thesis of this dissertation by extending the framework for biblical intertextuality in two distinctive ways: At the micro level, the proposal for a wider conception of biblical intertextuality extends the framework qualitatively; at the
30
macro level, the proposal for adding the Narrative Summary as a separate category would extend the framework quantitatively. I shall now elaborate on this further.
First, at the micro level, the framework for biblical intertextuality should be extended to include a broader conceptuality of how the texts of the OT and the Pauline epistles relate to one another. I shall argue that since Scripture (i.e. the Septuagint) functions essentially as a language-system that is shared between Paul and his readers, it amounts to being an ideational resource that is used in the course of their communication.
Thus, in Chapter 1, a theoretical framework is outlined for the proposition that the Scripture which Paul and his readers share may be viewed essentially as a language-system (or, sub-system) which provides the ideational resource for their communication. It examines the ideas of intertextuality as formulated by its originators, including Julia Kristeva and others, as well as the ideas of Friedrich Schleiermacher (and those of Ferdinand de Saussure) that I draw upon to propose an extended model for biblical intertextuality. In Chapter 2, we shall consider how this broader concept of biblical intertextuality would bear fruit in our analysis of Paul’s words in Rom 9:1-3.
Second, at the macro level, the framework for biblical intertextuality should be extended to include Paul’s use of the Narrative Summary as a separate category for intertextual analysis. This is in addition to the categories of citation, allusion and echo that are covered in the existing framework. They are all literary devices that are differentiated from one another on the basis of distinct (although sometimes overlapping) characteristics.
In establishing the framework for this aspect of the use of Scripture in Chapter 3, I begin with an examination of the phenomenon of ‘the rewritten Bible’ among the Second Temple writings which, on the surface, may be compared to the
31
‘retelling’ of the OT historical narratives in the letters of Paul. Nonetheless, we will see that these are different literary genres or approaches, and should be analysed separately. Using three prime examples of the Narrative Summary among the Second Temple writings (Neh 9:5-37; 4 Ezra 3:4-27; Acts 7:2-53) as a control group, a framework consisting of seven key characteristics is developed, which will then be used to analyse several examples of Paul’s use of the Narrative Summary. Consequently, Chapter 4 will deal with Rom 4:1-25 (on Abraham), Gal 4:21-31 (Isaac and Ishmael) and Rom 9:6-13 (Isaac and Jacob), while Chapter 5 deals with 1 Cor 10:1-13 (the Exodus generation), 2 Cor 3:7-18 (the veil of Moses), Rom 9:4-5 (Israel) and Rom 11:1-6 (Elijah). The arrangement of these materials is in accordance with the chronological order in which the OT historical narratives are found in Scripture.
In dealing with this subject matter, it is not my intention to enter into the varied exegetical issues surrounding all the passages that are selected for discussion, but only to identify and analyse Paul’s use of Scripture via the Narrative Summary.