Composite Citations in Antiquity: New Testament Uses 9780567665058, 9780567665072, 9780567665065

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgements
Contributors
Abbreviations
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Composite Citations in the Gospel of Mark
Chapter 3: Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew
Chapter 4: Composite Citations in Luke–Acts
Chapter 5: Composite Citations in the Gospel of John
Chapter 6: ‘Promised Beforehand’ Through His Prophets in the Holy Scriptures’: Composite Citations in Romans
Chapter 7: Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians
Chapter 8: Composite Citations and Conflation of Scriptural Narratives in Hebrews
Chapter 9: Composite Citations in Antiquity: A Conclusion
Index of References
Index of Authors

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

593 Formerly Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Editor Chris Keith

Editorial Board Dale C. Allison, John M.G. Barclay, Lynn H. Cohick, R. Alan Culpepper, Craig A. Evans, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Catrin H. Williams

COMPOSITE CITATIONS IN ANTIQUITY

Volume Two: New Testament Uses

Edited by Sean A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain in 2018 Paperback edition first published 2020 Copyright © Sean A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn, 2018 Sean A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Editors of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. vii constitute an extension of this copyright page. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-6505-8 PB: 978-0-5676-9252-8 ePDF: 978-0-5676-6506-5 Series: Library of New Testament Studies, ISSN 2513-8790, volume 593 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

C on t en t s

Acknowledgements Contributors Abbreviations Chapter 1 Introduction

vii ix xi

1

Chapter 2 Composite Citations in the Gospel of Mark Steve Moyise

16

Chapter 3 Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew Maarten J. J. Menken

34

Chapter 4 Composite Citations in Luke–Acts Stanley E. Porter

62

Chapter 5 Composite Citations in the Gospel of John Catrin H. Williams

94

Chapter 6 ‘Promised Beforehand Through His Prophets in the Holy Scriptures’: Composite Citations in Romans Mark Reasoner

128

Chapter 7 Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians Roy E. Ciampa

159

vi Contents

Chapter 8 Composite Citations and Conflation of Scriptural Narratives in Hebrews Susan Docherty

190

Chapter 9 Composite Citations in Antiquity: A Conclusion Seth A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn 209 Index of References Index of Authors

250 267

A ck n owl ed g em e nts

A word of thanks goes to Susan Docherty, who chairs the Seminar on the Use of the Old Testament in the New in Hawarden, Wales, for planning a session at the 2016 seminar to discuss Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, vol. 1 of Composite Citations in Antiquity (LNTS, 525; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016). Several contributors from vol. 2 participated in this seminar and shared their work in progress. Conversations during the seminar and afterward have been helpful in shaping this volume. The concluding chapter has been improved by feedback from Garrick Allen, Susan Docherty, and Chris Stanley. We are grateful to Dominic Mattos at Bloomsbury T&T Clark, who has responded to our queries with grace, efficiency, and patience. Our series editor, Chris Keith, has been responsive and supportive. Our thanks also go to Matthew Stanley and Miles Trujillo, who each read several chapters and helped prepare the bibliography for this volume. A special word of thanks goes to Spencer Healey for providing editorial assistance, proofreading, referencing, as well as to Duncan Burns for timely copy-editing, typesetting, and indexing. Thanks are also due to our families, who have supported and encouraged us throughout this project. The work of the first volume coincided with the birth of sons into each of our respective families. Delightfully, the completion of this volume concurs with the birth of daughters: Claire Irma Adams and Madeline Louise Ehorn. Finally, in March 2016 we learned of the passing of our colleague, Maarten Menken. Several of the contributors to this project knew Maarten well through common research interests, shared publishing projects, and, especially, through the Seminar on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Both his scholarship and his friendship will be missed. We are deeply honoured that one of Maarten’s final projects was his contribution on Matthew’s Gospel to the present volume. It is only fitting that this volume is dedicated to his memory. Sean A. Adams Seth M. Ehorn

C on t ri b u tor s

Sean A. Adams (Ph.D., University of Edinburgh) is Lecturer in New Testament and Ancient Culture at the University of Glasgow, Scotland. Roy E. Ciampa (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen) is Manager of Biblical Scholarship and Integrated Training for the Nida Institute, Philadelphia, USA. Prior to this, he was Professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Massachusetts, USA. Susan Docherty (Ph.D., University of Manchester) is Professor of New Testament and Early Judaism at Newman University, Birmingham, England. She currently chairs the Annual Seminar on the ‘Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament’ at Hawarden, Wales. Seth M. Ehorn (Ph.D., University of Edinburgh) is Visiting Assistant Professor of Greek Language and New Testament at Wheaton College, Illinois, USA. Maarten J. J. Menken † (Ph.D., University of Amsterdam) was Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Faculty of Catholic Theology, University of Tilburg, The Netherlands. Steve Moyise (Ph.D., University of Birmingham) is Visiting Professor at Newman University, Birmingham, England. Stanley E. Porter (Ph.D., University of Sheffield) is President, Dean, and Professor of New Testament, holding the Roy A. Hope Chair in Christian Worldview at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario. Mark Reasoner (Ph.D., University of Chicago) is Associate Professor of Theology at Marian University, Indiana, USA. Catrin H. Williams (Ph.D., University of Canterbury) is Reader in New Testament Studies at Trinity Saint David, University of Wales.

A b b rev i at i ons

AB ABD ABRL ACCS AGJU ANRW BBB BBR BECNT BETL BHT Bib BIS BNTC BU CBET CBQ CJT CNT ConBNT CRINT ECL EKK EKKNT EvT FRLANT HeyJ HTR ICC IDBSup

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 Anchor Bible Reference Library Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin, 1972– Bonner Biblische Beiträge Bulletin for Biblical Research Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblical Interpretation Series Black’s New Testament Commentary Biblische Untersuchungen Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Canadian Journal of Theology Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Coniectanea neotestamentica or Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Early Christianity and its Literature Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Heythrop Journal Harvard Theological Review International Critical Commentary Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Edited by K. Crim. Nashville, 1976

xii Abbreviations IK JBL JECH JETS JSNT JSNTSup JSOTSup JSPSup KAV KEK

Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Early Christian History Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Meyer-Kommentar) LCL Loeb Classical Library LD Lectio divina LHBS Library of Hebrew Bible Studies LNTS Library of New Testament Studies MT Masoretic Text NCB New Century Bible NIBC New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplements NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology NTL New Testament Library NTS New Testament Studies NTTSD New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents ÖTK Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, 1983 PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary RB Revue biblique RBS Resources for Biblical Study RNT Regensburger Neues Testament SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series SBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series STAC Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah TENT Texts and Editions for New Testament Text Textus TS Theological Studies TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum TU Texte und Untersuchungen TZ Theologische Zeitschrift

Abbreviations USQR VTSup WBC WTJ WUNT ZNW

xiii

Union Seminary Quarterly Review Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Chapter 1 I n t rod uct i on Sean A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn

This is the second volume in the project titled Composite Citations in Antiquity. The first considered a range of ancient authors and the ways that they fused multiple sources into single, composite citations.1 The data considered spanned four centuries (ca. 350 BC–150 CE) and the range of authors (or texts) considered included Jewish (Philo, Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, pseudepigraphal works), Greek (Heraclitus, Longinus, Lucian, Plato, Plutarch, Porphyry, Xenophon), Roman (Pliny, Seneca, Cicero), and early Christians (Barnabas, Justin Martyr). Following from these prior studies, the present volume considers composite citations within the New Testament. Before turning our attention to the New Testament, we summarize a few of the significant findings from the first volume. 1. Key Insights from Volume 1 of Composite Citations in Antiquity At the close of volume 1, Christopher Stanley provided a detailed analysis of some of the key findings from the studies in that volume. We intend to provide a similar reflection in the conclusion of this volume that will cover the findings of both works. But, a few matters are worth addressing at the outset. We will consider here the working definition of ‘composite citation’, including discussion of three types of composite citations. After this, we summarize the functions of composite citations identified in volume 1. a. Types of Composite Citations The working definition we supplied in our earlier volume stipulated that ‘a text may be considered a composite citation when literary borrowing 1.  S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, vol. 1 of Composite Citations in Antiquity (LNTS, 525; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016).

2

Composite Citations in Antiquity

occurs in a manner that includes two or more passages (from the same or different authors) fused together and conveyed as though they are only one’.2 As stated in that volume, we ‘intentionally avoided defining a composite citation more narrowly’ because we intended this definition to be provisional and improved by considering additional examples. However, we did constrain our exploration to examples where conjunctions did not obviously bridge between citations.3 At the close of volume 1, Stanley reflected on our working definition, suggesting that the term ‘composite citation’ includes two distinct modes of engagement with a source text: ‘combined citations’ and ‘conflated citations’.4 We will discuss briefly these distinct modes and provide an example of each type.5 Following this, we introduce a third type: condensed citations. (1) Combined Citations. According to Stanley, combined citations ‘occur when two or more excerpts are joined back-to-back under a single citation formula or other explicit marker to form a verbal unit that an uninformed audience would take as coming from a single source’.6 An example, not discussed in our first volume, comes from Barn. 16.2: σχεδὸν γὰρ ὡς τὰ ἔθνη ἀφιέρωσαν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ναῷ. ἀλλὰ πῶς λέγει κύριος καταργῶν αὐτόν; μάθετε· Τίς ἐμέτρησεν τὸν οὐρανὸν σπιθαμῇ ἢ τὴν γῆν δρακί; (Isa. 40.12) οὐκ ἐγώ, λέγει κύριος; ὁ οὐρανός μοι θρόνος, ἡ δὲ γῆ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν μου· ποῖον οἶκον οἰκοδομήσετέ μοι, ἢ τίς τόπος τῆς καταπαύσεώς μου; (Isa. 66.1) For they consecrated him in the Temple almost as the Gentiles do. But, what the Lord says in order to invalidate it, consider: Who has measured heaven with the span or the earth with fingers? (Isa. 40.12)

2.  S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation? An Introduction’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 1–16 (4). 3.  We return to consider the role of conjunctions in the conclusion of this volume. 4.  C. D. Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 203–9. See also discussion in Adams and Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation?’, pp. 8–9. 5.  It is worth noting that both types—combined and conflated—can be found within a single quotation. 6.  Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 204.

1. Adams and Ehorn  Introduction

3

Is it not I, says the Lord? Heaven is my throne and the earth is the footstool for my feet. What sort of house will you build for me, or where is the place of my rest? (Isa. 66.1)

Like most composite citations, there are thematic or linguistic links between the cited texts. Here, the words ‘heaven’ (οὐρανός) and ‘earth’ (γῆ) appear in both parts of the citation and contribute to their fusion.7 At precisely the location of suture, Barn. 16.2 has the additional words οὐκ ἐγώ, making the rest of the citation an answer to the question ‘Is it not I, says the Lord?’ (οὐκ ἐγώ, λέγει κύριος;). The addition was necessary in order to transition from third-person (ἐμέτρησεν) to first-person speech (μοι and μου). (2) Conflated Citations. According to Stanley, conflated citations ‘are characterized by the insertion of a word or phrase from one passage into a quotation from another passage with no signal to the audience that such a commingling of texts has taken place’.8 In other words, a conflated citation has one text that is primary and another that is subsidiary. Moreover, the conflated wording should not be so generic that its origins are indeterminate.9 If a putative conflation can be explained on the basis of the author’s style or common sayings that cannot be pinned down with much precision, we should be cautious in applying this label. We can illustrate this type of composite citation with an example from Alcinous’ Epit. 152.2-3, which includes a description of ‘the principal doctrines of Plato’ (τῶν κυριωτάτων Πλάτωνος δογμάτων): φιλοσοφία ἐστὶν … λύσις καὶ περιαγωγὴ ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος. Philosophy is … the freeing and turning around of soul from body.

As Whittaker observes, the words belong to Plato and are borrowed mainly from Phaed. 67d8-10:10 7.  Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 206, noted that nearly all texts that comprise composite citations ‘share common language or ideas’. 8.  Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 204. 9.  Menken, p. 35, notes that ‘the word or phrase that is inserted can be traced back not to a generally biblical way of speaking but to one (or a few) specific Old Testament passage(s)’. 10.  J. Whittaker, ‘The Value of Indirect Tradition in the Establishment of Greek Philosophical Texts or the Art of Misquotation’, in J. N. Grant (ed.), Editing Greek and Latin Texts: Papers Given at the Twenty-Third Annual Conference on Editorial Problems, University of Toronto 6–7 November 1987 (New York: AMS Press, 1989), pp. 63–65 (89).

4

Composite Citations in Antiquity καὶ τὸ μελέτημα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐστὶν τῶν φιλοσόφων, λύσις καὶ χωρισμὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος. And the study of the philosophers is neither more nor less than this, the freeing and separation of soul from body.

The departure from the wording of Phaedo corresponds with Resp. 7.521c6-8: ἀλλὰ ψυχῆς περιαγωγὴ ἐκ νυκτερινῆς τινος ἡμέρας εἰς ἀληθινήν, τοῦ ὄντος οὖσαν ἐπάνοδον, ἥν δὴ φιλοσοφίαν ἀληθῆ φήσομεν εἶναι. But the turning around of a soul from day shrouded in a kind of darkness to the true day, an ascent to reality which we shall claim to be true philosophy.11

Both platonic passages provide definitions of φιλοσοφία. Based on psychological studies, we might conclude that the conflation was accidental because conflation is more likely to occur when statements or ideas are similar.12 However, in this case, we have another author, Iamblichus (Protrepticus 13), who independently brings together the same two passages from Plato, including the word περιαγωγή. As Whittaker argues, this suggests that the conflation of these texts belongs to a common scholastic tradition ‘one aim of which was to demonstrate that Plato was coherent with himself by bringing together compatible δόγματα from different dialogues’.13 (3) Condensed Citations. Whereas combined and conflated citations draw together two or more disparate source texts in a single literary feature, condensed citations work with a single text and shorten or summarize it. As with the other types of composites, the difficulty with identifying condensed citations is determining whether the end result arose intentionally, as a result of an error, or from faulty memory of the quoting author. A possible example is found in Barn. 5.2:14 11.  Adaptation of Plato’s text is from C. Emlyn-Jones and W. Preddy (eds.), Plato, Republic, Volume II. Books 6-10 (LCL, 276; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013). 12.  M. K. Johnson, S. Hashtroudi, and D. S. Lindsay, ‘Source Monitoring’, Psychological Bulletin 114 (1993), pp. 3–28 (7). 13.  Whittaker, ‘Value of Indirect Tradition’, p. 90; cf. Whittaker, ‘Platonic Philosophy in the Early Centuries of the Empire’, ANRW II 36/1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987), pp. 81–123 (109–10). 14.  S. M. Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in the Epistle of Barnabas’ (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the SBL, San Antonio, TX, 20 November 2016).

1. Adams and Ehorn  Introduction

5

γέγραπται γὰρ περὶ αὐτοῦ ἃ μὲν πρὸς τὸν Ἰσραήλ, ἃ δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς· λέγει δὲ οὕτως· Ἐτραυματίσθη διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας ἡμῶν καὶ μεμαλάκισται διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν· τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν. ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη καὶ ὡς ἀμνὸς ἄφωνος ἐναντίον τοῦ κείραντος αὐτόν. For the scripture concerning him relates partly to Israel and partly to us, and speaks as follows: ‘He was wounded because of our transgressions, and has been afflicted because of our sins; by his wounds we were healed. Like a sheep he was led to slaughter, and like a lamb he was silent before his shearer.’

The citation is presented seamlessly, but with a large omission from the text of Isa. 53.5-7: αὐτὸς δὲ ἐτραυματίσθη διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν καὶ μεμαλάκισται διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν· παιδεία εἰρήνης ἡμῶν ἐπʼ αὐτόν, τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν. 6 πάντες ὡς πρόβατα ἐπλανήθημεν, ἄνθρωπος τῇ ὁδῷ αὐτοῦ ἐπλανήθη· καὶ κύριος παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἡμῶν. 7 καὶ αὐτὸς διὰ τὸ κεκακῶσθαι οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα· ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη καὶ ὡς ἀμνὸς ἐναντίον τοῦ κείροντος αὐτὸν ἄφωνος οὕτως οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ.

The text of Barn. 5.2 merges the text of Isa. 53.5 with 53.7, in near verbatim agreement with the Göttingen edition of Isaiah.15 Also, in addition to the omission of three consecutive clauses (i.e., 53.6), two shorter phrases from vv. 5 and 7 are omitted. These omissions of shorter clauses, five words and nine words, respectively, are significantly shorter than the twenty-five words omitted from the middle of the source. Both Isa. 53.5 (cf. 1 Pet. 2.24; Acts 8.32-33; Justin, 1 Apol. 50.10) and Isa. 53.7 (cf. Melito, Hom. 64; Acts of Philip 78) are cited in other literature, which may suggest that these verses derive from a common tradition of extracts. Nevertheless, the combination of these texts is unique to Barn. 5.2. In light of C. H. Dodd’s work on early Christian use of Scripture, specifically that Isaiah 53 was one of the most well-known texts in early Christianity, it is best to consider Barn. 5.2 as a condensed text.16 This would be true if the author of Barnabas created the citation himself as well as if he inherited it because he probably would have known that material was omitted.

15.  See F. R. Prostmeier, Der Barnabasbrief (KAV; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), p. 236. 16.  C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952), pp. 88–96.

6

Composite Citations in Antiquity

b. Functions of Composite Citations In addition to a variety of types, composite citations also have multiple functions, which can be grouped together into three purposes.17 First, some composites, especially condensed citations, have a summative function, allowing the author to draw upon material from one passage while excising irrelevant or potentially distracting material. Similarly, quoting the opening and closing verses of the passage could also invite the reader to fill in the missing material, bringing the whole section into the mind of the reader. Second, we saw that some composite citations allowed the author to create a tailored saying by combining two or more passages or authors. In these examples the author brings together two disparate texts to create a new phrase/line that specifically fulfills the quoting author’s needs, providing a more appropriate soundbite to advance an argument. Third, composite citations were used to show off the literary knowledge and prowess of the author and to improve the reading experience. In some cases, the reader might be expected to catch crafted stylizations, while at other times the author explicitly highlights what is being done, drawing the reader’s attention to such literary creativity. These divisions do not exhaust the full range of functions for composite citations. However, these categories provide a good overview of the way that composite citations were employed in volume 1 and their perceived purpose(s). 2. Introducing Volume 2 of Composite Citations in Antiquity The chapters in this volume each address uses of composite citations in the New Testament. We have limited our contributors mainly to explicit citations in order to analyze putative examples of composite citations with a higher degree of confidence. This methodological determination is not without impact. For example, there is no chapter on composite features in Revelation, even though such a chapter would surely have been warranted within a volume of wider scope.18 Nevertheless, the features of composite citations discussed in this volume may provide insights for studies beyond citations. We reflect on such possibilities in the concluding chapter. After briefly describing the conventions used throughout the volume, we examine four texts not discussed by our contributors. Following this, we introduce the chapters of this volume. 17.  See S. A. Adams, ‘Greek Education and Composite Citations of Homer’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 17–34 (33); Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 207. 18.  For further comments on composite features in Revelation, see pp. 242–43 in this volume.

1. Adams and Ehorn  Introduction

7

a. Table Conventions Used in this Volume When three (or more) texts are compared within the studies in this volume, a similar set of table conventions have been adopted in most instances. Here we outline briefly these conventions and offer some basic explanations for them. Table 1.1. Three-Column Table Conventions Comparison Text NT Text Left-column agreement is Underlining style in the represented by underline center column expresses style: agreement with the left column. Underline = verbatim agreement Bold font style expresses agreement with the right Dotted underline = column. imperfect agreement

Comparison Text Right-column agreement is represented by bold font style: Bold = verbatim agreement Bold italics = imperfect agreement

Table 1.2. Four-Column Table Conventions NT Text Underlining style expresses agreement with column 2.

Comparison Text Agreement with column 2 is represented by underline style:

Comparison Text Agreement with column 3 is represented by bold font style:

Comparison Text Agreement with column 4 is represented by background style:

Bold font style expresses agreement with column 3.

Underline = verbatim agreement

Bold = verbatim agreement

Light background = verbatim agreement

Background style expresses agreement with column 4.

Dotted underline = imperfect agreement

Bold italics = imperfect agreement

Dark background = imperfect agreement

For our purposes ‘verbatim agreement’ refers to morphological agreement between the critical texts that are being compared. Minor differences in word order are typically marked as ‘verbatim’ according to our conventions. The label ‘imperfect agreement’ is employed to highlight instances where the compared texts differ with regard to morphology, verbal root (e.g., due to suppletion), compound forms, etc. We employ these conventions in the following section and throughout the volume.

8

Composite Citations in Antiquity

b. Four Examples Not Covered Elsewhere in this Volume There are several possible examples of composite citations that are not discussed in this volume. We include the following four examples in order to offer coverage of a highly debated example (i.e., Acts 15.16-18) as well as possible examples that could not be included in a full-length chapter (e.g., Eph. 5.14; 1 Tim. 5.18; 1 Pet. 2.24). (1) Acts 15.16-18. The text of Acts 15.16-18 presents an interesting test case for this study on composite citations. The quotation is introduced by οἱ λόγοι τῶν προφητῶν καθὼς γέγραπται (‘the words of the prophets just as it stands written’), which raises the question of whether the author of Luke–Acts is signaling more than one source text in the citation that follows. Bauckham argues that a ‘conflation of several prophetic texts explains the introductory formula in Acts 15.15’.19 However, earlier in Acts 7.42-43 the words καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν βίβλῳ τῶν προφητῶν (‘just as it stands written in the book of prophets’) were used to introduce a citation of Amos 5.25-27. Likewise, ἐν τοῖς προφήταις introduces a citation of Hab. 1.5 in Acts 13.40.20 Indeed, it is not uncommon for ancient authors to count or refer to ‘the Twelve’ as a single work (e.g., Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.8; Ant. 10.35; Sir. 49.10).21 We know from Qumran that some of the books from the Twelve were circulating together (e.g., 8Ḥev 1; Mur 88).22 This may suggest that the similar reference to οἱ λόγοι τῶν προφητῶν in 15.15 refers also to a book that constitutes ‘the Twelve’.23 Alternatively, it is possible that this introductory formula should be read in light of 19.  R. Bauckham, ‘James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13-21)’, in B. Witherington III, History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 154–84 (165); cf. B. Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 459; W. E. Glenny, ‘The Septuagint and Apostolic Hermeneutics: Amos 9 in Acts 15’, BBR 22/1 (2012), pp. 1–26 (11–16). 20.  The obvious exception to this pattern is Acts 2.16, which introduces an extended quotation of Joel 3.1-5 with the words διὰ τοῦ προφήτου Ἰωήλ. 21.  See discussion of Josephus in T. H. Lim, The Formation of the Jewish Canon (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), pp. 43–47. 22.  Although we must be cautious against seeing a unity in the Twelve when Qumran attests to various diverging editions. See H. Utzschneider, ‘Flourishing Bones—The Minor Prophets in the New Testament’, in W. Kraus and R. G. Wooden (eds.), Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (SBLSCS, 53; Atlanta: SBL, 2006), pp. 273–92 (274). 23.  E.g., E. Richard, ‘The Creative Use of Amos by the Author of Acts’, NovT 24/1 (1982), pp. 37–53; cf. J. A. Meek, The Gentile Mission in Old Testament Citations in Acts: Text, Hermeneutic, and Purpose (LNTS, 385; London: T&T Clark

1. Adams and Ehorn  Introduction

9

Lk. 24.44 (cf. 24.27), which refers to ‘the prophets’ (τοῖς προφήτας) as a larger division: πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωϋσέως καὶ τοῖς προφήταις καὶ ψαλμοῖς. In either case, the introductory formula probably refers to a single work, although many scholars have detected allusions to other texts within the quotation. In addition to Amos, some argue that Hosea, Jeremiah, and perhaps Isaiah have influenced the wording of the quotation.24 Table 1.3. Comparison of Acts 15.16-18, Amos 9.11-12, Hos. 3.5, Jer. 12.15-16, and Isa. 45.21 Amos 9.11-12

Acts 15.16-18

Hos. 3.5; Jer. 12.15-16; Isa. 45.21 3.5 μετὰ ταῦτα ἀναστρέψω καὶ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἀνοικοδομήσω τὴν σκηνὴν ἐπιστρέψουσιν οἱ υἱοὶ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἀναστήσω τὴν σκηνὴν Ισραηλ καὶ ἐπιζητήσουσι Δαυὶδ τὴν πεπτωκυῖαν Δαυιδ τὴν πεπτωκυῖαν κύριον τὸν θεὸν αὐτῶν καὶ καὶ τὰ κατεσκαμμένα καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω τὰ αὐτῆς ἀνοικοδομήσω καὶ Δαυιδ τὸν βασιλέα αὐτῶν· πεπτωκότα αὐτῆς καὶ τὰ ἀνορθώσω αὐτήν, καὶ ἐκστήσονται ἐπὶ τῷ 17 κατεσκαμμένα ὅπως ἂν ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κυρίῳ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς αὐτῆς ἀναστήσω καὶ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων αὐτοῦ ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἀνοικοδομήσω αὐτὴν ἡμερῶν. τὸν κύριον καὶ πάντα τὰ 12.15-16 καθὼς αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ ἔθνη ἐφ᾿ οὓς ἐπικέκληται καὶ ἔσται μετὰ 12 αἰῶνος, ὅπως τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς, τὸ ἐκβαλεῖν με αὐτοὺς ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι λέγει κύριος ποιῶν ταῦτα ἐπιστρέψω … καὶ 18 τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ γνωστὰ ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος. οἰκοδομηθήσονται ἐν μέσῳ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ἐφ᾿ οὓς τοῦ λαοῦ μου· 45.21 ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου εἰ ἀναγγελοῦσιν, ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς, λέγει κύριος ὁ ἐγγισάτωσαν, ἵνα γνῶσιν ποιῶν ταῦτα. ἅμα τίς ἀκουστὰ ἐποίησε ταῦτα ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς. τότε ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν Ἐγὼ ὁ θεός, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλος πλὴν ἐμοῦ· δίκαιος καὶ σωτὴρ οὐκ ἔστι πάρεξ ἐμοῦ. International, 2008), pp. 62, 80; D. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), p. 430. 24.  Here we follow the Göttingen editions: J. Ziegler (ed.), Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vol. XIII, Duodecim Prophetae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984); J. Ziegler (ed.), Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vol. XIV, Isaias (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967); J. Ziegler (ed.), Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vol. XV, Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 3rd edn, 2006).

10

Composite Citations in Antiquity

On that day I will raise up the tent of David that is fallen and rebuild its ruins and raise up its destruction, and rebuild it as the days of old 12 in order that those remaining of humans and all the nations upon whom my name has been called might seek out me, says the Lord, the one making these things.

This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written, 16 ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; from its ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up, 17 so that all other peoples may seek the Lord—even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called. Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things 18 known from long ago’.

3.5 And after these things, the sons of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king, and they shall stand in awe at the Lord and his good things in the last days. 12.15-16 And it shall be after I have cast them out, I will turn … and they shall be built up in the midst of my people. 45.21 If they will declare it, let them draw near so that they may know together who made from the beginning these things that are to be heard. Then it was declared to you, I am God, and there is no other besides me; there is no righteous one or savior except me.

The dominant text is clearly Amos 9.11-12, with possible influences from Hos. 3.5, Jer. 12.15-16, and Isa. 45.21. Granting these influences, we might tentatively classify this quotation as a conflated citation. However, there are good reasons for questioning the legitimacy of these allusions. Acts 15.16 begins with μετὰ ταῦτα rather than ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ. It is difficult to determine if μετὰ ταῦτα in Acts 15.16 evokes Hos. 3.5 or another text because μετὰ ταῦτα is a common expression in the LXX versions and is used multiple times in the NT as well (e.g., Lk. 5.27; 12.4; 17.7-8; Acts 7.6-7; 13.20; 15.15-18; 18.1; etc.). Μετὰ ταῦτα is also characteristic of the author’s style (cf. Acts 7.7; 13.20; 18.1).25 It is suggestive that Acts 7.7 includes the phrase as an addition within a possible allusion to Exod. 3.12. Likewise, some scholars believe that γνωστὰ ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος (‘known from long ago’) in 15.18 alludes to Isa. 45.21,26 but the commonness of 25.  R. T. McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), p. 29. 26.  E.g., J. A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AB, 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), p. 555.

1. Adams and Ehorn  Introduction

11

the phrase ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος in the LXX versions (e.g., Gen. 6.4; 1 Chron. 16.36; 29.10; Neh. 9.5; Pss. 24.6; 40.14; etc.) cautions against attributing it to a single source, especially when the phrase appears as γνῶσιν … ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς in Isaiah.27 A few words are also similar to Jer. 12.15-16, which includes μετά, ἐπιστρέψω, and οἰκοδμηθήσονται. But note how these differ from Acts 15: Jer. 12.15-16 μετά ἐπιστρέψω οἰκοδμηθήσονται

Acts 15.16-18 μετὰ ταῦτα ἀναστρέψω ἀνοικοδομήσω

The similarity with Jeremiah 12 rests mainly with the shared theme of compassion on the nations when Judah is restored (cf. Jer. 12.14-15; Amos 9.8, 11-12).28 The differences in wording of the citation of Amos 9.11-12 LXX in Acts 15.16-18 are difficult to pin down to other sources.29 Meek concludes that ‘once we have recognized the likelihood of other stylistic adaptations in the citation, there is no need to explain these differences by strained connections to additional texts’.30 (2) Ephesians 5.14. The citation in Eph. 5.14 introduces no known source text and the editors of NA28 rightly print the word ‘unde?’ in the column next to the text. Nevertheless, it remains possible that this text is an amalgamation of Scripture. Three different views are possible: (1) Eph. 5.14 is a composite citation of Jewish scripture (e.g., Isa. 26.19; 60.1-2);31 (2) Eph. 5.14 is an early Christian traditional formulation (cf. Eph. 5.19?);32 or (3) Eph. 5.14 is an early Christian traditional formulation that was composed on the basis of Scripture, a blend of views one and two.33 27.  Suggested, but not followed by C. S. Keener, The Acts of the Apostles (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker), p. 2:2246. 28.  McLay, Use of the Septuagint, p. 28. 29.  S. Nägele, Laubhütte Davids und Wolkensohn: Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche Studie zu Amos 9,11 in der jüdischen und christlichen Exegese (AGJU, 24; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 81–82, 229. 30.  Meek, Gentile Mission, p. 63; cf. McLay, Use of the Septuagint, pp. 29–30. 31.  E.g., J. M. Lunde and J. A. Dunne, ‘Paul’s Creative and Contextual Use of Isaiah in Ephesians 5:14’, JETS 55/1 (2012), pp. 87–110. 32.  See M. Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 4–6 (AB, 34B; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), p. 574. 33.  T. Moritz, A Profound Mystery: The Use of the Old Testament in Ephesians (NovTSup, 85; Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 97–116; A. T. Lincoln, ‘The Use of the OT in Ephesians’, JSNT 14 (1982), pp. 16–57 (18).

12

Composite Citations in Antiquity διὸ λέγει· ἔγειρε, ὁ καθεύδων, καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν (Isa. 26.19?) καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός (Isa. 60.1-2?) Therefore it says, Awake, the one who sleeps, And rise from the dead, And Christ will shine on you.

A comparison of the Greek texts suggests the improbability of view one because major adaptations would need to be posited in order to maintain this view. Indeed, the main proponents of this view, Lunde and Dunne, argue that the redaction of Isaiah is extensive.34 It is possible that Eph. 5.14 is a hymnic composition without any basis in Scripture, but the similarities with Isaiah remain suggestive. Thus, the third view above is the most likely option because it acknowledges that several texts (esp. Isa. 26.19 and 60.1-2) underwrite the traditional formulation in Eph. 5.14. By positing this intervening step—a hymnic composition based broadly upon these texts (and others?) from Isaiah— we are able to account satisfactorily for the words in the citation and also explain why they do not resemble these source texts more closely at the linguistic level. The composite features of this citation, then, may have resulted from a liturgical context where the texts were originally adapted for a fresh composition.35 (3) 1 Timothy 5.18. Another possible example comes from 1 Tim. 5.18, which some scholars refer to as a ‘composite citation’. λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή· βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις, (Deut. 5.18) καί· ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ. (Cf. Lk. 10.7; Mt. 10.10) For scripture says, You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain, and, The laborer deserves to be paid.

The obvious break from the first quotation, signaled by the use of καί, and the introduction of a new subject (muzzling an ox then paying wages), suggests that we are looking at two citations clustered together rather than

34.  Lunde and Dunne, ‘Ephesians 5:14’, p. 104. 35.  See esp. Moritz, Mystery, pp. 97–116, for this view.

1. Adams and Ehorn  Introduction

13

a single, composite citation.36 The phenomenon of clustering citations is evidenced widely and is worthy of study. But, for purposes of clarity, we continue to exclude examples like this from our definition of ‘composite citation’ because a strong case can be made that features of the citation indicate two sources rather than one.37 Here the texts are grouped together or clustered, but they are not fused together as in other instances. We discuss the phenomenon of text-clustering more fully in the conclusion of this volume. (4) 1 Peter 2.24. Although it is not a marked citation of Scripture, 1 Pet. 2.24 is commonly thought to be a conflation of words from Isa. 53.12 and 53.4. Given the significance of the larger Isaianic passage in early Christianity, it is probable that readers would have noticed this scriptural use.38 Additionally, as Karen Jobes notes, there are numerous references to Isaiah 53 LXX in the wider context of 1 Pet. 2.21-25. Her presentation, which we follow below, uses bold and italics to mark connections with Isaiah.39 2.20b 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25

Rather, if because of doing good you suffer and endure it, this is grace before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered on your behalf, leaving you an example in order that you might follow in his footsteps. [He,] who did not commit sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth [Isa. 53.9]; [He,] who when reviled did not retaliate, when he suffered he did not make threats [Isa. 57.3c-d], but instead trusted [Isa. 53.6c, 12] the one who judges justly [Isa. 53.8a] [He,] who himself bore our sins [Isa. 53.4a, 12] in his body upon the tree, so that being separated from sins we might live to righteousness; [He,] by whose wounds you are healed [Isa. 53.5d]. For you were like wandering sheep [Isa. 53.6a], but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Given the significant influence of Isaiah 53 LXX on vv. 21-25, we are on firm ground in positing a reference to Isa. 53.12 and 53.4 in 1 Pet. 2.24. 36.  Pace G. Häfner, ‘Deuteronomy in the Pastoral Epistles’, in S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (eds.), Deuteronomy in the New Testament (LNTS, 358; London: T&T Clark International, 2007), pp. 136–51 (138), who states that ‘[t]he quotation is a composite one with Deut. 25.4 being the first part’. 37.  See discussion of the function of καί in 1 Tim. 5.18 by D. A. Campbell, Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), pp. 361–62. 38.  See discussion in Dodd, According to the Scriptures, pp. 88–96. 39.  K. H. Jobes, 1 Peter (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), p. 194.

14

Composite Citations in Antiquity Table 1.4. Comparison of 1 Pet. 2.24, Isa. 53.4, and Isa. 53.12

Isa. 53.4 οὗτος τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν ὀδυνᾶται, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐλογισάμεθα αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐν πόνῳ καὶ ἐν πληγῇ καὶ ἐν κακώσει.

1 Pet. 2.24 ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, ἵνα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενόμενοι τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωμεν, οὗ τῷ μώλωπι ἰάθητε.

Isa. 53.12 διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸς κληρονομήσει πολλοὺς καὶ τῶν ἰσχυρῶν μεριεῖ σκῦλα, ἀνθ᾿ ὧν παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνόμοις ἐλογίσθη· καὶ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν καὶ διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν παρεδόθη.

The phrase αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν (‘he bore the sins of the many’, Isa. 53.12) appears as τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν (‘he bore our sins’) in 1 Pet. 2.24. The apparent reason for the change to ‘our sins’ is that the author of 1 Peter has personalized the quotation for his Christian readers.40 In other words, the larger literary context of Isaiah 53 LXX was used as a literary resource in order to make the quotation/ allusion more rhetorically effective for the writer’s audience. c. Outline of this Volume Although each chapter includes summarizing comments, it seems fitting to offer a brief outline of the contents of this volume. Steve Moyise (Chapter 2) concludes that there are four composite citations in the Gospel of Mark, noting that thematic linking and shared wording often explain the combination of texts. No single reason explains why Mark employs composite citations, but Moyise concludes that Mark’s composite citations comprise some of his riddle-like allusions to the Old Testament. Maarten Menken’s study on the Gospel of Matthew (Chapter 3) considers thirteen composite citations. The pairing of texts is explained, again, by similar wording and thematic analogy. The citations original to Matthew demonstrate that the author was an expert scribe who not only had access to Scripture but who also shapes his scriptural sources creatively within his gospel. Stanley Porter considers eleven composite citations in Luke–Acts (Chapter 4). He observes that some appear at significant places in Luke– Acts, while other examples are incidental and may reflect only pre-formed uses. Catrin Williams (Chapter 5) discusses eight composite citations 40.  See discussion in Jobes, 1 Peter, p. 197; cf. D. A. Carson, ‘1 Peter’, in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), pp. 1015–46 (1035).

1. Adams and Ehorn  Introduction

15

from the Gospel of John. Similar wording and thematic analogy often explain the fused texts in these citations, but Williams further argues that the conflated elements in John’s composite citations are in full agreement with the unique Johannine presentation of Jesus. Such deep engagement with Scripture and skilfull application of it to the presentation of Jesus suggests that the author of John’s Gospel was a ‘profoundly literate scriptural exegete’.41 Turning to the Pauline letters, there are twelve composite citations in Romans. Mark Reasoner shows that Paul employs Scripture most aggressively in Romans (Chapter 6), especially in service of his argument that the Gentile mission is pre-figured in Scripture. Roy Ciampa considers four composite citations in the Corinthian correspondence and Galatians and suggests that Paul does this for ‘rhetorical effect’ (Chapter 7). More than this, the texts Paul combines reveal something about his understanding of the relationship of these source texts. Finally, Susan Docherty discusses two composite citations (and a third possible, but unlikely, example) in Hebrews (Chapter 8). She notes that while composite citations are rare in Hebrews, the author does pair texts in other ways, including text-clustering or chain-linking, composite allusions, and conflation of scriptural narratives. Blending two scriptural sources together allows the author to support his argument in a manner that a single text could not achieve. Moreover, Docherty observes that various composite literary features demonstrate that the author of Hebrews has deep familiarity with the Scriptures of Israel. These studies are followed by a substantive conclusion (Chapter 9) where Sean Adams and Seth Ehorn synthesize the findings from both volumes of Composite Citations in Antiquity. After a brief analysis of findings unique to volume 2, they turn to consider definitional issues arising from both volumes. They discuss the function(s) of primary and subsidiary texts, composite citations versus textual clusters, and condensing techniques. This is followed by an extended and debated example of a composite citation: The Clearing of the Temple in the Synoptic Gospels (Mk 11.17; Mt. 21.13; Lk. 19.46). The chapter concludes with several suggestions for further research.

41.  Williams, p. 127.

Chapter 2 C om p os i t e C i tat i on s i n t h e G ospe l of M ar k Steve Moyise

1. Introduction Mark’s Gospel contains nine examples where words from more than one Old Testament text have been brought together (1.2-3; 1.11; 7.10; 10.19; 11.17; 12.19; 12.32; 13.24-26; 14.62). However, several of these can be dismissed as composite citations according to the criteria listed in the previous volume.1 For example, the words at Jesus’ baptism (‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased’, 1.11) most probably come from Ps. 2.7 (‘You are my son; today I have begotten you’) and Isa. 42.1 (‘Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights’), but there is insufficient verbal similarity to consider it as a quotation.2 The inclusion of καί between the quotations of Exod. 20.12 and 21.27 in Mk 7.10 (‘For Moses said, “Honour your father and your mother”; and, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die” ’) indicates that we are dealing with two separate quotations. Similarly, the scribe’s words in Mk 12.32 (‘You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that “he is one, and besides him there is no other” ’) draws together a reference to Deut. 6.4 (‘he is one’) and Isa. 45.21 (‘besides him there is no other’). However, this is a summary of Jesus’ words rather than an independent quotation and the two parts are separated by καί. The reference to Dan. 7.13 in Mk 13.26 (‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’) is probably to be regarded as an allusion rather than a quotation but even if it were to be considered a quotation, it is separated from what has gone before (Mk 13.24-25) by the connecting phrase καὶ τότε 1.  S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, vol. 1 of Composite Citations in Antiquity (LNTS, 525; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), pp. 1–16 (3–4). 2.  Abraham’s ‘beloved son’ (Gen. 22.2, 12) is also a possibility. See R. E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (WUNT, 2/88; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), pp. 108–21 (108), who says that ‘the voice’s brief statement reveals no unequivocal OT allusion’.

2. Moyise  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Mark

17

ὄψονται (‘And then they will see’). However, there is a case that Mk 13.24-25 is itself a composite citation, as we shall see below. The list of commandments in Mk 10.19 (‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother’) contains the command not to defraud, which does not come from the Ten Commandments. It is possibly an attempt to state the tenth commandment on coveting (ἐπιθυμέω) in more concrete terms.3 The actual words μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς only occur in the LXX in Sir. 4.1 and in quite a different context, so it is unlikely that we are to understand this as a composite citation. Not surprisingly, some manuscripts of Mark omit the phrase, as do the parallels in Mt. 19.18-19 and Lk. 18.20. The case for Jesus’ words in Mk 11.17 (‘It is written, “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations?” But you have made it a den of robbers’) is more substantial in that σπήλαιον λῃστῶν (‘den of robbers’) is commonly regarded as an allusion to Jer. 7.11. It is possible that the connecting phrase (ὑμεῖς δὲ πεποιήκατε αὐτόν) is to be regarded as Jesus’ comment on the quotation from Isa. 56.7 and thus not a composite citation at all. But it is also possible that readers would take the whole sentence as a single quotation referring to the current misuse of the temple. We will therefore discuss this example, along with those found in Mk 1.2-3; 12.19; 13.24-25 and 14.62, to see if further clarification is possible. We begin with the hugely significant composite quotation that opens the Gospel of Mark. 2. Mark 1.2-3 The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in the prophet Isaiah, ‘See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare (κατασκευάζω) your way; the voice of one crying out in the wilderness: “Prepare (ἑτοιμάζω) the way of the Lord, make his paths straight” ’, John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. (Mk 1.1-4)4

Probably the first question a reader5 would ask is whether the quotation is being used to support the opening statement or to introduce the figure 3.  So R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 402. 4.  Unless otherwise stated, biblical references are from the NRSV. 5.  Initially, of course, a hearer, but our concern is not limited to the first time the book was read out. The fact that it was copied (and most likely used by Matthew and Luke) shows that it was the object of study.

18

Composite Citations in Antiquity

of John the Baptist. On the surface level, the latter seems more likely as the phrase, ‘John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming’, clearly matches the ‘voice of one crying out in the wilderness’ from the quotation. It is a reasonable assumption that the recipients would know something of John the Baptist and, in light of the extended description of his death in Mk 6.14-29, perhaps they had a particular interest in him. They would thus know that he was considered to be a prophet, that many went out into the wilderness to be baptized by him, and that Jesus’ ministry was reckoned to have begun at his baptism (Acts 10.37). It would not be a surprise, therefore, to learn that Isaiah had prophesied about so great a figure. It would also be clear that if the ‘messenger’ of the quotation is John and the ‘I’ that sent him is God, then the ‘you’ and ‘your’ in the phrases ‘ahead of you’ and ‘your way’ must refer to Jesus. Therefore, the Baptist’s words to ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight’ involve delegation. John receives the commission to prepare the way for Jesus and he does that by commanding those who have come to him for baptism to prepare the ‘way of the Lord’. Since the early Christians referred to Jesus as ‘Lord’ (Acts 1.6; 1 Cor. 16.22; Rom. 1.4), this would most naturally be taken as a reference to Jesus, especially as the opening verse introduces Jesus as the subject of what follows and the quotation ends by preparing ‘his paths’ rather than ‘the paths of our God’.6 However, readers would not need a detailed knowledge of Isaiah to know that the prophecies that mark the end of the exile (that we now refer to as ch. 40) were originally referring to God: A voice cries out: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain. Then the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all people shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.’ (Isa. 40.3-5)

This would have been understood as at least partially fulfilled when the Jews were allowed to return to their homeland and the temple was rebuilt. However, the exalted language (‘every valley’; ‘every mountain’; ‘all people’) clearly points to something greater than this and Mark’s readers would no doubt have associated this with the salvation that they were currently experiencing. It is not necessary to accept N. T. Wright’s thesis that the Jews of Jesus’ day thought of themselves as still in exile in order 6.  According to most manuscripts. The Latin tradition (D it) has ‘our God’.

2. Moyise  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Mark

19

to appreciate this point.7 Indeed, the fact that this salvation was spreading across the known world was proof enough that the quotation was not primarily about something happening in the wilderness. As a result, it is unlikely that they would have been troubled by (or even noticed) the removal of the parallelism (‘in the wilderness’ / ‘in the desert’), so that the messenger is located in the wilderness but not necessarily the preparation that needs to be done. What they would have noticed is that Mark’s quotation uses two different words for the action of preparation. Would they have thought that significant? On its own, perhaps not, but they might have combined it with the fact that Isaiah was clearly speaking about preparing the way for God. Thus an alternative understanding of the opening quotation could be that John fulfilled his commission to prepare (κατασκευάζω) the way for Jesus by telling his followers to prepare (ἑτοιμάζω) the way for God. In other words, John prepared the way for Jesus by telling the people to repent and return to God. They would then be receptive to Jesus’ preaching of the coming kingdom of God (Mk 1.15). This makes quite good sense but since κατασκευάζω and ἑτοιμάζω mean much the same thing and John is clearly referring to the coming of Jesus in Mk 1.7-8 (‘The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me…’), the former seems more likely. However, the different verbs do raise the question of whether the words ascribed to Isaiah would have been recognized as a composite quotation. We should not assume that this would have been a problem to them: after all, the very different style that marks what we call ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ was evidently not a problem to them. But there are two things that might have led them in this direction. The first is if they knew that the words about preparing the way of the Lord in Isaiah were preceded by a promise that Israel had ‘served her term, that her penalty is paid, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins’ (Isa. 40.2). For more obscure texts, one might reasonably question such competence but, as Snodgrass has demonstrated, this was a well-known text for first-century Jews.8 Thus we do not need to assume that Mark’s readers had access to actual manuscripts to suggest that they might have known that the clause about ‘sending a messenger’ is not what originally preceded Isaiah’s words about preparing the way of the Lord. 7.  N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK, 1992), pp. 280–338. 8.  K. R. Snodgrass, ‘Streams of Tradition Emerging from Isaiah 40.1-5 and their Adaptation in the New Testament’, JSNT 8 (1980), pp. 24–45.

20

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Alternatively, they might have understood Mark’s quotation to be composite because they recognized the words, ‘See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way’ as coming from elsewhere. The most likely text is Mal. 3.1, which speaks both of ‘sending a messenger’ and ‘preparing a way’. However, the theme is judgement, which does not sit easily with the announcement of the ‘good news of Jesus Christ’ in Mk 1.1. Malachi says: See, I am sending my messenger (‫ )מלאכי‬to prepare the way before me, and the Lord (‫ )האדון‬whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant (‫ )מלאך־הברית‬in whom you delight—indeed, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap; he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the descendants of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, until they present offerings to the Lord in righteousness. (Mal. 3.1-3)

If the words of Isa. 40.3 lend themselves towards a more universal application, the words of Mal. 3.1-3 point towards a more specific one. The object is to purify the ‘descendants of Levi’ so that they will be able to ‘present offerings to the Lord in righteousness’. It is hard to see many of Mark’s readers identifying with this goal. It is possible that they might have interpreted the Lord ‘suddenly coming to his temple’ as a reference to the so-called cleansing of the temple (Mk 11.15-18), and Mk 13.2 (‘Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down’) is certainly about judgement. However, nothing in these two episodes suggests that the Malachi passage is in mind and so the ‘trigger’ to explore the relevance of Mal. 3.1-3 is lacking.9 Such a trigger could come from the quotation of Mal. 3.1 in the words of Jesus recorded in Mt. 11.10 and Lk. 7.27. Whether from a specific document (Q) or a source known to Matthew and copied by Luke, the two texts provide evidence that, at least in some circles, Mal. 3.1 was associated with John the Baptist on the authority of Jesus.

9.  The relation between the three figures mentioned in Mal. 3.1 is exceedingly complex. It seems likely that the two messengers are the same and Mal. 4.5 appears to identify them with the returning Elijah. However, it is unclear how this messenger/ forerunner relates to the ‫חאדון‬, and how this relates to ‫יהוה‬. It would certainly be hazardous to claim that the background of Mal. 3.1 brings clarity to Mark’s Christology.

2. Moyise  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Mark

21

Table 2.1. Comparison of Mt. 11.8-11 and Lk. 7.25-28

Mt. 11.8-11

What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who wear soft robes are in royal palaces. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written, ‘See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare (κατασκευάζω) your way before you’. Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Lk. 7.25-28

What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who put on fine clothing and live in luxury are in royal palaces. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written, ‘See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare (κατασκευάζω) your way before you’. I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

If Mark’s readers (or some of them) knew of this tradition, then it is quite likely that they would have recognized the words that precede the Isaiah quotation, especially as Mk 1.4 makes it clear that the messenger is John. Also of significance is that the verb used for ‘prepare’ is κατασκευάζω, as in Mark’s quotation, rather than the LXX’s ἐπιβλέπω, probably the result of taking the verb (‫ )פנה‬as a Qal rather than Piel.10 Of course, we should not limit what Mark’s readers would have understood from just a single reading of the book. When they get to the Transfiguration story, they will hear about the appearance of Elijah and Moses on the mountain with Jesus, followed by this discussion: Then they asked him, ‘Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ He said to them, ‘Elijah is indeed coming first to restore (ἀποκαθιστάνω) all things. How then is it written about the Son of Man, that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written about him.’ (Mk 9.11-13)

The promise that Elijah would come and ‘restore all things’ is undoubtedly an allusion to the final verses of the book of Malachi, especially as the LXX uses the verb ἀποκαθιστάνω for ‘restore’:

10.  So France, Gospel of Mark, p. 64.

22

Composite Citations in Antiquity Remember the teaching of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. He will turn (ἀποκαθιστάνω) the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that I will not come and strike the land with a curse. (Mal. 4.4-6)

Mark’s account of the exchange between Jesus and the disciples is somewhat obscure and Matthew felt the need to add an explanation: ‘Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist’ (Mt. 17.13). This should act as a caution before assuming that Mark’s readers are now equipped with a detailed blueprint from Malachi to use as an interpretative lens to understand the opening quotation. As Thomas Hatina points out, the differences are at least as striking as the similarities.11 However, it does strengthen the view that they would have recognized (or come to recognize) that the opening words of the quotation come from Malachi. Table 2.2. Comparison of Mk 1.2, Mal. 3.1, and Exod. 23.20

Mal. 3.1 LXX

ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου.

Mk 1.2

ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου.

Exod. 23.20 LXX

καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ12 ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου ἵνα φυλάξῃ σε ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.

However, if they knew or had access to a LXX manuscript of Malachi, they might have noticed some or all of the following: (1) the omission of ἐγώ; (2) ἀποστέλλω instead of ἐξαποστέλλω; (3) προσώπου σου instead of προσώπου μου and immediately following τὸν ἄγγελόν μου; (4) the relative pronoun ὅς; (5) κατασκευάζω instead of ἐπιβλέπω; and (6) ὁδόν σου instead of ὁδόν. Points 2 and 3 can be explained if the first part of the quotation comes from Exod. 23.20 and although the verb φυλάσσω (‘to guard’) is ignored, the second person pronoun σε might also explain point 6. Richard Hays says: ‘By echoing this passage Mark artfully hints that the Baptist is not only a voice of judgment (as the Malachi allusion would suggest)

11.  T. Hatina, In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative (JSNTSup, 232; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), pp. 138–83. 12.  The ἐγώ is accepted by Rahlfs-Hanhart and Göttingen, though is missing from B ‫א‬.

2. Moyise  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Mark

23

but also the forerunner of a new entry into the land of promise’.13 Further, this suggests that the progress of the gospel, like the conquest of Canaan, will involve a ‘campaign against hostile forces now in possession of the land’.14 Of course, Hays knows that ‘conflict’ is a major theme in Mark’s Gospel and so it could be argued that he has constructed the ‘echoes’ to match the contents of the Gospel. This is the criticism that Hatina makes against Watts’s proposal that the Malachi allusion (along with the Isaiah allusion) establishes the ‘basic thematic contours’ of Mark’s presentation of Jesus.15 This is an overstatement and does not do justice to the texts that are actually referred to by Jesus in the Gospel, such as Ps. 110.1 and Dan. 7.13 (see below).16 The ascription of the composite quotation to ‘Isaiah’, though causing problems for later scribes,17 is probably to emphasize the Isaiah background, without necessarily muting the other texts.18 This can be supported by noting a number of parallels between Mk 1.1-15 and Isa. 40.1-11, such as the revelation of God’s kingly power (Isa. 40.9-10 / Mk 1.9-11) and the use of the εὐαγγελ- word group for the content of the proclamation.19 As Hays says: By naming Isaiah in particular—and by bringing the citation to its climax with words taken from Isaiah 40, Isaiah’s pivotal declaration of hope for the end of exile—Mark signals his readers that the euangelion of Jesus Christ is to be read within the matrix of Isaiah’s prophetic vision: God will return to Zion and restore Israel.20

Clearly this also has implications for Mark’s Christology. In the chapters that follow, Jesus will declare reverently that, ‘No one is good but God 13.  R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), p. 23. 14.  Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, p. 23. 15.  Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, p. 370. 16.  Hatina, In Search of a Context, pp. 147–48. 17.  The plural ‘prophets’ appears in A K P W Π f13 28 1009 1010 1079 1195 1216 1230 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 Byz Lectm syrh copboms mg arm eth. 18.  Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, p. 21. Watts (Isaiah’s New Exodus, pp. 88–90) suggests that Mark is using his famous ‘sandwich’ technique where a story is interrupted by another story (e.g., Jairus and the woman with the issue of blood; the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple) to form a ABA′ pattern. Thus the Exodus/Malachi material (B) is inserted between the Isaiah ascription (A) and the Isaiah quotation (A′). 19.  The LXX renders the Hebrew ‫ בשר‬with the participle εὐαγγελιζόμενος. 20.  Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, p. 21.

24

Composite Citations in Antiquity

alone’ (10.18), only the Father knows about the end (13.32) and that his Father’s will must be obeyed rather than (ἀλλ᾽ οὐ) his own (14.36). He dies identifying with the voice of Ps. 22.1: ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ (15.34). Jesus might be God’s co-worker in bringing about the promised restoration, but he is hardly presented as his co-equal. However, Hays argues that this disregards the pivotal place of the opening citation. Drawing on the work of Richard Bauckham and Simon Gathercole,21 he suggests that the text ‘provocatively opens up the question of how the figure of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:1) is related to the liberating and comforting Kyrios of Isaiah 40’ and urges his readers to ‘keep searching for further clues in the story’.22 These can be found, Hays says, in the episodes that follow, which he discusses under the following headings: ‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?’; ‘Who then is this that even the wind and sea obey him?’; ‘Who is the shepherd of Israel?’; ‘Who walks on the sea?’; ‘Who makes the deaf to hear and the mute to speak?’; and ‘Who comes looking for figs on the fig tree?’23 Without denying those texts that suggest a separation between Jesus and God, he concludes that these stories provide ‘pervasive Markan indicators that Jesus is mysteriously the embodiment of God’s presence’.24 Lastly, we should note that Matthew Bates thinks that Mark understood the words of Exod. 23.20 as God (the ‘I’) addressing Jesus (the ‘you’) prior to the incarnation. This then sets the scene for God directly addressing Jesus at his baptism with words from Ps. 2.7 and Isa. 42.1.25 However, while such (prosopological) exegesis is found in other New Testament texts (Rom. 15.3; Heb. 10.5), this would appear to give too much prominence to the Exodus text in the composite quotation. Isaiah 21.  R. Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); S. J. Gathercole, The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark and Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). 22.  Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, p. 64. 23.  Most of these point to obvious texts like Exod. 34.6-7 (God forgives), Ezek. 34.11-15 (God is Israel’s true shepherd) and Isa. 35.5-6 (God heals the deaf and mute) but ‘walking on the sea’ and ‘searching for figs’ are more obscure. Hays argues that Job 9.4-11 lies behind the former and somewhat more tentatively, that Jer. 8.13 lies behind the latter. 24.  Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, p. 78. 25.  M. W. Bates, The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament and Early Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 89–92.

2. Moyise  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Mark

25

is the named source and there is no suggestion of God addressing Jesus in that text (or in the Malachi text). Bates has brought to our attention an important theme for understanding New Testament Christology but ‘pre-existence’ is hardly a key theme in the Gospel of Mark (as it is in John). 3. Mark 11.17 He was teaching and saying, ‘Is it not written, “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations”? But (δέ) you have made it a den of robbers.’ (Mk 11.17)

There is no doubt that we are dealing here with a quotation as the words are introduced by an introductory formula (οὐ γέγραπται ὅτι) and what follows is clearly taken from the LXX of Isa. 56.7. There is also little doubt that σπήλαιον λῃστῶν (‘den of robbers’) is an allusion to Jer. 7.11.26 The noun λῃστής only occurs nine times in the LXX and is only combined with σπήλαιον in Jer. 7.11.27 Table 2.3. Comparison of Mk 11.17, Isa. 56.7, and Jer. 7.11 Isa. 56.7 LXX ὁ γὰρ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν

Mk 11.17 οὐ γέγραπται ὅτι ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; ὑμεῖς δὲ πεποιήκατε28 αὐτὸν σπήλαιον λῃστῶν.

Jer. 7.11 LXX

μὴ σπήλαιον λῃστῶν ὁ οἶκός μου οὗ ἐπικέκληται

Would Mark’s readers have understood Jesus to be quoting a text that speaks both of the purpose of the temple and its misuse? In favour is the fact that we have just had the cursing of the fig tree (Mk 11.14) and the

26.  NA28 italicizes the words, indicating a quotation, but they are not emboldened in UBS5. 27.  There is general agreement that the translation ‘robbers’ is too weak and something like ‘brigands’ or ‘bandits’ is closer to the Hebrew ‫( פריץ‬Ps. 17.4; Isa. 35.9; Jer. 7.11; Ezek. 7.22; 18.10; Dan. 11.14 only) and Greek λῃστής (Sir. 36.26; Hos. 7.1; Obad. 5; Jer. 7.11; 18.22; Ep. Jer. 13, 17, 57; Ezek. 22.9 only). 28.  The majority of MSS have the aorist but the perfect is supported by B L Δ Ψ 892

26

Composite Citations in Antiquity

so-called cleansing of the temple (Mk 11.15-16), and so readers would be expecting a quotation to do with judgement.29 It is less convincing if Jesus is thought to have taken words from another context and arbitrarily applied them to his hearers. In other words, would they have thought the accusation ὑμεῖς δὲ πεποιήκατε αὐτόν (‘but you have made it’) has scriptural support or is a comment by Jesus? It is a reasonable assumption that Gentile Christians would have known Isaiah 56 fairly well, with its reference to ‘foreigners who join themselves to the Lord’ (56.6).30 They would probably also know that the promises of Isa. 56.1-7 are followed by words of judgement for Israel: ‘Israel’s sentinels are blind, they are all without knowledge; they are all silent dogs that cannot bark; dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber’ (v. 10). Thus it is possible that they might have assumed that the ‘den of robbers’ accusation is what follows Isa. 56.7 or that it is a graphic summary of what follows. On the other hand, Jeremiah 7 was also well known and the hypocrisy highlighted in Jer. 7.9-10 (‘Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods…and then come and stand before me in this house’) probably stands behind Paul’s accusations in Rom. 2.17-23.31 The context in Mark concerns sins committed within the temple precincts, but since the phrase σπήλαιον λῃστῶν (‘den of robbers’) is unique in the Old Testament, a good case can be made that readers would recognize it as coming from Jeremiah. However, this short phrase is best considered as an allusion rather than a quotation and, combined with the fact that it is joined to Isa. 56.7 with a conjunction (δέ) that is absent from either source text, the case for considering it as a composite quotation is weak.

29.  This is strengthened by the closing of the ‘fig tree’ episode in Mk 11.20-22, further demonstrating the judgement theme. 30.  Though as Marcus points out, the Hebrew speaks of a house ‘for all peoples’ (‫ )לכל העמים‬and 1 Macc. 7.37 quotes it in the form ‘for your people’, suggesting that it was understood to be a prophecy of Gentiles joining the Jews. If Mark was intending to stress the more egalitarian πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (‘for all the nations’) of the LXX, it is unlikely that we are dealing with the words of Jesus, which perhaps explains their omission by Matthew and Luke. See J. Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 27A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), p. 449. 31.  So T. W. Berkley, From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2.17-29 (SBLDS, 175; Atlanta: SBL, 2000).

2. Moyise  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Mark

27

4. Mark 12.19 Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry (λάβῃ) the widow and raise up children for his brother (ἐξαναστήσῃ σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ). There were seven brothers…’ (Mk 12.18-20a)

This contrived story32 of seven brothers all failing to raise up offspring according to the law of levirate marriage (‫ )יבם‬draws on Deut. 25.5-7: When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage (λήμψεται αὐτὴν ἑαυτῷ γυναῖκα), and performing the duty of a husband’s brother to her…to perpetuate (ἀναστῆσαι) his brother’s name in Israel.

Mark’s Greek differs considerably from the LXX33 but it is of note that the last phrase (ἐξαναστήσῃ σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ) is close to the analogous passage in Gen. 38.8.34 Here, Judah instructs his son Onan: ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother (ἀνάστησον σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου)’. Had Mark wished to highlight the conflation, we might have expected him to use ἀνίστημι rather than the relatively rare ἐξανίστημι,35 so as to form a link with Jesus’ reply: ‘For when they rise (ἀναστῶσιν) from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven’ (12.25). On the other hand, Mark uses ἐγείρω when Jesus says in the next verse, ‘And as for the dead being raised’, so perhaps such things were of little importance to him. Matthew uses ἀνίστημι but this is probably to strengthen the link with Jesus’ words rather than highlight the reference to Gen. 38.8, since he uses ἐπιγαμβρεύω for ‘marry’ rather than the LXX’s γάμβρευω. Since we are dealing with a summary of levirate law by the Sadducees, it is hard to see

32.  Perhaps suggested by the story of Sarah and her seven unconsummated marriages found in Tob. 3.8, though no levirate principle is involved. 33.  E.g., μὴ ἀφῇ τέκνον / σπέρμα δὲ μὴ ᾖ αὐτῷ; ἵνα λάβῃ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν γυναῖκα / καὶ λήμψεται αὐτὴν ἑαυτῷ γυναῖκα. 34.  The technical term ‫‘( יבם‬to marry one’s brother’s widow’) only occurs in Gen. 38.8; Deut. 25.5, 7. 35.  Only here, the parallel in Lk. 20.28, and Acts 15.5 in the NT. In contrast, ἀνίστημι occurs 108 times, including 17 times in Mark.

28

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Mark’s readers as being particularly interested in tracking down the exact sources. Mark most likely found the composite citation in his sources (as the text suggests). 5. Mark 13.24-25 ‘But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken’. (Mk 13.24-25)

Mark’s description of impending judgement mentions sun, moon, stars and powers. The closest parallels to this in the LXX are Isa. 13.10 and Joel 2.10, the former being closer in terms of vocabulary (see below). However, Mark says that the stars will fall from heaven and if this comes from a source rather than simply an embellishment, the most likely text is Isa. 34.4. Table 2.4. Comparison of Mk 13.24-25, Isa. 13.10, Isa. 34.4, and Joel 2.10

Mk 13.24-25 ὁ ἥλιος σκοτισθήσεται, καὶ ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει τὸ φέγγος αὐτῆς, καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες ἔσονται ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πίπτοντες, καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς σαλευθήσονται.

Isa. 13.10 LXX

Isa. 34.4 MT / LXX

Joel 2.10 LXX

οἱ γὰρ ἀστέρες ‫ונמקו כל־צבא‬ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ὁ ‫השמים‬ Ὠρίων ‫ונגלו כספר השמים‬ καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἑλιγήσεται ὁ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸ φῶς οὐρανὸς ὡς βιβλίον οὐ δώσουσιν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἄστρα καὶ σκοτισθήσεται πεσεῖται τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνατέλλοντος

πρὸ προσώπου αὐτῶν συγχυθήσεται ἡ γῆ καὶ σεισθήσεται (‫ )רעש‬ὁ οὐρανός

ὡς φύλλα ἐξ καὶ ἡ σελήνη οὐ ἀμπέλου καὶ ὡς δώσει τὸ φῶς αὐτῆς πίπτει φύλλα ἀπὸ συκῆς

συσκοτάσουσιν καὶ τὰ ἄστρα δύσουσιν τὸ φέγγος αὐτῶν

ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ἡ σελήνη

Mark uses a periphrastic construction (ἔσονται … πίπτοντες36) rather than the LXX’s πεσεῖται but three things strengthen the argument for 36.  There is considerable variation in the manuscripts in terms of the order of the words, the use of ἐκπίπτοντες instead of πίπτοντες, and W even has a finite verb (πεσοῦνται). However, the text has good support (‫[ א‬A: ἐκπίπτ.] B C Θ Ψ (579). 892. 1424. (2427) pc a i).

2. Moyise  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Mark

29

the presence of Isa. 34.4. The first is that this warning of impending judgement in Mark is immediately followed by the lesson of the fig tree (13.28: ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς συκῆς μάθετε), which may have been suggested by the illustration in Isa. 34.4b (ὡς πίπτει φύλλα ἀπὸ συκῆς). Second, although the translation of the first clause of the Hebrew text of Isa. 34.4 (‫כל־צבא‬ ‫ )השמים‬found in B L (αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) is marked with an asterisk in O and is not printed by Ralphs and Göttingen, it would provide an explanation for Mark’s fourth element, if such a text was known to him. Third, Matthew’s change from a periphrastic future to πεσοῦνται and his simplification of Mark’s expression for the powers to αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν (Mt. 24.29), suggests that he understood these words to be a reference to Isa. 34.4.37 On the other hand, Mark speaks of the powers being shaken (σαλεύω), rather than rotting away (‫ )מקק‬and perhaps we should see influence from Joel 2.10, though the LXX uses a different verb (σείω). It would appear then that we have a quotation of Isa. 13.10, which has been combined with elements of other texts, most likely Isa. 34.4 but perhaps also Joel 2.10, in order to heighten the sense of cosmic collapse. Not only will the stars fail to give their light, like the sun and the moon, they will fall from the place that God assigned them in Gen. 1.16-17. There is little to suggest that Mark is responsible for this conflation and he probably received it in his source. 6. Mark 14.62 Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’ Jesus said, ‘I am; and “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,” and “coming with the clouds of heaven.” ’ (Mk 14.61b-62)

The occurrence of Dan. 7.13 in Mk 13.26 was not treated as a part of a composite quotation because it was introduced by the words καὶ τότε ὄψονται (‘and then you will see’), suggesting a different source to the words just quoted (Isa. 13.10 / 34.4). In Mk 14.62, it is similarly intro-

duced (καὶ ὄψεσθε) but the composite quotation is with the words

37.  Though as Menken points out, Matthew has a habit of removing Mark’s periphrastic constructions, thus weakening this point. He does accept, however, that the quotation in Mt. 24.29 comes from Isa. 13.10 and 34.4. See M. J. J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (BETL, 173; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004), pp. 218–19, as well as his chapter in the present volume.

30

Composite Citations in Antiquity

ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως (‘sitting at the right hand of the

power’), which interrupts the quotation from Dan. 7.13. The words come from Ps. 110(109).1, where ‘the Lord’ (‫ )יהוה‬says to a figure referred to as ‘my lord’ (‫)אדני‬, ‘Sit at my right hand (κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου), until I make your enemies your footstool’. Interestingly, the version of Dan. 7.13 quoted in Mk 13.26 differs from that quoted in Mk 14.62 (ἐν νεφέλαις / μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν), probably suggesting that he found the composite quotation in his source. This is further suggested by: (1) the articular τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου rather than the ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου of the Greek versions; and (2) the popularity of Ps. 110.1 in early Christianity (cf. Acts 2.34; 1 Cor. 15.25; Heb. 1.3, 13). Table 2.5. Comparison of Mk 14.62, Mk 13.26, and Dan 7.13 Mk 14.62 καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον   38 μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.

Mk 13.26 καὶ τότε ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλαις

Dan. 7.13 LXX καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο …

Dan. 7.13 Θ καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος ἦν …

μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλῆς καὶ δόξης.

In Mk 13.26, an unknown ‘they’ (i.e., the implied subject of ὄψονται)39 will see a figure referred to as ‘the son of man’ coming ἐν νεφέλαις (‘in clouds’) with much power and glory. In Mk 14.62, a plural ‘you’ (which includes the high priest) will see a similar thing, except he is now coming μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (‘with the clouds of heaven’) and ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως (‘sitting at the right hand of the power’). At first sight, it looks as though the phrase from Ps. 110.1 is there to provide the origin of the figure’s journey, namely, from the right hand of God. However, the two participles καθήμενον (‘sitting’) and ἐρχόμενον (‘coming’) are both present tense and so it is difficult to see here a sequence of ‘he sat, he got up, he came’. Interestingly, the words καὶ ἐρχόμενον are absent from Codex Bezae, so that the sentence reads, ‘and you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of the power with the clouds of heaven’. 38.  καὶ ἐρχόμενον is omitted by D. 39.  The personified astral bodies according to Marcus (Mark 8–16, p. 908).

2. Moyise  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Mark

31

N. T. Wright claims that it would be a ‘serious misjudging of its first-century meaning, to see this as a reference to Jesus flying downwards towards the earth’.40 That was not the meaning in Daniel and it is not the meaning here. Rather, what they will see are ‘this-worldly events which would indicate beyond any doubt that Israel’s god had exalted Jesus, had vindicated him after his suffering, and had raised him to share his own throne’.41 Hays agrees, stating that it is to be understood with its ‘original contextual sense, as a portrayal of the ascent of the Son of Man to a heavenly enthronement’.42 It is only on this interpretation, he says, that the accusation of blasphemy makes any sense. However, it should be noted that the traditional interpretation still has its supporters. Marcus thinks the early Christian belief in Jesus’ return (1 Thess. 4.16; Acts 1.11) makes it highly likely that Mark is thinking of a journey to earth and so, not for the first time, he has changed the meaning of his Old Testament source.43 Be that as it may, the composite quotation in Mk 14.62 provides a rhetorically compelling riposte to his accusers that they will come to see Jesus enthroned in glory. In other words, their judgement on him will be shown to be false and the situation will be reversed: they will face judgement from him. This also makes it clear that the initially playful riddle about the identity of David’s κύριος in Mk 12.35-37 is to be understood not only as a claim of messiahship but also of lordship. Whether this amounts to ‘shared identity’, as Hays and others have argued, remains a matter of debate. Their case would certainly be strengthened if Johanssen is correct that this text implies that Jesus and God share the same throne (as in Rev. 22.1) but this is by no means certain.44 It is unlikely that Mark was responsible for constructing the composite quotation. Apart from the fact that the narrative suggests that it goes back to Jesus, the popularity of Ps. 110.1 in the early church suggests that its origin lies there rather than with Mark.

40.  N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996), p. 643. France (Gospel of Mark, pp. 534–35, 610–12) agrees with this interpretation of the composite quotation, though he thinks the traditional belief in Jesus ‘second coming’ can be maintained from Mk 13.32, where the περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης (‘but about that day’) marks a break with what has gone before and is illustrated by a parable about a returning master. 41.  Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 643. 42.  Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, p. 61. 43.  Marcus, Mark 8–16, p. 908. 44.  D. Johanssen, ‘Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark’, JSNT 33/1 (2010), pp. 101–24 (117–18).

32

Composite Citations in Antiquity

7. Conclusion Mark’s Gospel most likely contains four composite citations (1.2-3; 12.19; 13.24-25; 14.62), amounting to about 17 percent of the total (23). The passages are always thematically linked and the first three also share specific wording.45 There does not seem to be a single motive for why composite citations are used. Mark 13.24-25 and 14.62 can best be described as rhetorically strengthening the theme of the first quotation by adding a text from a similar context. Thus the addition of ‘stars falling’ from Isa. 13.10 and perhaps ‘powers shaken’ from Joel 2.10 adds to the sense of complete cosmic collapse (however it is interpreted). The addition of the enthronement of the κύριος from Ps. 110.1 emphasizes the theme of Jesus’ lordship and vindication over his enemies. However, the addition of a phrase from Gen. 38.8 to Deut. 25.5 does not make the citation more powerful but forms a possible link with the following sayings about resurrection. This at least appears to be how Matthew took it. On the other hand, the composite quotation in Mk 1.2-3 is in a class of its own. Bringing together three texts under the rubric of what is written in Isaiah opens up a number of interpretative possibilities, as can be seen from the different interpretations of Hays, Marcus, Watts, and Bates. It is possible that Mark had a single intention for doing this but the complexity of what he has done inevitably leads to ambiguity; and perhaps the ambiguity was intended, as Johanssen argues for the identity of the κύριος. At any rate, what we can say is that three moments of salvation history have been brought together and reinforce the claim that, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near’ (1.15a). One of the questions that arises from the study of composite citations concerns the appropriateness of importing meanings from the original contexts in order to understand Mark’s narrative. We saw this in our discussion of Mk 11.17, where the modern tendency to emphasize the background of Jer. 7.11 mitigates the case for regarding it as a composite citation. Similarly, the tendency to import meanings from the contexts of Mal. 3.146 or Exod. 23.2047 runs counter to the ascription of the whole 45.  ‫‘( פנה‬prepare’) in Mal. 3.1 and Isa. 40.3; ‫‘( יבם‬to marry one’s brother’s widow’) in Deut. 25.5 and Gen. 38.8; ἀστέρες/ἄστρα (‘stars’) in Isa. 13.10; 34.4; Joel 2.10. 46.  Notably by Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus. 47.  See L. Perkins, ‘Kingdom, Messianic Authority and the Re-constituting of God’s People – Tracing the Function of Exodus Material in Mark’s Narrative’, in T. R. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels. Vol. 1, The Gospel of Mark (LNTS, 304; London: T&T Clark International, 2006), pp. 100–115.

2. Moyise  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Mark

33

quotation to Isaiah. Mark does not offer any other examples of this phenomenon, but it is interesting that Matthew twice ascribes a composite quotation to what appears to be the least significant (certainly the least visible) of the constituent elements.48 This could be used to challenge the view that Isaiah is singled out because it is the most important of the constituent elements. However, this principle is clearly not operative here, since Isa. 40.3 was a well-known text and is hardly hidden from view, as in the Matthean examples. Thus we cannot rely on some fixed principle of how readers would interpret Mark’s ascription to Isaiah. My tentative judgement is that he was trying to emphasize the importance of Isaiah, while broadening it to include other themes. However, I share the misgivings of Hatina that we should be careful not to force Mark’s narrative into a pre-existing pattern or framework. It still seems to me that one of Mark’s aims is to show that Jesus does not fit easily into pre-existing patterns.49 Although Hays strongly argues that Mark is intending to present Jesus as the ‘embodiment of God’s presence’, he does note that ‘Mark never quite dares to articulate this claim explicitly…[it] is a mystery that can be approached only by indirection, through riddle-like allusions to the Old Testament’.50

48.  See Menken, Matthew’s Bible, pp. 89–104 (Mt. 13.35) and pp. 179–99 (Mt. 27.9-10), as well as his chapter in the present volume. 49.  Supremely in Mk 8.27-33, where Peter’s confession, ‘You are the Christ’, is not only followed by Jesus’ speaking about the suffering of the ‘Son of Man’, but also appears to be equated with ‘setting your mind not on divine things but on human things’ (8.33). 50.  Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, p. 62.

Chapter 3 C omp os i t e C i tat i on s i n t he G ospe l of M at t h ew * Maarten J. J. Menken

It is not surprising that Matthew’s Gospel contains many citations from the Old Testament.1 The Matthean Jesus is a Jewish teacher who is teaching Jewish disciples and Jewish crowds, and who is having discussions and conflicts with Jewish authorities; no wonder then that the Jewish Scriptures are frequently used in these exchanges, as Matthew tells them. Besides, in the series of so-called fulfilment quotations, the evangelist himself cites from Scripture to show to his audience that, in the ministry of his protagonist, Scripture is fulfilled. The latter series of quotations is clearly the result of editorial work of the evangelist: several fulfilment quotations have been inserted in materials borrowed from Mark,2 all of them can be omitted without a loss of flow of the story line, and the formula which introduces them (basically ‘that what was said through the prophet might be fulfilled, when he said …’) shows Matthean characteristics.3 The majority of the other quotations come from Matthew’s sources (Mark, Q, or other sources); a few quotations have been inserted by the evangelist. Matthew makes use of both marked and unmarked quotations, *  Before Maarten Menken’s untimely death on 21 March 2016, he asked me (Steve Moyise) to check his English and read his paper at ‘The Annual Seminar for the Study of the Old Testament in the New’ (Hawarden, Wales) and (if necessary) prepare it for publication. As co-editors of The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel series (T&T Clark), I have done this according to what I think Maarten would have done and offer it in his memory. He will be sadly missed. 1.  I use the name ‘Matthew’ both for the author of the First Gospel and for this Gospel itself, without implying that the real name of the author was Matthew. 2.  Throughout this chapter, I presuppose the two-document hypothesis. 3.  See M. J. J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (BETL, 173; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004), pp. 2–3.

3. Menken  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew

35

that is, of more or less verbatim borrowings from the Old Testament that are introduced by a formula that makes clear that the words in question come from Scripture, and of more or less verbatim borrowings that lack such a formula but are still recognizable as borrowings. Several of Matthew’s Old Testament quotations have been derived from more than one Old Testament passage. Almost all Matthean citations with more than one Old Testament source are citations in which analogous Old Testament passages, that is, passages that have at least one word in common and that mostly also have a similar content,4 have been combined. All these citations with more than one Old Testament source can be labelled ‘composite citations’. However, in a citation with more than one source, the sources can interact in different ways. Following Christopher Stanley (and others), we should distinguish between two kinds of composite citations: ‘combined citations’ and ‘conflated citations’.5 ‘Combined citations’ are composite citations in which two (or more) passages have been joined in order to form together one new quotation (under one introductory formula, in the case of marked quotations). ‘Conflated citations’ are composite citations in which a word or a few words of one passage has or have been inserted in a quotation from another passage, often as a substitute for one or more words originally present in it. A condition for a quotation to be considered a conflated citation should be, to my mind, that the word or phrase that is inserted can be traced back not to a generally biblical way of speaking but to one (or a few) specific Old Testament passage(s). There are, on the one hand, conflated citations in which the ‘citator’ has inserted one or more words from another biblical passage, and on the other, citations in which the ‘citator’ has made use of an already conflated biblical text. To my mind, three of Matthew’s fulfilment quotations fall into the latter category: the quotations from Jer. 31(38).15 in Mt. 2.18, from Isa. 8.23–9.1 in Mt. 4.15-16, and from Isa. 42.1-4 in Mt. 12.18-21. 4.  On this phenomenon, see G. J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context (JSOTSup, 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 166, 294, 297–98, 306–8, 319; J. Koenig, L’herméneutique analogique du Judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe (VTSup, 33; Leiden: Brill, 1982); M. J. J. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form (CBET, 15; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996), pp. 52–53, 83–84, 88–89, 94–95, 117–18, 131–36, 159–60, 195, 197. 5.  C. D. Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, in S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, vol. 1 of Composite Citations in Antiquity (LNTS, 525; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), pp. 203–9 (204–5).

36

Composite Citations in Antiquity

In these three fulfilment quotations, the verbal changes are not (apart from an occasional exception6) due to Matthew but were found by him in the already conflated biblical text from which he drew these quotations, which was, as far as I can see, a revised LXX.7 They cannot be considered to be conflated quotations. Apart from the use of multiple Old Testament sources, there are other criteria for citations to be considered as composite ones. In order for a citation to be considered a composite one, the introductory formula marking it as a quotation (if it has one) should only refer to one source. Further, the constituent parts of the citation should not be connected by a conjunction—marking a break between them—but they should together constitute one new quotation with one message. The latter condition excludes Mt. 15.4 and 19.18-19 as composite citations. In 15.4, a commandment from the Decalogue has been linked by means of the conjunction καί to another law from the Torah; both commandments have the same message and do not together constitute one new commandment. Although there is one introductory formula that applies to both commandments, the conjunction ‘and’ shows that the two commandments have not been fused but remain distinct. In Mt. 19.18-19 we meet a similar case: by means of the conjunction καί, the commandment to love one’s neighbour has been added to a series of commandments from the Decalogue, which was introduced by the neuter singular article τό.8 A composite citation should be made up of more than one Old Testament passage in such a way that the sources have been fused into one citation.9 An uncertain instance of composite quotation is found in Mt. 21.13. Jesus addresses a marked citation from Isa. 56.7 to the merchants in the temple: ‘It is written: My house shall be called a house of prayer’. He continues: ‘But you are making it a den of robbers’. ‘A den of robbers’ 6.  In the second line of the citation from Isa. 42.1-4 in Mt. 12.18-21, Matthew has replaced ἐκλεκτός with ἀγαπητός, which rather comes from the words of the heavenly voice in Mt. 3.17; 17.5 than from an analogous biblical text. 7.  That is the thesis I defended in Matthew’s Bible. See on the three quotations just mentioned pp. 15–33, 67–88, 142–59. 8.  See F. Blass and A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (ed. F. Rehkopf; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 16th edn, 1984), §267.1. 9.  One should be careful with the Old Testament references provided in editions or translations of the New Testament: these may suggest that a citation is composite while it actually is not. At the final clause of the parable of the mustard seed in Mt. 13.32 (‘so that the birds of the air come and settle in its branches’), for instance, NA28 refers to Ezek. 17.23; 31.6; Dan. 4.9, 18; Ps 103.12 LXX. In fact, however, a Greek translation of Dan. 4.9 or 4.18 constitutes an adequate explanation for the quotation.

3. Menken  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew

37

(σπήλαιον λῃστῶν) probably comes from Jer. 7.11.10 However, the preceding words ‘but you are making it’ do not agree with the Jeremiah passage. The whole clause looks like either a free citation from or an allusion to Jer. 7.11. Does the introductory formula ‘it is written’ refer to the words from Isa. 56.7 only, or also to the next clause with the words from Jer. 7.11? We meet in Matthew’s Gospel several times the construction of a marked citation followed by information that is in opposition (indicated by δέ) to what the citation says. In 15.4-6, for instance, Jesus contrasts two Torah commandments about honouring one’s parents with the interpretation his audience (Pharisees and scribes, 15.1) gives to these commandments, and their interpretation starts with the words ὑμεῖς δέ, ‘but you’, precisely as in 21.13. Other examples are found in the series of antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount (5.21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-36, 38-41, 43-45), and in 26.31-32. I conclude that in Mt. 21.13, we do not have a composite citation; there is one marked citation introduced by ‘it is written’, followed by an address of the audience that is in opposition to the quotation and that contains an expression from Jer. 7.11. In what follows, I shall discuss Matthew’s combined citations (2.6; 5.21, 33, 43; 11.5, 10; 21.5; 24.29; 26.64) and his conflated quotations (2.23; 13.35; 22.24; 27.9-10). I shall pay attention to the question of whether Matthew created the composite citations or found them, and to the impact of the quotations in their present context. At the end of the chapter, I shall give some attention to the question of whether or not the intended audience would have been able to detect the component parts of a composite citation. 1. Combined Citations in Matthew’s Gospel a. Matthew 2.6 When the Magi come to Jerusalem to pay homage to the newborn king of the Jews, the chief priests and scribes of the people tell King Herod that the Messiah has to be born in Bethlehem, for Scripture says: καὶ σὺ Βηθλέεμ, γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα· ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ.

10.  The only occurrence of σπήλαιον λῃστῶν in the LXX is in Jer. 7.11 (see further Jer. 2.9).

38

Composite Citations in Antiquity And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the chiefs of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.

Matthew 2.6 constitutes a marked quotation:11 it is preceded by the words ‘for so it has been written by the prophet’ (2.5). The first three lines of the citation come from Mic. 5.1 in a ‘targumizing’ translation that does not betray Matthew’s hand; the fourth line has another origin: it derives from 2 Sam. 5.2.12 According to the LXX version of this verse, which is an exact translation of the Hebrew, God said to David: σὺ ποιμανεῖς τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ, ‘you will shepherd my people Israel’. The fourth line of Matthew’s citation agrees with the LXX and thus also with the Hebrew, but two details have been changed: the second person of the verbal form has become a third person, and the relative pronoun ὅστις has been inserted as the subject of the clause. These changes serve to make the divine oracle applicable to the ‘ruler’ who will come from Bethlehem according to Mic. 5.1. The combination of Mic. 5.1 and 2 Sam. 5.2 is easily legitimated by their analogy: the former verse contains the promise of a coming king from David’s lineage, the latter the appointment by God of David as king, and the passages Mic. 5.1-3 and 2 Sam. 5.2 share several words (the name ‘Israel’, the divine name ‫ יהוה‬/ κύριος, ‫ רעה‬/ ποιμαίνειν, ‫[ יצר‬qal and hiphil] / ἐξέρχεσθαι and ἐξάγειν, the synonyms ‫ מושל‬/ ἄρχων and ‫ נגיד‬/ ἡγούμενος).We have here a clear case of a combined citation. Who was responsible for this combined citation? The Micah part of the citation probably belonged to the materials Matthew used.13 An important indication is to be found in Mt. 2.19-23: Joseph is first commanded in a dream by an angel to return to the land of Israel, and then he is again warned in a dream and settles in Nazareth. The unnecessary double geographical thrust betrays that here two literary levels have been combined, and the similarity between Mt. 2.22-23 and the obviously 11.  For a detailed discussion of this quotation and its context, see Menken, Matthew’s Bible, pp. 255–63. 12.  Or from the completely identical wording in 1 Chron. 11.2. For the sake of brevity, I shall in what follows refer only to 2 Sam. 5.2. 13.  The view presented here on the sources which Matthew used in his infancy narrative basically agrees with R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 2nd edn, 1993), pp. 104–19; J. Nolland, ‘The Sources for Matthew 2:1-12’, CBQ 60 (1998), pp. 283–300.

3. Menken  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew

39

editorial passage Mt. 4.12-16 (cf. Mk 1.14a) shows that the two final verses of Matthew 2 have been composed by the evangelist to solve the problem that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem. Matthew 2.19-21 is then quite probably pre-Matthean material, and the same must apply to the very similar dream scenes 2.13-15 and 1.18-25 (at least its core). What is told to King Herod in 2.1-12, 16 is essential to the coherence of the three dream scenes and must belong to the pre-Matthean materials as well.14 In 2.1-12 we meet two different narrative threads: one that follows the Magi, who are led to the child by the star, and one that follows Herod, who hears about a new king to be born in Bethlehem and starts searching for him. Two stories have apparently been combined here, and only the one on Herod fits into the pre-Matthean chain. The Micah quotation in 2.6 is an indispensable part of this Herod story: if Jewish experts inform Herod that Bethlehem is where the new king will be born, they can do so only by means of Mic. 5.1, for there is no other Old Testament text stating that the coming ruler will be born in Bethlehem. I conclude that the Micah citation was part of the traditional materials used by Matthew. The word ὅστις, however, that connects the Micah part to the 2 Samuel part, sounds Matthean: Matthew uses this pronoun relatively frequently15 and, in many instances, its use is evidently editorial.16 So we may assume that Matthew added the line from 2 Sam. 5.2 to the lines from Mic. 5.1. Why did he use it as a replacement for the similar clause in Mic. 5.1d (‘one who is to rule in Israel’)? The new elements which 2 Sam. 5.2 adds to Mic. 5.1 are ‘to shepherd’ and ‘my people’. More than the other Synoptics, Matthew shows an interest in Jesus’ role of ‘messianic shepherd’: we meet it in materials borrowed from Mark (Mt. 9.36; 26.31) and from Q (Mt. 18.12-14), and also in his own materials (Mt. 10.6;

14.  Of importance is also that the five scenes together resemble the Old Testament stories on Moses in Exod. 1–4 and their expansions in early Jewish exegesis as we find them in, e.g., Josephus, Ant. 2.205-237. 15.  It occurs 29 times in Matthew (always in the nominative), 5 times in Mark, 18 times in Luke; see U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus 1: Mt 1–7 (EKKNT, 1/1; Zurich: Benziger, 3rd edn, 1992), p. 46. 16.  See 12.50 diff. Mk 3.35; 13.12 bis diff. Mk 4.25; 19.29 diff. Mk 10.29; 21.33 diff. Mk 12.1; 21.41 diff. Mk 12.9; 27.55 diff. Mk 15.40. Against this background, the following instances may be editorial as well: 7.15; 7.24 bis diff. Lk. 6.47-48; 7.26 diff. Lk. 6.49; 10.32 diff. Lk. 12.8; 10.33 diff. Lk. 12.9; 13.52; 18.4 (cf. 23.12); 20.1; 22.2 diff. Lk. 14.16; 23.12 bis diff. Lk. 14.11; 23.27 diff. Lk. 11.44; 25.1; 27.62. See W. Schenk, Die Sprache des Matthäus: Die Text-Konstituenten in ihren makro- und mikrostrukturellen Relationen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), p. 378.

40

Composite Citations in Antiquity

15.24; 25.32-33).17 From this perspective, the addition of the clause ‘who will shepherd my people Israel’ suited the evangelist quite well. That the object of the coming ruler’s shepherding will be ‘my people’ also concurs with Matthew’s interest. The people are on the one hand the intended recipient of God’s salvation realized in Jesus,18 on the other they appear in a bad light, often associating with the authorities in eliminating Jesus.19 Several of the references to ‘the people’ are editorial, especially those in which the evangelist speaks of the authorities ‘of the people’.20 By adding a clause from 2 Sam. 5.2 with the word λαός to a quotation which was put in the mouth of ‘all chief priests and scribes of the people’ (Mt. 2.4), Matthew could emphasize the evil intentions of the authorities and of the people influenced by them, but at the same time, he could make their quotation ironically into a statement on Jesus’ real significance: he will indeed ‘shepherd his people Israel’. So the impact of the citation at its present position is double: on the one hand, it shows the authorities abusing Scripture in helping Herod with his plan to kill Israel’s Messiah; on the other, the same authorities unintentionally reveal the scriptural truth about Jesus’ messianic role. b. Matthew 5.21, 33, 43 In the Sermon on the Mount we meet a series of six so-called antitheses, statements of Jesus in which he contrasts what was said in the past to people of earlier generations with what he himself now says to his audience (5.21-48). What was said in the past (5.21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43) consists of Old Testament legal provisions, introduced by a citation formula that reads in its longest form (it is sometimes shortened): ‘you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times’. Jesus’ response to the citation is then introduced by the words ‘but I say to you’. In three of the six instances (5.21, 33, 43) the legal provision is double: a prohibition or a positive commandment is followed by another legal provision giving a supplement or counterpart to it. Because in all three instances both legal provisions come from the Old Testament, either verbally or at least materially, and are presented as citations, we can speak here of 17.  See Y. S. Chae, Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew (WUNT, 2/216; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); W. Baxter, Israel’s Only Shepherd: Matthew’s Shepherd Motif and His Social Setting (LNTS, 457; London: T&T Clark International, 2012). 18.  See 1.21; 4.16, 23. 19.  See 2.4; 15.8; 21.23; 26.3, 47; 27.1, 25. 20.  See 21.23; 26.3, 47; 27.1; probably 2.4 as well.

3. Menken  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew

41

combined citations. Because the three cases are rather similar, come from the same context and confront us with similar problems, I will discuss them together. οὐ φονεύσεις· ὃς δ᾽ ἂν φονεύσῃ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει. You shall not murder; whoever murders, shall be liable to the court. (5.21) οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, ἀποδώσεις δὲ τῷ κυρίῳ τοὺς ὅρκους σου. You shall not swear falsely, but you shall keep your oaths to the Lord. (5.33) ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου. You shall love your neighbour and you shall hate your enemy. (5.43)

In these three quotations, we meet two verbal agreements with Old Testament passages: οὐ φονεύσεις agrees with Exod. 20.15 and Deut. 5.18 LXX, and ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου with Lev. 19.18 LXX. In the citations in 5.27 and 38 there is also agreement with the LXX. These agreements are, however, not very telling: in all cases the LXX adequately renders the Hebrew, in most cases other translations are hardly possible, and all quotations concern well-known passages. For the ‘free’ quotations, where there is only agreement with the contents of certain Old Testament passages, it is impossible to draw any conclusion on textual form. Did Matthew create these combined quotations, or did he find them in the materials he used? It is not easy to answer this question; what follows is my tentative answer.21 The six antitheses can be divided into two groups. Three belong to Matthew’s Sondergut, and some materials of miscellaneous provenance have been added to them (5.21-26, 27-30, 33-37). Three others come from Q, apart from the legal provision at the beginning (5.31-32, 38-42, 43-48; cf. Lk. 16.18; 6.29-30, 27-28, 32-36). Matthew’s series starts with the Sondergut antitheses; the explicable exception is the antithesis on divorce (5.31-32), which has been added to the antithesis on adultery (5.27-30) on account of the related topic. There is some tension between the antitheses, where keeping the letter of the law is not enough, 21.  For details, see Menken, Matthew’s Bible, pp. 263–67.

42

Composite Citations in Antiquity

and the preceding passage 5.17-20, in which Jesus emphasizes the abiding validity of the law and which in any case reflects Matthew’s view.22 The formulae that introduce thesis and antithesis contain traits that are slightly unusual for Matthew (οἱ ἀρχαῖοι, ἐγὼ … λέγω). My tentative conclusion from all this is that Matthew found the series of Sondergut antitheses, and added three more, which he composed with the help of Q materials. The formula that introduces the citations is then pre-Matthean, and Matthew imitated it in the antitheses he composed himself.23 This means that 5.21 is probably pre-Matthean. ‘You shall not murder’ comes, as we have seen, from the Decalogue; the words ‘whoever murders, shall be liable to the court’24 can be considered to be a free rendering of a whole series of Torah passages.25 These words are necessary as a supplement to ‘you shall not murder’ on account of what follows in v. 22. Jesus could of course simply say there that anger and various forms of abuse are already a preamble to murder, but the threat of trial and judgment has a stronger impact. Anger towards one’s brother now already requires the juridical measures that were in the past provided for murder, that is, it makes one liable to a local court, while calling him ῥακά or ‘fool’ makes one liable to even more threatening consequences— the Sanhedrin or the hell of fire. So anger towards one’s brother is now just as serious a crime as murder was in ancient times, and abusing one’s brother is even more serious. The second element of the citation in v. 21, with the threat of being liable to a local court, is necessary to achieve this rhetorical effect. 22.  Cf. Mt. 3.15; 7.12; 22.40; 23.3, 23; 24.20. 23.  For similar conclusions, see, e.g., R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (FRLANT, 29; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 8th edn, 1970), pp. 142–44; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997), pp. 1:504–5. 24.  The sequel in v. 22 shows that κρίσις must indicate here a law court, see A. Sand, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1986), p. 112; W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, ed. K. Aland and B. Aland (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), s.v. 2. 25.  See such passages as Gen. 9.6; Exod. 21.12; Lev. 24.17, 21; Num. 35.12, 16-18; Deut. 17.8-13. In rabbinic literature as well, some of these passages are combined with Exod. 20.13 (see, e.g., the combination of Exod. 20.13 and Gen. 9.6 in Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 13.7 and Mek. Exod. 20.13 [Baḥodesh 8]), but then in the form of a rendering of or commentary on the biblical text, not in the form of a composite citation. See S. Ruzer, ‘The Technique of Composite Citation in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:21-22, 33-37)’, RB 103/1 (1996), pp. 65–75, esp. 65–72.

3. Menken  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew

43

Matthew 5.33 is another pre-Matthean combined citation, made up of two legal provisions. Neither of the two is a verbal quotation from a specific Old Testament passage; both are free renderings of a mix of Old Testament passages.26 Jesus’ response to what ‘was said to those of ancient times’ on not swearing falsely, is not to swear at all but to take care that one’s ‘yes’ or ‘no’ really means ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The second legal provision in the quotation (‘but you shall keep your oaths to the Lord’) serves to inculcate the weight of the prohibition to swear falsely: whoever does not keep an oath incurs guilt because one has to keep one’s oaths to the Lord. Its rhetorical effect is that it shows how serious the prohibition to swear falsely is.27 In the final antithesis, the evangelist was responsible for the combined Old Testament quotation. Its first part comes from Lev. 19.18, a commandment that must have been dear to Matthew because he includes it two more times in his Gospel (22.39, copied from Mark; 19.19, inserted in a story derived from Mark). Here, it is followed by the commandment ‘you shall hate your enemy’. This commandment cannot be found in precisely this form in the Old Testament; it is again a free rendering based on a mix of Old Testament passages.28 Matthew has omitted ὡς σεαυτόν, ‘as yourself’, at the end of the Leviticus clause, probably to achieve complete parallelism between the two halves of the combined citation. He has Jesus correct the citation, addressed to ‘those of ancient times’, with words about loving one’s enemies derived from Q. To achieve the desired contrast, he had to limit the scope of the love commandment of Lev. 19.18 to one’s neighbour in the sense of a person from one’s own people. He does so by adding a ‘citation’ constructed with the help of Lev. 19.18 and the Q passage: μισεῖν is the opposite of ἀγαπᾶν, and ἐχθρός comes from Q (cf. Lk. 6.27, 35).29 c. Matthew 11.5 According to Mt. 11.2-6, John the Baptist, who is in prison, sends disciples to Jesus to ask him whether he is ‘the coming one’; Jesus answers by 26.  For ‘you shall not swear falsely’, see Exod. 20.7 or Deut. 5.11; Lev. 19.12; Zech. 8.17; for ‘but you shall keep your oaths to the Lord’, see Num. 30.3; Deut. 23.22-24; Ps. 50.14. 27.  With E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, ed. W. Schmauch (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th edn, 1967), p. 132, I assume that both parts of the citation primarily concern oaths in social intercourse. 28.  Such as Deut. 7.1-5; 20.16-18; Ps. 139.21-22. The Hebrew words ‫שנא‬, ‘to hate’, and ‫שנאה‬, ‘hatred’, are used in 1QS 1.10-11; 9.21-23 for the desired attitude towards enemies; cf. Josephus, War 2.139 (with μισεῖν). 29.  Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, p. 1:550.

44

Composite Citations in Antiquity

referring to his healings and his preaching in a kind of collage of passages reminiscent of Isaiah that concern the coming time of salvation. We have here an unmarked combined quotation that consists of a series of six elements. For some elements, only one source text can be identified in Isaiah, for others there are more possibilities, and one element does not occur in Isaiah at all, as a presentation of the text with a list of possible sources shows: τυφλοὶ ἀναβλέπουσιν καὶ χωλοὶ περιπατοῦσιν λεπροὶ καθαρίζονται καὶ κωφοὶ ἀκούουσιν καὶ νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται καὶ πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται

Isa. 29.18; 35.5; 42.7, 18; 61.1 Isa. 35.6 (Leviticus) Isa. 29.18; 35.5; 42.18 Isa. 26.19 Isa. 29.19; 61.1

The blind recover their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised and the poor are brought good news.

There is some agreement with the LXX version of Isaiah. The word τυφλός occurs in all Isaian parallels indicated for the first line; ἀναβλέπειν is found in Isa. 42.18 (and ἀναβλεψις, ‘recovery of sight’, in 61.1); χωλός in 35.6; χωλός and ἀκούειν in 29.18; 35.5; 42.18; νεκρός and ἐγείρειν in 26.19; πτωχός and εὐαγγελίζειν in 61.1, and πτωχός alone in 29.19. There is, however, no instance among all these Isaian parallels of complete verbal agreement, including the precise forms of nouns and verbs. Besides, in almost all instances the Greek words are standard translations of the Hebrew,30 so it is hardly possible to draw any conclusion about the textual form used. The above shows that there is analogy between several of the Isaianic passages listed: 29.18-19; 35.5-6; 42.7, 18; 61.1 are connected by a network of common words and themes. The third and fifth lines of Mt. 11.5 fall outside this network: the combination of λεπρός and καθαρίζειν does not occur in the LXX of Isaiah but reminds one of LXX Leviticus (e.g., 14.2), and ‘the dead are raised’ in Isa. 26.19 has no connection to the network of analogous texts. These two lines suggest that the primary motif to create this composition of six lines was the wish to present ‘the works of the Messiah’ (cf. Mt. 11.2) in order to show that Jesus is this Messiah. What we have here 30.  The translation of ‫( נבט‬hiphil) by ἀναβλέπειν in Isa. 42.18 might constitute an exception.

3. Menken  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew

45

is an early Christian construction largely based on passages from Isaiah on miraculous things God or his agent will perform in the coming time of salvation. The construction has a very tight form: in all six lines, a noun in the nominative plural masculine, indicating a group of people in need, is followed by a verb in the third person plural present indicative, indicating the removal of the need.31 Matthew has taken this construction together with its context from Q: Mt. 11.2-19 has a close parallel in Lk. 7.18-35, while there is no Markan parallel. Mt. 11.5 is almost completely identical with Lk. 7.22 (there are only a few differences in the use of καί in the enumeration), so Matthew must have left the Q text almost unchanged here. Matthew has strategically positioned the list of ‘the works of the Messiah’ shortly after chs. 8–9, in which he has collected a series of miracle stories that he found in Mark and Q. The evangelist has taken care that a specimen of each of the five types of miracles mentioned in 11.5 can be found in chs. 8–9: Jesus restores the sight of two blind men in 9.27-31, he makes a paralyzed man walk in 9.2-8, he cleanses a leper in 8.1-4, he makes a mute man speak in 9.32-34, and he raises a dead girl in 9.20-31.32 The sixth line of 11.5, about bringing good news to the poor, has been paradigmatically realized in the Sermon on the Mount (see esp. 5.3-12). So the collage of (mainly) Isaianic texts serves the evangelist to show that Jesus fulfils Isaiah’s prophecies about the time of salvation. d. Matthew 11.10 When the disciples of John the Baptist go away, Jesus speaks to the crowds about John (11.7-19), and one of the things he says about him is that ‘this is the one about whom it is written’: ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου. See, I send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.

The first clause of this marked citation derives from Exod. 23.20, the second one from Mal. 3.1. These two verses are very similar, in both 31.  ‘The words of Jesus [Mt. 11.5] are cast in a poetical structure, and may have originated as a Christian hymn of praise for the wonders of the Messianic age’, so F. W. Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981), p. 257. 32.  See U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus 2: Mt 8–17 (EKKNT, 1/2; Zurich: Benziger, 2nd edn, 1996), pp. 168–69.

46

Composite Citations in Antiquity

vocabulary and content (both are about God sending a messenger who will take care of a way), and therefore clearly analogous. They read in the LXX: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου ἵνα φυλάξῃ σε ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ (Exod. 23.20) ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου (Mal. 3.1)

Exodus 23.20 LXX differs at one point from the Hebrew: it has τὸν ἄγγελόν μου whereas the Hebrew has ‫מלאך‬, ‘a messenger’, without pronominal suffix. In the case of Mal. 3.1, there is also one difference between LXX and Hebrew text: the piel ‫פנה‬, ‘he will prepare’, has been read by the translator as a qal, ‘he will oversee’, and has been translated in Greek as ἐπιβλέψεται. In Mt. 11.10, the first line of Exod. 23.20 has been combined with the second line of Mal. 3.1 into one sentence, introduced by one introductory formula, so we have here a clear instance of a combined citation. The first line agrees completely with Exod. 23.20 LXX (only the initial καί has been omitted). The second line differs on various points from the LXX version of Mal. 3.1: (1) it begins with the relative pronoun ὅς, to create an unequivocal connection with the preceding clause; (2) it offers in κατασκευάσει a correct translation of the piel ‫( ;פנה‬3) it has τὴν ὁδόν σου instead of simple ὁδόν, and (4) ἔμπροσθέν σου instead of πρὸ προσώπου μου. The addition of and change into σου serve to adapt the clause from Malachi to its new context: it is now no longer God sending his messenger to prepare the way before God himself, but God sending his messenger, that is John the Baptist, to prepare the way of Jesus before Jesus.33 The change of πρὸ προσώπου into ἔμπροσθέν is not very relevant, as both have the same meaning and are current Greek translations of Hebrew ‫;לפני‬ ἔμπροσθέν may have been introduced in the quotation to avoid a double πρὸ προσώπου. So the first line of the quotation comes from the LXX, the second line is either an improved LXX text or an independent translation of the Hebrew, which has been adapted to its new context. We have already seen that Mt. 11.2-19 comes from Q. The citation under discussion (including the introductory formula) has an almost verbatim parallel in Lk. 7.27; the only difference is that Matthew reads 33.  Cf. C. A. Ham, ‘The Minor Prophets in Matthew’s Gospel’, in M. J. J. Menken and S. Moyise (eds.), The Minor Prophets in the New Testament (LNTS, 377; London: T&T Clark, 2009), pp. 39–56 (50).

3. Menken  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew

47

ἐγώ after ἰδού in the first line whereas Luke does not.34 We meet the combined citation also in Mk 1.2, without ἐγώ in its first line and without ἔμπροσθέν σου at its end, and immediately followed by a citation from Isa. 40.3; the three elements together are in Mark ascribed to Isaiah (1.2-3) and concern John the Baptist. Matthew and Luke have apparently followed Q in presenting the combined citation from Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1 as part of Jesus’ words on John the Baptist; when they follow Mark in quoting from Isa. 40.3 at the beginning of their Gospels, they omit the Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1 part (Mt. 3.3; Lk. 3.4). In any case, the circumstance that the same combined citation occurs in both Q and Mark shows that it must have been created at an early stage in the development of early Christianity. God’s messenger who will lead Israel on the exodus (Exod. 20.23) has been identified with the messenger who will prepare the way for God himself (Mal. 3.1) and who is identified with the prophet Elijah later in the book of Malachi (3.23; see also Sir. 48.10); the combined citation is then applied to John the Baptist. The identification, either explicit or implicit, of John the Baptist as Elijah returned to earth, was well known in early Christian circles;35 the opposition against it that we meet in John (1.21, 25) only confirms that it was current. It seems to be reasonable to presume that the prophecy of Mal. 3.1 is the basic element of the combined citation, because this element makes the essential point that John the Baptist is the returned Elijah. The first line of Mal. 3.1 (‘see, I send my messenger’) has then been replaced by the first line of Exod. 23.20 because the latter line was about a messenger sent ‘ahead of you’, that is, in the early Christian interpretation, ahead of Jesus.36 Jesus’ words on the Baptist in Mt. 11.7-19 serve to show the prominent position of John the Baptist in the history of salvation: he is more than a prophet (v. 9), he is the greatest human being in the period before the dawn of the kingdom (vv. 11-13), he is Elijah returned from heaven to prepare the way for God’s coming, or, in the early Christian interpretation, for the coming of God’s Messiah, Jesus, as the citation shows and Jesus himself explicitly confirms slightly later in the pericope (‘he [John] is Elijah who is to come’, v. 14). However, Jesus also announces that John the Baptist would be rejected by his contemporaries (v. 18), and later in Matthew’s narrative he will indeed be executed (14.6-12). He prepares the 34.  Matthew probably retained the quotation as he found it in Q, and Luke omitted ἐγώ, see Menken, Matthew’s Bible, p. 248. 35.  See, apart from the texts already mentioned, Mk 9.11-13 // Mt. 17.10-13; Lk. 1.17. 36.  Ham, ‘Minor Prophets’, p. 49, rightly speaks of ‘a citation from Mal. 3.1 with wording from Exod. 23.20’.

48

Composite Citations in Antiquity

way for Jesus not only by his message and by baptizing Jesus (3.1-17), but also by announcing by his own violent death the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. 14.12-13). e. Matthew 21.5 Matthew has connected Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (21.1-11) with a fulfilment quotation. He introduces it with his characteristic fulfilment formula (‘this happened in order that what was said through the prophet might be fulfilled, when he said’, v. 4), and then he gives the words of the prophet (v. 5): εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιών· ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι πραῢς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὄνον καὶ ἐπὶ πῶλον υἱὸν ὑποζυγίου. Tell daughter Zion: See, your king is coming to you, meek and riding on a donkey and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.

Apart from the first line, the quotation comes from Zech. 9.9,37 in a version which is probably best considered a revised LXX: there are LXX elements in it, and the final words of the LXX version have been corrected in ways which are similar to what we see later in the translations of ‘the three’ to obtain better agreement with the Hebrew text. Zechariah 9.9 has been abbreviated: of the list of qualities of the coming king, only meekness remains. The Zechariah verse originally begins with a call to Jerusalem to rejoice (‘Rejoice greatly, daughter Zion! Proclaim, daughter Jerusalem!’); in Matthew’s version, this call has been replaced by a line from Isa. 62.11: ‘Tell daughter Zion’. The Greek text of this line agrees with the LXX; this, however, is not very surprising, as the line comprises only four Greek words and another Greek translation of the Hebrew is hardly possible. Isaiah 62.11 and Zech. 9.9 contain a comparable message of salvation addressed to Jerusalem and have a number of words in common (e.g., ‫ בת־ציון‬/ θυγάτηρ Σιών, ‫ הנה‬/ ἰδού, ‫ בוא‬/ ἔρχεσθαι in Zech. 9.9 LXX, παραγίνεσθαι in Isa. 62.11 LXX, and the stem ‫ ישה‬/ σῳ-) so their combination is easily legitimated by their analogy. We have here another case of a combined citation: a line from Isa. 62.11 is followed by three lines from Zech. 9.9, and the introductory formula refers to ‘the prophet’ as the source of the citation. 37.  For a detailed investigation, see Menken, Matthew’s Bible, pp. 105–16.

3. Menken  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew

49

It can be demonstrated that Matthew, as the final editor of his Gospel, was responsible for this combined citation. We have already seen that the series of fulfilment quotations has been inserted by the evangelist; in the present instance, the editorial insertion is quite clear from a comparison of Mt. 21.1-9 with its source Mk 11.1-10. That only ‘meekness’ among the qualities remains tallies with the entry narrative in which Jesus demonstrates his meekness by riding on a donkey, and with a Matthean interest elsewhere in his Gospel (see 11.29). That the quotation begins with ‘Tell daughter Zion’ instead of with a call to Jerusalem to rejoice, fits in quite well with Matthew’s entry story. The Matthean version differs from the Markan one in that it ends with ‘the entire city’ of Jerusalem being stirred and asking: ‘Who is this one?’, and the crowds responding: ‘This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee’ (21.10-11). Just as in Mt. 2.3-4, the entire city (concentrated into ‘the chief priests and the scribes’, 21.15-16) seems to be hostile towards Jesus, whereas the crowds take a positive stance towards him: they acclaim Jesus (21.9), and, in doing so, they answer the question of ‘the entire city’ as to his identity. This presentation of things would make it unsuitable to start the quotation from Zech. 9.9 with a call for Jerusalem (‘daughter Zion’) to rejoice; instead, we find a command to tell ‘daughter Zion’ that her king is coming, and this command is executed by the crowds.38 The effect of the combined citation in the context of Matthew’s whole Gospel is an emphasis on Jerusalem’s rejection of Jesus. The citation speaks of a meek and peaceful king, who comes to Jerusalem riding on a donkey (not using horses and chariots, cf. Zech. 9.10), but this ‘daughter Zion’ does not rejoice about the coming of her king. Instead, the crowds are summoned to bring her the message of his coming, but the net result of their message will be Jerusalem’s complete rejection of their king (see esp. Mt. 27.11-44). According to Matthew, therefore, the citation functions to highlight the rejection of Jesus by the Jewish authorities and those who follow them. f. Matthew 24.29 In his eschatological discourse, the Matthean Jesus speaks of a series of cosmic catastrophes that will take place before the final coming of the Son of Man:

38.  Cf. J. Nieuviarts, L’entrée de Jésus à Jérusalem (Mt 21, 1-17): Messianisme et accomplissement des Écritures en Matthieu (LD, 176; Paris: Cerf, 1999), pp. 49–50, 257–63.

50

Composite Citations in Antiquity ὁ ἥλιος σκοτισθήσεται, καὶ ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει τὸ φέγγος αὐτῆς, καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες πεσοῦνται ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν σαλευθήσονται. The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its splendour, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

The description derives from Isa. 13.10 and 34.4, and can be considered to be an unmarked citation from these two verses. Its first two lines come from Isa. 13.10; they are close to the LXX, which gives here a reasonable but not a precise translation of the Hebrew (καὶ σκοτισθήσεται τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνατέλλοντος καὶ ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει τὸ φῶς αὐτῆς). The third and fourth line come from Isa. 34.4; the third line resembles the LXX (καὶ πάντα τὰ ἄστρα πεσεῖται; the Hebrew is different), the fourth line has no parallel in the LXX but shows some similarity to the first line of the Hebrew text of the verse ‫השמים כל־צבא ונםקו‬, ‘and all the host of heaven shall melt away’. The expression αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν in Matthew’s quotation might be a Greek translation of ‫צבא השמים‬. The two Isaiah verses are analogous: both depict disasters that will take place in the firmament, and they share some vocabulary (in Greek: ἀστέρες / ἄστρα, οὐρανός; in Hebrew: ‫)שמים‬. Lines from both verses have been put together here so that they now constitute one combined citation. Matthew’s immediate source for this combined quotation was Mark’s Gospel: the evangelist borrowed the eschatological discourse in ch. 24 from Mark 13, and in the context of the discourse the combined citation in 24.29 was derived from Mk 13.24-25. There are some differences between Matthew and Mark in the citation, but they are minimal and can be readily explained by Matthew’s editorial work.39 The literary effect of the combined citation is that it works towards a climax (and in this respect it differs from the rather simple parallelisms in the two Isaiah verses). The sun will become dark, the moon will stop giving its light, the stars will not just stop giving light (as in Isa. 13.10) but something worse will happen: they will fall down from the firmament, and the end of this series of cosmic disasters will be that the celestial

39.  For details, see Menken, Matthew’s Bible, pp. 218–19. On the Markan parallel, see M. Hooker, ‘Isaiah in Mark’s Gospel’, in S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (eds.), Isaiah in the New Testament (London: T&T Clark International, 2005), pp. 35–49 (43–44).

3. Menken  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew

51

powers, that is the heavenly bodies viewed as spirits or living beings, will be shaken, unable to exert their influence any longer.40 Then the real climax will take place with the coming of the Son of Man: his sign will appear, and he will come from heaven to save his elect. To Matthew’s (and Mark’s) eschatological scenario belongs the end of the old age, vividly described in images derived from eschatological passages in Isaiah. g. Matthew 26.64 When interrogated by the high priest whether he is the Christ, the Son of God (Mt. 26.63), Jesus answers: ‘You have said so. But I say to you: From now on you will see’: τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καθήμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power and coming upon the clouds of heaven.

We have here an unmarked citation from Dan. 7.13 into which words from Ps. 110(109).1 have been inserted. In Dan. 7.13 Θ, we find μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος ἦν; in the LXX version, the relevant part of the verse reads ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο. The former translation is a precise rendering of the Aramaic original, the latter a reasonable one. The words καθήμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως in Matthew’s text come from Ps. 110(109).1, where according to the LXX version ‘the Lord’ says to ‘my lord’: κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ‘sit at my right hand’; this is a correct translation of the Hebrew. Put into their context, the two passages are clearly similar as far as their contents are concerned: in both, a human being receives a share in God’s power, and his enemies are overcome by God. In Greek, the passages also have some common vocabulary: the human being in question receives ἀρχή, ‘dominion’ (Dan. 7.14 Θ; Ps. 109.3), over τὰ ἔθνη, ‘the nations’ (Dan. 7.14 LXX; Ps. 109.7). So the two passages show analogy, and this legitimated joining the two into one combined citation. Matthew borrowed the entire scene of Jesus appearing before the Sanhedrin, of which the combined citation under discussion is a part, from Mark (Mt. 26.57-68; Mk 14.53-65). Again, there are in the combined citation some minor differences between Matthew and Mark; they can be easily explained by editorial work of Matthew on Mark’s text.41 40.  See Davies and Allison, Matthew, p. 3:358. 41.  For detailed discussion, see Menken, Matthew’s Bible, pp. 219–21, 222–23.

52

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Mark (or the tradition before him) has taken up here the early Christian ideas that in the present, the risen Jesus is enthroned at the right hand of God,42 and that at the eschaton, he will come to judge on behalf of God.43 Matthew has followed Mark, but he has reinforced the impact of the combined citation. After Jesus affirms that he is the Christ, Mark has him address the high priest with the words ‘And you will see’, followed by the citation. By contrast, Matthew’s Jesus, at the same place, says ‘But I say to you: from now on you will see’, and then the citation follows. Matthew reinforces the accusatory character of Jesus’ words: Jesus speaks with authority to the high priest, and tells him that from now on the roles will be reversed. Until this moment, the Sanhedrin was the judge of Jesus; from now on, Jesus will be the judge of the Sanhedrin.44 Conflict between Christian Jews and other Jews shimmers through Matthew’s text. 2. Conflated Citations in Matthew a. Matthew 2.23 At the end of his infancy narrative, Matthew narrates that Joseph, who has just returned with his wife and child from Egypt to the land of Israel, is afraid to go to Judea, because Archelaus is reigning there. Warned in a dream, he withdraws to Galilee and settles in Nazareth, and this is seen as the fulfilment of a prophecy that reads (2.23): ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται. For he will be called a Nazorean.

This fulfilment quotation confronts the exegete with several problems,45 and some of these are relevant to its composite character. First: does the quotation comprise (as supposed above) three words, ὅτι being a 42.  Connected to Ps. 110(109).1; see, e.g., Acts 2.34; 1 Cor. 15.25; Heb. 1.3, 13. 43.  Connected to Dan. 7.13-14; see, e.g., Mk 13.26; Rev. 1.7; 14.14. Traces of a combination of Ps. 110(109).1 and Dan. 7.13-14 may also be found in Mk 8.38 (‘in the glory of his Father’ referring to Ps. 110[109].1); 13.26 (‘with great power and glory’ referring to Ps. 110[109].1); Acts 7.56, see J. Dupont, ‘ “Assis à la droite de Dieu”: L’interprétation du Ps 110,1 dans le Nouveau Testament’, in É. Dhanis (ed.), Resurrexit: Actes du Symposium International sur la Résurrection de Jésus (Rome 1970) (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1974), pp. 340–422, here pp. 356, 370–72. 44.  Cf. Dupont, ‘ “Assis à la droite de Dieu” ’, pp. 363–64; U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus 4: Mt 26–28 (EKKNT, 1/4; Zurich: Benziger, 2002), pp. 180–81. 45.  For a discussion of these, see Menken, Matthew’s Bible, pp. 161–77.

3. Menken  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew

53

causal conjunction, or two words, ὅτι being recitative, that is, introducing direct discourse? Taking into account that no other Matthean fulfilment quotation begins with recitative ὅτι, and that Matthew shows a tendency to drop recitative ὅτι when he finds it in his sources,46 we have to say that the former possibility is by far the most probable one. Second: what is the Old Testament source of the quotation? In precisely this form, it does not occur in the Old Testament, but a clause from Judg. 13.5, 7 comes rather close to it.47 These two verses concern the announcement of the birth of Samson, and in this context it is twice said about him:

‫כי־נזיר אלהים יהוה הנער מן־הבתן‬

For the boy will be a Nazirite to God from the womb.

In the LXX, there is some variation in the translation; I give here the clause from 13.7 according to LXX A: ὅτι ναζιραῖον θεοῦ ἔσται τὸ παιδάριον ἀπὸ τῆς γαστρός.

The initial ὅτι parallels the ὅτι at the beginning of Matthew’s quotation. We further know from the LXX and from the other ancient Greek translations of the Old Testament that there was, at the time Matthew wrote his Gospel, an established tradition among Greek-speaking Jews of not translating but transliterating the Hebrew noun ‫ נזיר‬into Greek characters, mostly with a Greek ending as ναζιραῖος. So Matthew’s audience knew this word, and they would notice that it differed by only one vowel from Ναζωραῖος. Contemporary Jewish biblical exegesis knew the ‘do not read…but…’ procedure, in which the vocalization of the Hebrew could be changed in order to arrive at another reading of the biblical text.48 To my mind, Matthew applied this procedure to the Greek transliteration ναζιραῖος of the Hebrew word ‫נזיר‬: he changed -ι- to -ω-, and so he obtained the word Ναζωραῖος and he had an Old Testament quotation connecting Jesus with Nazareth.

46.  The exception being formulae of authoritative speaking of Jesus. 47.  The clause also occurs, in almost the same form, in Judg. 16.17, but the birth story context of Judg. 13 provides a better parallel to Matthew’s citation. 48.  See W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur 1: Die bibelexegetische Terminologie der Tannaiten (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1990), pp. 175–77. The procedure was already applied by translators of the LXX, see L. Prijs, Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta (Leiden: Brill, 1948; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1987), pp. 35–61.

54

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Κληθήσεται, at the end of the quotation, is then a replacement for ἔσται in Judg. 13.5, 7. Its probable source is Isa. 7.14, a biblical passage (already quoted by Matthew in 1.23) that is unmistakably analogous to Judg. 13.5, 7. LXX A reads in the verses from Judges: ἰδοὺ σὺ ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξεις καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν, ‘see, you will be pregnant and will give birth to a son’. Apart from a change of subject (‘the virgin’ instead of ‘you’) and a corresponding change of verbal form, this clause is identical to a clause from Isa. 7.14 LXX: ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν (in Hebrew, there is the same similarity). The Isaiah passage continues in the LXX (which is here a correct rendering of the Hebrew): καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ, ‘and you will call his name Emmanuel’. On account of the analogy, Matthew could import the verb καλεῖν into his quotation; he adapted the verbal form to the new context. We have here then a conflated quotation: one word from the basic text of Judg. 13.5, 7 has been replaced by a word from the analogous text Isa. 7.14. The inserted word κληθήσεται contributes in several respects to the impact of the citation. First, it is essential to what the citation in its Matthean context says: Jesus will be called a Nazorean, that is, he will be known and be addressed as a Nazorean, as an inhabitant of Nazareth. In Matthew’s view, he was actually born in Bethlehem, and he will certainly not be a Nazorean in the sense that this word indicates his true identity; his true identity is that he is ‘the Christ, the Son of God’ (see Mt. 16.16; 26.63-64; 27.54). Second, κληθήσεται links the fulfilment quotation in 2.23 to the one from Isa. 7.14 in 1.23: according to the first fulfilment quotation in the infancy narrative Jesus will be called Emmanuel, and according to the last one he will be called a Nazorean. Third, the quotation in 2.23 implicitly makes Jesus and Samson into parallel figures, and the link with the quotation from Isa. 7.14 in 1.23 makes Jesus’ being conceived without the intervention of a human father (see Mt. 1.18-25) part of this parallelism. The story of Samson’s birth in Judges 13, ‘in contrast to all other such wonder-birth stories in the First Testament suggests the possibility of divine conception without the benefit of an earthly father’.49 Matthew combined in 2.23 what he saw as Old Testament announcements of the miraculous birth of Jesus, and this implies that the composite citation was an ad hoc creation of the evangelist.

49.  J. A. Sanders, ‘Ναζωραῖος in Matthew 2.23’, in C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner (eds.), The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), pp. 116–28 (126).

3. Menken  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew

55

b. Matthew 13.35 In Mt. 13.34-35, the evangelist concludes a series of parables delivered by Jesus to the crowds with a summary saying that Jesus spoke to them in parables only, and he perceives in this fact the fulfilment of Ps. 78(77).2: ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου, ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς.50 I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the foundation.51

The introductory formula confronts us with a problem of textual criticism that might be relevant to the question of whether or not this quotation is a composite one: do we have to read διὰ τοῦ προφήτου, with the large majority of textual witnesses, or, with ‫ *א‬Θ f1.13 33 Hiermss,52 διὰ ’Ησαΐου τοῦ προφήτου? It can be established that the longer reading was already circulating in the second half of the third century. It is the lectio difficilior and has, therefore, the better chance to be the original text: it is much more probable that copyists, knowing that the quotation came in fact not from Isaiah but from a psalm, deleted the prophet’s name, than that they wrongly inserted it. So Matthew ascribes a psalm quotation to Isaiah. The first line of the quotation agrees completely with the LXX (including the translation of the singular ‫ משל‬by the plural παραβολαῖ). The second line differs considerably from the LXX, which reads here φθέγξομαι προβλήματα ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς. Matthew’s ἐρεύγεσθαι, which basically means ‘to belch out’, is a better translation of the Hebrew ‫( נבע‬hiphil), ‘to allow to gush forth’, than the LXX’s φθέγγεσθαι, ‘to speak’, and Matthew’s καταβολή is an alternative translation for the Hebrew word ‫קדם‬, ‘primeval time’. So far, the Greek text of the citation looks like a revised LXX. But what about κεκρυμμένα, ‘things hidden’, as the equivalent of the Hebrew ‫חידות‬, ‘riddles’? It cannot possibly be an alternative translation; could it perhaps come from an analogous passage, so that we have here another composite citation? To answer this question, we should first try to determine what the citation means in its Matthean context. When we compare Mt. 13.1-35 with its source Mk 4.1-34, we can see that Matthew consistently makes 50.  NA28 adds at the end of this line κόσμου between square brackets. The word is absent in ‫א‬2a B f1 e k; Or Eus. Taking into account that καταβολὴ κόσμου is much more usual than simple καταβολή in referring to creation, the shorter reading is apparently the more difficult and therefore the preferable one. 51.  For a full discussion of the citation, see Menken, Matthew’s Bible, pp. 89–104. 52.  Mentioned in NA28.

56

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Jesus’ disciples into those who understand the parables, and the crowds into those who do not (cf. esp. Mt. 13.10-17 with Mk 4.10-12). The Matthean Jesus addresses the crowds in parables only, but the meaning of the parables remains hidden from them (cf. Mt. 13.34-35, 51-52 with Mk 4.33-34). The first line of the quotation refers then to Jesus speaking in parables, the second line to the fact that he utters things that remain hidden from the crowds. Now the verb κρύπτειν that we find in the quotation occurs in a similar context in Jesus’ saying in Mt. 11.25 (derived from Q, cf. Lk. 10.21). Jesus thanks his Father ὅτι ἔκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν, ‘because you have hidden these things [the revelation Jesus brings] from the wise and discerning’. These words constitute a clear allusion to Isa. 29.14b, which reads in the LXX (and here it reasonably renders the tenor of the Hebrew): ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν κρύψω. To Matthew, Isaiah’s words mean that God shall hide his revelation of true wisdom and discernment from those who seem to be wise and discerning. Isaiah 29.13-14 was much used in early Christianity as a prophecy of the hardening of the majority of Israel,53 and Ps 78(77).1-2 and Isa. 29.13-14 could easily be considered as analogous passages: they share the words ‫ עם‬/ λαός and ‫ פה‬/ στόμα, and the comparable content is (or was to Matthew, at least) the hiddenness of God’s secrets. So it is not surprising that Matthew made use of the verb κρύπτειν which he read in Isa. 29.14 to change his text of Ps. 78.2 in such a way that he obtained a conflated citation about speaking in parables to hide divine revelation. The importance of the word κεκρυμμένα is underlined by the presence of the name ‘Isaiah’ in the introductory formula: the name serves to draw attention to the Isaian provenance of this word.54 Just as in the previous case, the citation is an evident ad hoc creation of the evangelist, meant to make Jesus’ speaking in parables into fulfilment of Scripture.

53.  See, apart from the text under discussion, Mk 7.6-7 // Mt. 15.8-9; 1 Cor. 1.19; Col. 2.22; 1 Clem. 15.2; 2 Clem. 3.5; Justin, Dial. 27.4; 32.5; 38.2; 39.5; 48.2; 78.11; 80.4; 123.4; 140.2. 54.  R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1994), p. 557, remarks on the similar case of Mt. 27.9, where Jeremiah is mentioned as the source of a quotation from Zechariah with some influence from Jeremiah: ‘The naming of Jeremiah but not Zechariah…follows a Jewish practice in composite quotations and makes mention of the prophet to whose writing a reader’s mind might not be drawn because of the subtlety of the allusion’.

3. Menken  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew

57

c. Matthew 22.24 In Jesus’ dispute with the Sadducees on resurrection (Mt. 22.23-33), the Sadducees start the discussion by bringing forward the law on levirate marriage from Deut. 25.5. It is presented by them in the form of a marked quotation introduced by ‘Moses said’: ἐάν τις ἀποθάνῃ μὴ ἔχων τέκνα, ἐπιγαμβρεύσει ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναστήσει σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ. If anyone dies having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.

The quotation55 is not a verbatim one, although it gives the essence of the legal provision from Deuteronomy and contains several words also found in Deut. 25.5 LXX; the verb ἐπιγαμβρεύειν is a good alternative Greek translation of the Hebrew verb ‫( יבם‬piel), ‘to marry (a sister-in-law)’. There is, however, an expression in Matthew’s text that does not come from Deut. 25.5, namely ἀνιστάναι σπέρμα. It comes from the analogous command of Judah to his son Onan to marry his sister-in-law Tamar in Gen. 38.8 (LXX: γάμβρευσαι αὐτὴν καὶ ἀνάστησον σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου), and makes the citation a conflated one. Matthew has borrowed the quotation from Mark (12.19), in the context of the dispute between Jesus and the Sadducees (Mt. 22.23-33 // Mk 12.18-27). He has simplified and abbreviated Mark’s version of the commandment from Deuteronomy, and introduced the verbs ἐπιγαμβρεύειν and ἀνιστάναι. The former replaces Mark’s λαμβάνειν (‘to take’), the latter replaces Mark’s compound ἐξἀνιστάναι. Matthew may have introduced ἐπιγαμβρεύειν as a halachic technical term current among Greek-speaking Jews.56 The use of the simplex ἀνιστάναι created, more than Mark’s compound, a play on words in the pericope: the ἀνάστασις of offspring for the dead brother is irrelevant in relation to the eschatological ἀνάστασις of the dead. So Matthew did not so much reinforce the Genesis element in the conflated citation as create a clearer text and reinforce the coherence of the entire dispute.

55.  See Menken, Matthew’s Bible, pp. 212–14. 56.  See K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2nd edn, 1968), pp. 70–71. Aquila has ἐπιγαμβρεύειν in Deut. 25.5, and the simplex γαμβρεύειν is used in Gen. 38.8 LXX.

58

Composite Citations in Antiquity

d. Matthew 27.9-10 Matthew narrates in 27.3-10 that Judas, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, repents and returns his traitor’s money to the chief priests and elders; they use it to buy the potter’s field to bury strangers in. The evangelist considers this to be the fulfilment of Zech. 11.13: καὶ ἔλαβον τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια, τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετιμημένου ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ἔδωκαν57 αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, καθὰ συνέταξέν μοι κύριος. And I took the thirty silver pieces, the price of the one priced, whom some of the sons of Israel had priced, and I gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.

However, Matthew mentions in the introductory fulfilment formula not Zechariah but Jeremiah as the source of the citation. Does this apparently wrong attribution perhaps indicate that a small part of the citation derives from Jeremiah, just as in Mt. 13.35 a word from Isaiah was inserted in a psalm citation and the whole citation was ascribed to Isaiah? The evangelist has drastically rewritten his Greek text (probably a revised LXX) of Zech. 11.13, to obtain a text that fitted the narrative context: the purchase, by the chief priests, of the potter’s field with the thirty silver pieces that were paid to Judas. He changed the sequence of lines, and adapted the wording where he deemed it necessary. A detailed analysis of his editing of the Zechariah verse would lead too far;58 the important thing for the purposes of this chapter is that the content and the wording of almost the whole citation can be explained by Zech. 11.13 and Matthean editing, with two exceptions: ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ in the second line, and the word ἀγρός in the third line. 57.  NA28 has ἔδωκαν, with the large majority of textual witnesses; ἔδωκα is read (or presupposed) by B2vid W sy Eus et al. In a linear reading of the text, the ambiguous ἔλαβον in the first line of the quotation is easily read as a plural, following on 27.6, and ἔδωκα, if original, is then almost automatically changed into ἔδωκαν. The final line of the citation, however, requires that the verbs in the two preceding main clauses be in the singular. See R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (NovTSup, 18; Leiden: Brill, 2nd edn, 1975), p. 126; P. Wick, ‘Judas als Prophet wider Willen: Mt 27,3-10 als Midrasch’, TZ 57 (2001), pp. 26–35, esp. 30. 58.  I refer to my Matthew’s Bible, pp. 179–99.

3. Menken  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew

59

The expression ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ (which replaces the LXX’s ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν or an equivalent) comes from Deut. 23.18. According to Mt. 27.6, the chief priests refuse to put the thirty silver pieces in the temple fund ‘because they are the price of blood’. This refers to the prohibition, in Deut. 23.19, to bring ‘the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog’ into the temple. This prohibition is preceded, in 23.18, by the prohibition that anyone ‘of the daughters of Israel’ or ‘of the sons of Israel’ shall be a temple prostitute. In the latter case, the LXX has ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ (a correct translation of the Hebrew). Zechariah 11.13 and Deut. 23.18-19 can be considered to be analogous passages: both are about bringing money into the temple, and they share the expressions ‫ בית יהוה‬/ εἰς τὸν οἶκον κυρίου. The analogy legitimated the introduction of ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ in the citation, and these words, serving to make the subject of ἐτιμήσαντο explicit, make the citation into a conflated one. The word ἀγρός is best explained by Jer. 32(39).6-15. In this passage, it is told how Jeremiah, at the command of the Lord, buys a field (‫ שדה‬/ ἀγρός, vv. 7, 8, 9, 15) at Anathoth from his cousin Hanamel, for seventeen shekels of silver, to symbolize that in the future houses, fields, and vineyards shall again be bought in the land. The passage is evidently analogous to Zech. 11.11-13: both are about weighing out pieces of silver (they share the words ‫ שקל‬/ ἱστάναι, ‘to weigh out’, and ‫ כסף‬/ ἀργυροῦς, -ιον, ‘silver’), and they have in common that people ‘knew that it was the word of the Lord’ (Zech. 11.11; Jer. 32[39].8). In the Hebrew text, this clause is identical in the two verses (‫;וידעו…כי דבר־יהוה הוא‬ ‫ ;)ואדע כי דבר־יהוה הוא‬in the LXX, it is almost identical (καὶ γνώσονται … διότι λόγος κυρίου ἐστίν; καὶ ἔγνων ὅτι λόγος κυρίου ἐστίν). In the MT, the object clause ‫ כי דבר־יהוה הוא‬occurs in these two verses only; the same is valid in the LXX for (δι)ὃτι λόγος κυρίου ἐστίν (with variation in the conjunction). So the insertion of ἀγρός also makes the citation in Mt. 27.9-10 into a conflated citation. It creates an important link between the citation and the preceding narrative about the chief priests buying the potter’s field. In Zech. 11.12-13, Matthew had a prophetic passage about money paid in connection with a shepherd authorized by God and about a potter. He also had a narrative about a shepherd, Jesus, who was betrayed for money which was used to buy the field of the potter. The word ἀγρός from the analogous passage Jer. 32(39).6-15 helped him to strengthen the links between narrative and citation, and he drew attention to the insertion by calling Jeremiah by name in the fulfilment formula introducing the citation. This fulfilment citation is another evident case of an ad hoc

60

Composite Citations in Antiquity

creation of the evangelist, serving to show that even in the purchase of the potter’s field by the chief priests (which was commanded by the Lord) Scripture is fulfilled. 3. Conclusion Matthew’s Gospel contains thirteen composite citations; nine of these are combined citations, four are conflated citations. According to my count Matthew’s Gospel contains 65 Old Testament citations, so one fifth of Matthew’s Old Testament citations are composite ones. Six out of nine combined citations were in their entirety copied by Matthew from his early Christian sources: two from Mark (Mt. 24.29; 26.64), two from Q (11.5, 10), and two from Matthew’s own materials (5.21, 33). Two were created by Matthew (the fulfilment quotation in 21.5, and 5.43). In one case (2.6), Matthew found a citation from Micah in the materials he used, and extended it himself with a clause from 2 Samuel, to heighten its theological impact. Matthew derived one conflated citation from Mark (22.24), and he created three conflated fulfilment quotations, with an essential element coming from another Old Testament passage (2.23; 13.35; 27.9-10). For almost all composite citations in Matthew, it was shown that the combination of the passages used could be legitimated by their analogy, consisting in similar words and similar content. This is what one would expect: passages attract, so to speak, similar passages. So it is not surprising that the principle of analogy can be shown to have been operative in composite citations outside the biblical tradition as well.59 Characteristic of early Jewish and early Christian literature is that composite citations can unite passages from two different biblical books; Matthew himself combines Micah and 2 Samuel (2.6), Judges and Isaiah (2.23), Psalms and Isaiah (13.35), Zechariah and Isaiah (21.5), Zechariah and Jeremiah (27.910); he adopts from Q a combination of Malachi and Exodus (11.10) and from Mark combinations of Deuteronomy and Genesis (22.24) and of Daniel and Psalms (26.64). The background of these combinations will have been the idea of the unity of Scripture.

59.  For instance in Plutarch, see S. M. Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in Plutarch’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 35–56, here 45–51. In almost all composite citations, ‘the texts that were linked together to form a composite citation share common language or ideas’, so Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 206.

3. Menken  Composite Citations in the Gospel of Matthew

61

The composite citations created wholly or partially by Matthew himself show him to be an expert scribe, probably having access to biblical scrolls in his local Jewish-Christian synagogue.60 Especially the four composite fulfilment quotations are telling on this point: here we see the evangelist creating, according to accepted rules, citations that are well suited to show the point he wants to make with them in their gospel context. Similar things could be said, mutatis mutandis, about the composite citations that Matthew borrowed from his early Christian sources. A final question: was Matthew’s audience able to detect the component parts of the combined citations so that they could understand them as combined citations? This question is hard to answer, as we have no direct information on Matthew’s audience. Some indirect information can be derived from the Gospel itself: Matthew’s community mainly consisted of Jews (cf. the emphasis on the continuing validity of the law in 5.17-48), but there were also gentile members (cf. the commission in 28.16-20). It seems that there were scribes among the Jewish members (13.52), and people with such a level of scriptural knowledge will no doubt have been able to understand the combined citations as combined citations. Estimates of levels of literacy in ancient society61 may offer some help in getting a picture of literacy in the Matthean community, although we should take into account that we are dealing here specifically with ‘scriptural literacy’. Illiterates among Matthew’s audience could in any case, when hearing the scriptural quotations in Matthew’s Gospel, understand their gist, but would probably have missed the subtleties of a combined citation—unless someone explained these to them. To my mind, we should not underestimate the possibilities offered by instruction in early Christian communities. So there is no reason to be pessimistic about the understanding Matthew’s audience could have had of the biblical quotations in the Gospel, including the composite ones.

60.  ‘Their synagogues’ in Mt. 4.23; 9.35; 10.17; 12.9; 13.54 (cf. ‘your synagogues’ in 23.34) suggests that Matthew’s community had its own synagogue(s). 61.  For a recent succinct survey, see U. Schnelle, ‘Das frühe Christentum und die Bildung’, NTS 61 (2015), pp. 113–43 (116–20). Schnelle himself estimates that in New Testament times ca. 30–50 percent of the urban population could write and read, at least at an elementary level, and that in Christian communities the level of elementary literacy must have been more than 50 percent.

Chapter 4 C om p os i t e C i tat i on s i n L uke –A ct s Stanley E. Porter

In this chapter I will discuss the numerous passages where there are composite citations in Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts.1 The purpose of this study is both to define and examine the composite citations within Luke–Acts but also, at least to begin with, to propose reasons for the use of these composite citations. The first is a far easier task than the second, as will become clear in the ensuing discussion. Whereas I follow the definition of composite citation proposed in the initial volume in this series2—essentially, a citation introduced by a clear attributive, linguistic, or textual marker that fuses two or more texts without identifying multiple sources—there are a number of further passages that perhaps merit discussion but that I will not treat here due to limits of space (apart from one such example).3 These passages are those in which the author of Luke or Acts offers a citation that could be attributable to several different passages that contain similar if not identical content. Such passages are found, for example, in Lk. 1.15 (citing Num. 6.3 and Lev. 10.9), Lk. 2.23 (citing Exod. 13.2, 12, and 15),4 Lk. 2.24 (citing Lev. 5.11 and 12.8), Acts 1.  Besides the lists in the UBS5 and NA28 editions, as well as their apparatus, I have used the list in J. A. Meek, The Gentile Mission in Old Testament Citations in Acts: Text, Hermeneutic, and Purpose (LNTS, 385; London: T&T Clark International, 2008), pp. 139–44, as a starting point. I am sure that there will be some disagreements on whether I should have included more or fewer citations. 2.  See S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation? An Introduction’, in S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, vol. 1 of Composite Citations in Antiquity (LNTS, 525; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), pp. 1–16 (3–4). 3.  I follow the definitions of quotation, paraphrase, and allusion used in S. E. Porter, Sacred Tradition in the New Testament: Tracing Old Testament Themes in the Gospels and Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), pp. 33–46. 4.  See, e.g., K. J. Thomas, ‘Torah Citations in the Synoptics’, NTS 24/1 (1977), pp. 85–96 (91).

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

63

3.25 (citing Gen. 22.18 and 26.4), and Acts 7.40 (citing Exod. 32.1, 23).5 One might wish to argue that these are composite citations in the sense that there might be incidental matters of detail that are attributable to more than one source. However, the sources are so similar that it makes such discussion highly speculative and not in keeping with the general tenor of the discussion of this volume, which is designed to discuss those instances where clearly distinguishable texts are cited as a composite and the reasons for such composition. In this chapter, I will proceed serially through Luke and then Acts, first discussing the citations themselves, their possible sources, their origins, and then briefly the possible reasons for their composite use.6 1. The Gospel of Luke The Gospel of Luke appears to have seven composite citations that merit discussion. a. Luke 4.18-19: Isaiah 61.1-2 and 58.6 Luke 4.18-19 is a composite citation based upon Isa. 61.1-2 but also drawing upon Isa. 58.6.7 The citation is introduced by Jesus being given the book of the prophet Isaiah. Luke says that Jesus opened the book and found the place in which the following text was written. Luke identifies the passage as from Isaiah and as located in a particular place (τὸν τόπον οὗ ἦν γεγραμμένον).

5.  C. H. Toy, Quotations in the New Testament (New York: Scribner, 1884), also includes Lk. 1.17 as a composite of Mal. 3.1, 23, 24 (pp. 75–76), which I would consider at best paraphrase or probably allusion; and Acts 1.20 as a composite of Pss. 119.26 and 108.8 (pp. 95–96), which does not qualify according to the definition used in this volume; see also F. Johnson, The Quotations of the New Testament from the Old Considered in the Light of General Literature (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1896), pp. 92–102, on composite quotations. 6.  I have found particularly useful in studying the texts cited G. L. Archer and G. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983). 7.  This composite citation is more specifically a ‘conflated citation’ (as opposed to a ‘fused citation’), according to the distinction of Christopher Stanley, but this is, as he admits, a distinction without a difference. See C. D. Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 203–9 (204–5).

64

Composite Citations in Antiquity Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμέ, οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, ἀπέσταλκέν με κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει, 19 κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.

A textual comparison of the relevant passages follows:8 Table 4.1. Comparison of Lk. 4.18-19, Isa. 61.1-2, and Isa. 58.6 Isa. 61.1-2 Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμέ, οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με· εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με, ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ, κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, καλέσαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν The Spirit of the Lord (+ ‫ אדני‬MT) is upon me, because he (= ‫ יהוה‬MT) has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord 2

Lk. 4.18-19 Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμέ, οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, ἀπέσταλκέν με κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει, 19 κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν

Isa. 58.6

ἀπόστελλε τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are to set free the oppressed oppressed, 19 to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord

8.  Translations of the New Testament follow the NASB, sometimes with my own emendations. Translations of the LXX follow L. C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (London: Bagster & Sons, 1851).

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

65

From these passages, we can see that Luke uses Isa. 61.1-2 (even with the intrusion of Isa. 58.6) as the basis of his quotation, but with several variations in wording that can be observed above. Luke 4.18-19 is very similar to both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, but where it varies it appears to cite the Septuagint more closely than it does the Hebrew text.9 This is seen in the deletion of ‘God’ (‫ )אדני‬in Isa. 61.1a LXX and Lk. 4.18a; deletion of ‘the Lord’ (‫ )יהוה‬in Isa. 61.1b LXX and Lk. 4.18b; use of οὗ εἵνεκεν for ‘because’, rather than rendering the Hebrew ‫ ;יען‬inclusion of the sight of the blind from the Septuagint; and the same word for ‘release/ forgiveness’ being used in the Septuagint and Lk. 4.18 (ἄφεσιν/ἀφέσει).10 The verbs translated ‘proclaim’ (κηρύξαι) and ‘declare’ (καλέσαι), used in Lk. 4.18 and Isa. 61.2 LXX, are acceptable contextual synonyms, on the basis of Septuagint parallels.11 The significance of this passage is that Jesus assumes on the basis of the composite citation that he is the final eschatological prophet, messiah, servant, and royal figure. Jesus proclaims that this passage has been fulfilled in the day of his uttering in his audience’s hearing. The inclusion of this composite citation at the outset of Jesus’ ministry (as essentially his first public proclamation in Luke’s Gospel) sets the tone for his entire mission and ministry.12 There are many issues of importance in this passage, but the major one of concern here is the reason for the construction of the composite citation. There are a number of general or broad reasons that might be suggested for any use of a composite citation, such as an appeal to a well-known scriptural text, a demonstration of the author’s literary 9.  R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission (repr., Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, 1998), pp. 252–53; contra Archer and Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations, §260. 10.  See D. L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology (JSNTSup, 12; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), pp. 105–11 (106); and M. Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1969), pp. 143–54. 11.  Contra Bock, Proclamation, pp. 106, 316–17 n. 55; C. A. Evans, Luke (NIBC, 3; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), p. 74. 12.  S. E. Porter, ‘Scripture Justifies Mission: The Use of the Old Testament in Luke–Acts’, in S. E. Porter (ed.), Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 104–26 (113). Cf. C. A. Kimball, Jesus’ Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke’s Gospel (JSNTSup, 94; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), pp. 111–12; and M. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke– Acts: The Promise and its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology (JSNTSup, 110; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 219–49.

66

Composite Citations in Antiquity

knowledge, a means of community formation, or an attempt (in this instance) to present Jesus in a particular way, such as one given to regular teaching or as a literate scribe.13 However, in recognition of Stanley’s findings, the most important use is probably in relation to determining the author’s argument.14 In light of this, Charles Kimball has listed eight possible reasons that merit brief but abbreviated mention (and I will continue to draw upon these reasons in varying ways in the ensuing discussion of other passages).15 There is always the possibility that there is no reason for the conflation, but that seems unnecessarily pessimistic.16 There are, however, several good reasons worth considering. (1) Luke’s faulty memory included Isa. 58.6 in error. There are two factors that mitigate that the composite citation was simply a result of Luke’s (or Jesus’) faulty memory.17 The first is that this passage, Isa. 61.1-2, was apparently widely used in Jewish thinking in a variety of forms, which indicates that the text itself may have been much more flexible in form than it later became. For example, 11QMelch 2 links Isa. 61.1-2 with Isa. 52.7, and 4Q521 has wording reminiscent of Isa. 61.1 and 58.6.18 The second reason is that there are recognizable conceptual ties between the two Isaianic passages that point to an intentional linkage.19 13.  Besides Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 207, see also S. Wendel, Scriptural Interpretation and Community Self-Definition in Luke– Acts and the Writings of Justin Martyr (NovTSup, 139; Leiden: Brill, 2011), p. 83; and C. Keith, Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee (LNTS, 413; London: T&T Clark International, 2011), pp. 142–45. 14.  Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 207. 15.  Kimball, Jesus’ Exposition, pp. 104–8. 16.  Kimball in fact includes this as one of his explanations that no reason for inclusion can be ascertained. This is a difficult conclusion to reach, as it would assume a level of knowledge that we simply do not have regarding the use of scriptural traditions by ancient authors. Further, there are too many lines of connection, especially between Isa. 58.6 and Isa. 61.1-2, simply to conclude that there is no determinable reason. The linkage around ‘forgiveness/release’ may well be sufficient. 17.  See below on whether this quotation is to be attributed simply to Luke or to Jesus. I have discussed this issue more fully in Porter, ‘Scripture Justifies Mission’, pp. 116–17. 18.  See Porter, Sacred Tradition, pp. 119–22. See also D. W. Pao and E. J. Schnabel, ‘Luke’, in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), pp. 251–414 (288). 19.  Kimball also includes as a possible reason that Isa. 58.6 is substituted for the deleted material in Isa. 61.1c to ensure a chiastic outline. This is a theory born out of an unhealthy and unjustified use of chiasm and merits no further consideration, especially as the chiasm is dubious both before and after the insertion.

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

67

(2) The insertion reflects early Christian interpretation that adapted Scripture for theological intent. There have been various theological intentions proposed to account for the insertion, such as the ‘forgiveness/ release’ theme, but none has commanded widespread assent. Arguments might also be made that the insertion caused at least as much theological confusion as it did clarity, since it did not then follow any recognized text. (3) The entire passage of quoted material is part of an early Christian testimony book. The testimony hypothesis has been proposed for over a century based upon a variety of evidence, and has found some support from testimony-like books at Qumran (4Q175; 4Q174).20 However, the evidence for such a Christian testimony book is limited, even if one of the most interesting examples contains mostly passages from Isaiah (P.Ryl. II 460 and P.Oslo II 11, a single fragmentary papyrus, which consists of: Isa. 42.3-4; 66.18-19; 52.15; 53.1-3, 6-7, 11-12; Gen. 26.13-14; 2 Chron. 1.12; Deut. 28.8, 11).21 The assemblage of passages in this Greek document, however, does not include the kind of insertion that we find in Lk. 4.18-19. (4) The insertion promotes the theme of the messianic banquet. The notion of the messianic banquet is to be seen in the wider context of Isaiah (see Isa. 58.7; 61.6), in which the poor are invited. As Kimball rightly points out, this cannot be correct, as these specific verses are not cited in Lk. 4.18-19, and emphasis upon the poor is not found.22 (5) The passage is a midrash upon a larger group of texts. The earlier midrash brought together a variety of texts linked by particular words found in Isa. 61.1 and 58.6, such as ‘send’ or ‘acceptable’. Since neither of these seems to be either the center of attention or repeated in significant ways (‘send’ is repeated, but not in an emphatic way), this proposal seems unlikely. 20.  The major works on testimony books are J. R. Harris, Testimonies (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916–20); C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952); M. C. Albl, ‘And Scripture Cannot Be Broken’: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections (NovTSup, 96; Leiden: Brill, 1999); and most recently M. C. Albl, ‘The Testimonia Hypothesis and Composite Citations’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 182–202. 21.  M. J. Boda and S. E. Porter, ‘Literature to the Third Degree: Prophecy in Zechariah 9–14 and the Passion of Christ’, in R. David and M. Jinbachian (eds.), Traduire la Bible Hébraïque/Translating the Hebrew Bible: De la Septante à la Nouvelle Bible Segond/From the Septuagint to the Nouvelle Bible Segond (Montreal: Médiaspaul, 2005), pp. 215–54 (235–45). 22.  Kimball, Jesus’ Exposition, pp. 105–6.

68

Composite Citations in Antiquity

(6) The insertion is based upon the use of the Greek word ἄφεσις. This proposal has the advantage that the word ‘forgiveness/release’ is found in both Isa. 61.1 and 58.6, and so seems to be a shared element.23 However, the usage is not significant enough to focus solely upon this use of a single word, when it appears that larger phrasal and clausal units seem to be included and deleted. (7) A last and final proposal is that, whether this passage originated with Luke or in the Jewish synagogue or with Jesus himself (see below), the reason for the insertion is to shift the emphasis of the passage toward not only freedom (use of ἄφεσις) but toward a general orientation to a positive and liberating proclamation that includes bodily, physically, and socially positive transformation (emphasis is hence upon not only ‘forgiveness/release’ but ‘proclaim’, ‘send’, ‘preach’, ‘recover’, and ‘set free’). In other words, in his first major public appearance Jesus sets the agenda for his entire ministry. This includes his physical liberation of those oppressed (such as his healings and exorcisms [e.g., Lk. 4.31-41; 5.12-26; 6.18-19; 7.1-10]), his release of those socially constrained (Lk. 7.36-50; 13.10-17), and his proclamation of good news (e.g., Lk. 4.32, 44; 6.20-49). The composite citation may originate arguably with Luke, but the use of similar citations elsewhere indicates that this was either an established interpretive tradition or that Jesus himself created the citation. Since Jesus is depicted as reading from the book of Isaiah, it is perhaps most plausible that Jesus himself creates the composite citation for the occasion, even if it is inspired by similar practice found in other contemporary literature, but that he uses it for his own programmatic purposes. b. Luke 7.27: Malachi 3.1 and Exodus 23.20 This composite citation is introduced with the introductory formula οὗτός ἐστιν περὶ οὗ γέγραπται (‘This is the one about whom it is written’), thought by some to resemble one used in CD 10.16 (‫‘ ;כי הוא אשר אמר‬for this is what He said’, trans. Vermes).24 The passage in Lk. 7.27 (which is also found in Mk 1.2 apart from the last phrase and in Mt. 11.10) reads:25

23.  Cf. Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 206, who notes that ‘in nearly every case the texts that were linked together to form a composite citation share common language or ideas’. 24.  Kimball, Jesus’ Exposition, p. 55. The perfect tense-form with the Greek verb γράφω is used regularly in the New Testament to introduce Old Testament citations in a marked way. 25.  See Archer and Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations, §311.

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

69

Ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου. Behold, I send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.

This passage appears to be a composite of two Old Testament passages, Mal. 3.1 and Exod. 23.20.26 However, this is complicated by the fact that Mal. 3.1 seems itself to be dependent upon Exod. 23.20, at least in the first part of the verse with which we are concerned. Table 4.2. Comparison of Lk. 7.27, Mal. 3.1, and Exod. 23.20 Mal. 3.1 ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου, καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου

Lk. 7.27 Ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου

(‫הנני שלח מלאכי ופנה דרך‬ ‫)לפני‬ Behold, I send forth my Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall messenger ahead of you, survey the way before me who will prepare your way before you

Exod. 23.20 Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ἵνα φυλάξῃ σε ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, ὅπως εἰσαγάγῃ σε εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν ἡτοίμασά σοι And behold, I send my messenger before thy face, that he may keep thee in the way, that he may bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee

There are a number of observations to be made regarding this composite citation. The first is that, in both instances, the Hebrew and Greek versions are very similar to each other. The second is that the New Testament quotation only draws upon the first part of Mal. 3.1, even though the rest of the verse develops the preceding idea further (Exod. 23.20 departs more significantly after the quoted section). The third observation is that it is unclear whether Luke (or Jesus) uses Mal. 3.1, possibly primarily in 26.  See Bock, Proclamation, pp. 111–14, who notes that combining the two passages ‘fuses together two distinct pictures’. On Mal. 3.1, see P. B. Lee, ‘The Arrival Motif of Malachi’s Eschatological Figures in the Gospel of Luke’, JECH 1/2 (2011), pp. 189–204 (190–92), who also sees the use of Isa. 40.3 in Mal. 3.1, besides Exod. 23.20. If Isa. 40.3 is present, it is secondary and not quoted. J. Mánek (‘Composite Quotations in the New Testament and Their Purpose’, Communio Viatorum 13 [1970], pp. 181–88 [181–82]) thinks that the ‘influence of Mal. III 1 is not clear’, at least in Mk 1.2-3.

70

Composite Citations in Antiquity

the Septuagint version, as the basis of his quotation, but then alters it in several ways on the basis of Exod. 23.20, or uses primarily Exod. 23.20.27 The major features of the quotations are: explicit indication is made of the first-person singular (‘I’), found in the first person pronoun in the Greek versions of Mal. 3.1 and Exod. 23.20, but without the pronoun in Lk. 7.27; Luke uses ἀποστέλλω following Exod. 23.20, rather than the further prefixed form in Mal. 3.1, despite the same Hebrew word (‫)שלח‬ in both; Lk. 7.27 includes ‘ahead of you’, following Exod. 23.20 (not found in Mal. 3:1) in both Hebrew and Greek versions; Lk. 7.27 uses ‘my messenger’, agreeing with both Greek versions and the Hebrew of Mal. 3.1; Lk. 7.27 uses a relative clause to describe the messenger rather than the conjoined clause (‘and’) in Mal. 3.1 in Hebrew and Greek; Luke’s description of the one preparing the way follows the Hebrew, with the Greek using ‘look upon’ (the relationship to Exod. 23.20 is even more remote, with only imprecise correlation around the notion of preparation); Lk. 7.27 also uses the article with ‘way’, not found in Mal. 3.1, probably reflecting the Hebrew. Luke 7.27 also clarifies the reference of the relative clause by including the personal pronoun (‘you’) of Exod. 23.20, rather than the first person singular (‘my’) of Mal. 3.1. This composite citation in Lk. 7.27 draws primarily from Exod. 23.20 in the first half of the citation and then Mal. 3.1 in the second.28 The possible explanations for this citation are similar to many of the ones that have been posited above, and need not be recited again here. This passage may be a midrash, but the subtle nature of the differences makes this unlikely. A conflation of two passages for a theological purpose probably explains the usage best. Marshall contends that the ‘two verses were conflated in a Semitic form’.29 The fact that they are found in essentially the same form in all three Synoptic Gospels may well indicate that underlying their use is a common Jewish conception. France contends that the two verses were already brought together in ‘synagogue preaching, probably already in pre-Christian times’.30 It appears that Luke (or Jesus) draws upon the fuller expression of Exod. 23.20, which makes clear the 27.  Cf. I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 295, who sees Exod. 23.20 LXX being drawn upon at the outset and then Mal. 3.1 MT in the second part; and Pao and Schnabel, ‘Luke’, p. 300, who see Mal. 3.1 as predominant. Mánek (‘Composite Quotations’, p. 182) agrees that the Septuagint is the source of the quotation. 28.  Stanley identifies such citations as a ‘combined citation’. See Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, pp. 204–5. 29.  Marshall, Luke, p. 295. 30.  France, Jesus and the Old Testament, p. 243.

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

71

preparatory role of the messenger/angel, as a means of making clear the role of John the Baptist especially in relation to Jesus. This connection, in departure from both Old Testament passages, is made even clearer by use of the relative rather than conjoined clause to specify the messenger as the one who is preparing the way. The author directly relates the role of the predecessor to his audience by emphasizing ‘you’. This may draw the application of Exod. 23.20 to Israel into this discussion,31 with the people of Israel being led by the predecessor of Messiah.32 c. Luke 10.27: Deuteronomy 6.5, Joshua 22.5, and Leviticus 19.18 A lawyer approaches Jesus in order to test him and asks Jesus what one might do to inherit eternal life. Jesus asks him in return what is written in the law. The lawyer responds with the following quotation (ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν): Ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης [τῆς] καρδίας σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἰσχύϊ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου, καὶ τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.

This quotation raises several issues. There are first of all a number of textual variants regarding the use of the prepositions ἐκ and ἐν (see the NA28 apparatus). In parallels, Mk 12.30 uses the former, while Mt. 22.37 uses the latter. The variation in Luke, which has initial ἐκ and then ἐν, possibly indicates a non-Markan text.33 The second, and more important, issue is whether this is a composite citation or simply a series of three quotations connected by ‘and’: the first quotation being Deut. 6.5 including ‘heart’, ‘soul’, and ‘strength’ (cf. Deut. 10.12, which mentions heart and soul); the second quotation being Josh. 22.5, including ‘mind’; and the third quotation being Lev. 19.18, including ‘neighbor’. There is no doubt that this quotation draws directly upon Deut. 6.5 for the Shema. The question is whether these other two quotations are to be considered part of a composite citation. I believe that they are, and that they form a tripartite 31.  J. Nolland, Luke (WBC, 35A-C; 3 vols.; Dallas: Word, 1989–93), p. 1:337. 32.  H. van de Sandt, ‘The Minor Prophets in Luke–Acts’, in M. J. J. Menken and S. Moyise (eds.), The Minor Prophets in the New Testament (LNTS, 358; London: T&T Clark International, 2009), pp. 57–77 (58–59). See Marshall, Luke, p. 296, for alternatives. 33.  Marshall, Luke, p. 443.

72

Composite Citations in Antiquity

composite citation in which the use of the conjunction simply connects parts of the quotation, relying upon the overriding syntax of Deut. 6.5 in the Greek version. Table 4.3. Comparison of Lk. 10.27, Deut. 6.5, Josh. 22.5, and Lev. 19.18 Deut. 6.5; Josh. 22.5 καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς δυνάμεώς σου

Lk. 10.27 Ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης [τῆς] καρδίας σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἰσχύϊ σου 22.5 ... ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου, καὶ τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς ὑμῶν καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς ὑμῶν σεαυτόν 6.5 You shall love the Lord And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all your God with all your thy mind, and with all thy heart, and with all your soul, and all thy strength soul, and with all your strength, and with all your 22.5 … with all your mind, mind; and your neighbor as yourself and with all your soul

Lev. 19.18

6.5

καὶ οὐκ ἐκδικᾶταί σου ἡ χείρ, καὶ οὐ μηνιεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν And thy hand shall not avenge thee; and thou shalt not be angry with the children of thy people; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself

It is unclear whether Luke draws upon the Hebrew or Greek text for his citation of Deut. 6.5, although the Septuagint is probably the source (despite Luke’s use of ἐν rather than ἐκ). Luke 10.27 switches from the initial use of the genitive prepositional construction for ‘out of the whole of your heart’ to the dative prepositional construction for both ‘in the whole of your spirit’ and ‘in the whole of your strength’.34 The Hebrew and Greek Old Testament versions are consistent in using the same respective construction for all three. Luke 10.27 uses a different word for ‘strength’ than is used in the Greek version of Deut. 6.5. However, the way that both Josh. 22.5 and Lev. 19.18 are incorporated into the larger quotation indicates use of the Greek text.

34.  There are a number of manuscripts (A C K N W Δ Θ Ψ f13 33 565 700 892 1424 l844 𝔐 and Latin and Syriac) that have the genitive construction for all three, as well as including ‘mind’. D uses the dative construction throughout. There are some other variants which are attested by a number of other manuscripts. The text as found in the UBS5 and NA28 is found in 𝔓75 ‫ א‬B L (f1) 579 2542 l2211.

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

73

The features of incorporation to note in this composite citation include the following: the use of the main verb of Deut. 6.5 (‘you shall love’) as the governing verb of all three quotations; the changing of the syntax of Josh. 22.5 from the genitive prepositional phrase to the dative prepositional phrase so that it conforms to the syntax of the final two of the three elements (‘soul’ and ‘strength’); the change of the plural ‘you’ of Josh. 22.5 to the singular ‘you’ of Deut. 6.5 in Lk. 10.27; the fact that ‘and with all your mind’ is included, as the Hebrew word translated with ‘mind’ (διανοίᾳ) in Josh. 22.5 can be translated as ‘heart’, but heart is already found earlier in Deut. 6.5, indicating that the notion of loving with one’s heart is more than a simple redundancy; and the abbreviated form in which both the small portion of Josh. 22.5 and the section regarding neighbor in Lev. 19.18 are included so as to fit the overall syntax into a whole unit.35 Mark 12.30-31 reads: ‘ “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” The second [commandment] is this, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” ’, while Mt. 22.37-39 states: ‘ “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”.’ Unlike Luke, neither Matthew nor Mark incorporates Lev. 19.18 within a single composite citation of the Old Testament, and they treat Deut. 6.5 and Josh. 22.5 differently. Mark conflates Deut. 6.5 and Josh. 22.5 into a composite citation, while Matthew simply cites Deut. 6.5. There are several possible explanations of the origins of this Lukan composite citation. The obvious fact is that Deut. 6.5 represented the heart of Jewish belief. The question here concerns the origin of the composite citation. One factor to take into account is that the statement is made by the lawyer, not by Jesus, and, as a result, one might require lesser levels of precision in the citation of Scripture, as he is intent upon testing Jesus. Nevertheless, these two passages, Deut. 6.5 and Lev. 19.18, had already been combined in previous Jewish thought before Jesus (e.g., T. Iss. 5.1-2; 7.5; T. Dan 5.3),36 so it is perhaps not surprising to find such a combination here as a reflection of the summary of Jewish thought regarding what is the heart of the commandments: love of God in all its fullness (with one’s entire heart, soul, strength, and mind) and neighbor as oneself. 35.  Kimball, Jesus’ Exposition, pp. 123–25. 36.  Marshall, Luke, p. 444, but who notes the possibility of Christian influence upon these testaments.

74

Composite Citations in Antiquity

The new portion is the inclusion of Josh. 22.5, but that is perhaps because of the desire for inclusivity based upon the similar and overlapping terms.37 Joshua 22.5 itself includes love from the whole of one’s mind and one’s soul, along with mention of the soul already included from Deut. 6.5 in Lk. 10.27. Whereas this may have been an early Christian testimony, the abbreviated nature of the inclusion of the second and third quotations, as well as possible previous Jewish usage, indicates some kind of Jewish environment for its development, even if that environment was one in which Jesus encouraged and furthered such usage. d. Luke 18.20: Exodus 20.12-16 and Deuteronomy 5.16-20 The rich ruler approaches Jesus, addresses him as ‘good teacher’, and asks what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus emphatically tells him that he knows the commandments (τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας) in Lk. 18.20: Μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, Μὴ φονεύσῃς, Μὴ κλέψῃς, Μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς, Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα. Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.

This may not be a composite citation, in the sense that the major issue here is the ordering of the elements, not whether there is appeal to the Decalogue. Both the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint have the commands in the order of (1) honoring parents, (2) not murdering, (3) not committing adultery, (4) not stealing, and (5) not bearing false witness. Luke places the command regarding parents after the others, as well as reversing murder and adultery (the other Synoptics, Mt. 19.18-19 and Mk 10.18-19, also place the command regarding parents after the others, with Matthew adding Lev. 19.18 but Mark retaining the Old Testament order).38 If a composite citation includes a change in ordering of elements, along with the deletion of further comments regarding a commandment, then this is a composite citation.39 The language is identical in Exodus and Deuteronomy in both the Hebrew and Greek versions, respectively. 37.  This is a characteristic of composite citations. See Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 206. 38.  For one reconstruction of the textual movement, see K. J. Thomas, ‘Liturgical Citations in the Synoptics’, NTS 22 (1976), pp. 205–14 (207–9). 39.  Examples of deletion from other ancient authors include Plato, Resp. 3.391a citing Homer, Il. 22.15, 20; Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.58 citing Homer, Il. 2.188-91 and 2.198-202; Ps.-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 24 (Mor. 113f-114b) citing Homer, Il. 22.56-68 and 74-78; Plutarch, Conj. Praec. 38 (Mor. 143de) citing Homer, Il. 14.205 and 209;

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

75

The Hebrew command to honor parents uses an infinitive (or possibly imperative) rendered in the Greek by the present imperative, while the other commands are negated imperfect forms rendered in the Greek by negated future forms. The use of the same imperative regarding parents indicates that Luke (and the other Gospel authors) is following the Septuagint.40 However, for the first four commands, Luke (along with Mark) uses the negated aorist subjunctive, whereas the Septuagint uses the negated future form (along with Matthew).41 Since both the negated aorist subjunctive and the negated future forms are considered standard in such prohibitions, the possible use of each is understandable. This does not explain why Luke and Mark use the negated aorist subjunctive rather than the negated future form of the Septuagint and Matthew. Rather than Luke having a faulty memory, it would appear that the author of the Gospel was paraphrastic in using the subjunctive form of the verb to understand either the Hebrew or the Greek construction.42 There may well have been an alternative translational tradition regarding the Decalogue, one that perhaps had regularized the grammatical pattern so that the entire Decalogue had standard forms of commands and prohibitions. More important is the nature of the linkage of the two passages. The fact that the ordering of the commands is similar in Matthew, Luke, Rom. 13.9 and James 2.11 regarding murder and adultery suggests that Luke and other New Testament authors are following either an early Christian or possibly even earlier Jewish teaching pattern. The placement of the commandment regarding honoring parents at the end of the short list

Porphyry, Hom. 12.127-32 §5 citing Homer, Il. 12.127-28 and 141-42; among others. Examples of changes in ordering include Plato, Ion 538c citing Homer, Il. 11.638-39 and 630; Longinus, Subl. 9.6 citing Homer, Il. 21.388 and 20.61-65; Plutarch, Mor. 543f citing Homer, Il. 23.673 and 670. These and other examples are found in S. A. Adams, ‘Greek Education and Composite Citations of Homer’, pp. 17–34, and S. M. Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in Plutarch’, pp. 35–56, both in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses. Cf. Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 207. 40.  I do not presume any Synoptic theory here. If the traditional two/four-source hypothesis is correct, then Luke may be using Mark, but there are other explanations as well in light of other differences between Luke and the other Gospels. For a discussion of major options, see S. E. Porter and B. R. Dyer (eds.), The Synoptic Problem: Four Views (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016). 41.  Cf. Kimball, Jesus’ Exposition, pp. 138–39. 42.  If Luke used Mark, this still does not explain why Mark uses this language. Other differences between Luke and Mark mitigate this Synoptic explanation.

76

Composite Citations in Antiquity

might suggest that the second table of the Decalogue either had a different or variable construction or was used freely at this time in Judaism or in the teaching of early Christianity.43 e. Luke 19.46: Isaiah 56.7 and Jeremiah 7.11 When he cleanses the temple, Jesus says that it stands written (γέγραπται): Καὶ ἔσται ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς, ὑμεῖς δὲ αὐτὸν ἐποιήσατε σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. And my house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it a robbers’ den.

This passage contains at least one direct quotation and a possible second one, and hence the possibility of it being a composite citation.44 Table 4.4. Comparison of Lk. 19.46, Isa. 56.7, and Jer. 7.11 Isa. 56.7

Lk. 19.46

Jer. 7.11

ὁ γὰρ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν

Καὶ ἔσται ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς, ὑμεῖς δὲ αὐτὸν ἐποιήσατε σπήλαιον λῃστῶν

σπήλαιον λῃστῶν

For my house shall be called (= ‫ )יקרא‬a house of prayer for all nations

And my house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it a robbers’ den

robbers’ den (‫)המערת פרצים‬

This verse is clearly a quotation of Isa. 56.7 (‘and my house shall be a house of prayer’), even if both the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint have ‘and my house shall be called a house of prayer’. Luke does not include the further phrase ‘for all the peoples/nations’. The question is whether the use of Jer. 7.11 in the second part of the verse constitutes a composite citation. Both the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint read ‘robbers’ den’ (‫ המערת פרצים‬/ σπήλαιον λῃστῶν) in Jer. 7.11.45 If a direct quotation requires a minimum of three words, then this would qualify as an allusion and this passage would not be a composite citation. However, if it is a quotation of two 43.  Marshall, Luke, p. 685. 44.  Lee (‘Arrival Motif’, pp. 195–96) sees ‘Jesus’ act in the temple…as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi 3:1’, but it is not quoted here in this citation. 45.  Mánek (‘Composite Quotations’, p. 183) sees both quotations as being based upon the Septuagint, but this is not clear.

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

77

words (and not just a coincident collocation), there is still the question of whether this passage is a composite citation or simply two distinct quotations.46 The organization of the text in both the UBS5 and NA28 editions in an antithetical parallel format argues that it may be a composite citation, in which the parallelism is used to juxtapose the two quotations as a single unit. A similar citation is found in both Mt. 21.13 and Mk 11.17. This passage provides theological and biblical support for Jesus’ reaction to what he perceives in the temple. The author uses a passage that possibly combines words from two of the great prophets and uses them on two levels. The first level is that both prophets were addressing the disobedience of the Jewish people (focused upon Jerusalem). The second is that the language itself captures the contrast between the ideal that the temple is meant to embody and the reality of what it had become in the eyes of Jesus. The combination of words regarding the temple is found in all three Gospels—though not identical in each case—and indicates that it had already become a formulation before the writing of the Gospels. The nature of the pronouncement makes it possible that these words originated with Jesus and his temple encounter. f. Luke 20.28: Deuteronomy 25.5 and Genesis 38.8 The Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection, ask Jesus a question about Pentateuchal marriage law, citing Moses as their source (Μωϋσῆς ἔγραψεν ἡμῖν): ἐάν τινος ἀδελφὸς ἀποθάνῃ ἔχων γυναῖκα, καὶ οὗτος ἄτεκνος ᾖ, ἵνα λάβῃ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ ἐξαναστήσῃ σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ. If a man’s brother dies, having a wife, and he is childless, his brother should marry the wife and raise up children to his brother.

This passage, which is paralleled in Mt. 22.24 and Mk 12.19, though the wording diverges at several places,47 draws upon Deut. 25.5 and Gen. 38.8, with all but the last clause dependent upon Deuteronomy, and the final clause upon Genesis.

46.  See Adams and Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation?’, p. 4. 47.  See Archer and Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations, §107, for discussion of the differences. There are also a few minor variants in the verse. The only one of some significance is the possible use of ἀποθάνῃ in A K N W Γ Δ Θ and some other manuscripts including the Byzantine text, rather than ᾖ in ‫א‬2 B L Ψ and others.

78

Composite Citations in Antiquity Table 4.5. Comparison of Lk. 20.28, Deut. 25.5, and Gen. 38.8 Deut. 25.5

Lk. 20.28

Gen. 38.8

Ἐὰν δὲ κατοικῶσιν ἀδελφοὶ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ἀποθάνῃ εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν, σπέρμα δὲ μὴ ᾖ αὐτῷ, οὐκ ἔσται ἡ γυνὴ τοῦ τεθνηκότος ἔξω ἀνδρὶ μὴ ἐγγίζοντι· ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς εἰσελεύσεται πρὸς αὐτὴν καὶ λήμψεται αὐτὴν ἑαυτῷ γυναῖκα καὶ συνοικήσει αὐτῇ

ἐάν τινος ἀδελφὸς ἀποθάνῃ ἔχων γυναῖκα, καὶ οὗτος ἄτεκνος ᾖ, ἵνα λάβῃ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ ἐξαναστήσῃ σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ

εἶπεν δὲ Ιουδας τῷ Αυναν Εἴσελθε πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου καὶ γάμβρευσαι αὐτὴν καὶ ἀνάστησον σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου

And if brethren should live together, and one of them should die, and should not have seed, the wife of the deceased shall not marry out to a man not related: her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and shall take her to himself for a wife, and shall dwell with her

If a man’s brother dies, having a wife, and he is childless, his brother should marry the wife and raise up children to his brother

And Judas said to Aunan, Go into thy brother’s wife, and marry her as her brotherin-law, and raise up seed to thy brother

These two passages, Deut. 25.5 and Gen. 38.8, were the two ancient passages drawn on to justify levirate marriage, and their common subject matter may constitute the basis of their composite citation.48 The Sadducees who come to Jesus are said to not only combine the two passages together but also focus their question by not citing the passages word for word. Some of the major differences in treating the Deuteronomy passage include: reference to the brother as ‘brother of someone’ (τινος ἀδελφός) in Luke (and Mark) rather than as brothers living together (κατοικῶσιν ἀδελφοὶ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό); Luke’s way of stating that the brother is childless that differs from both Matthew and Mark, as well as the Old Testament versions; the statement regarding taking a wife (the same as Mark) being different from Deut. 25.5 (cf. 25.7, with some resemblances), with Luke (and Mark) using the aorist active verb 48.  Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 206.

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

79

(perhaps closer to the Hebrew perfect rather than the Septuagint future middle); and the use of the prefixed form of the verb for ‘raising up’. The use of these passages has been called allusion, rather than quotation.49 However, the use of the similar wording, especially wording similar to the Hebrew Bible, indicates at least paraphrase if not selective quotation. The composite nature of the citation is seen in how the quotation uses the more specific wording from the end of Gen. 38.8 regarding raising up seed for the brother, rather than simply referring to performing the duty of a husband.50 There has been some thought that the final wording uses Deut. 25.7, rather than Gen. 38.8.51 Deuteronomy 25.7 at the appropriate place states: Table 4.6. MT and LXX of Deut. 25.7 Deut. 25.7 ‫ מאין יבמי להקים לאחיו שם בישראל‬Οὐ θέλει ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ ἀνδρός μου ἀναστῆσαι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐν Ισραηλ My husband’s brother refused to My husband’s brother will not raise up establish a name for his brother in Israel the name of his brother in Israel

The Lukan resemblance to the Hebrew is distant in Deut. 25.7 at best. The verb can have the sense of ‘raise up’, but here (and in Greek) it is raising up the name of his brother in Israel. Genesis 38.8 not only speaks of raising up but raising up seed, language that resembles Luke more closely (even if there is a shift from the genitive to the dative, not found in either Deut. 25.7 or Gen. 38.8). Rather than this composite citation (if it is indeed a citation and not a paraphrase or allusion) being the result of a faulty memory on the part of the Sadducees (or the source of the Gospel account), this citation appears to be intentional in drawing together the two important passages that constituted the basis of levirate marriage. They are drawn together in such a way as to make the point of the brother fulfilling the duty of the previous husband by raising up a child to continue the line. In that regard, this passage may well have been previously joined together in such a way and have constituted a pre-formed citation as possibly a part of some kind of collection or testimonia book, even if not a Christian one. 49.  Evans, Luke, p. 300. 50.  See Thomas, ‘Torah Citations’, p. 92. 51.  Archer and Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations, §107, who say that Gen. 38.8 ‘has no verbal resemblance to the NT quotations’. This is apparently followed by Pao and Schnabel, ‘Luke’, pp. 366–68, who do not discuss Gen. 38.8.

80

Composite Citations in Antiquity

g. Luke 20.37: Exodus 3.6, 15, and 16 At the end of the episode begun with the possible composite citation noted just above, Jesus employs a composite citation in his response to the question posed by the Sadducees. He states that the dead are raised and Moses made this known at the burning bush, as he states (ὡς λέγει): κύριον τὸν θεὸν Ἀβραὰμ καὶ θεὸν Ἰσαὰκ καὶ θεὸν Ἰακώβ. The Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.52

This composite citation draws upon Exod. 3.6, 15, and 16,53 but with a major grammatical change from θεός being the subject in the Old Testament passages to being the object of the verb of speaking in the New Testament quotation. In that sense, this passage may be better qualified as a paraphrase, with suitable grammatical adjustment being made for the entire quotation. Table 4.7. Comparison of Lk. 20.37, Exod. 3.6, and Exod. 3.15 Exod. 3.6 Lk. 20.37 Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς τοῦ πατρός κύριον τὸν θεὸν Ἀβραὰμ σου, θεὸς Αβρααμ καὶ θεὸς καὶ θεὸν Ἰσαὰκ καὶ θεὸν Ισαακ καὶ θεὸς Ιακωβ Ἰακώβ I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraam, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob

The Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob

Exod. 3.15 (cf. 3.16) Κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν (+ ὦπταί μοι, 3.16), θεὸς Αβρααμ καὶ θεὸς Ισαακ καὶ θεὸς Ιακωβ, ἀπέσταλκέν με The Lord God of our fathers (+ has appeared to me, 3.16), the God of Abraam, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, has sent me

A similar construction regarding the tripartite list ‘God of Abraham, etc.’ is found in both Exod. 3.6 and 15 and 16 LXX but not in Exod. 3.16 MT (where the Hebrew text does not repeat the ‘God of…’). Reference to ‘Lord’ is found only in Exod. 3.15 and 3.16, although in both instances the Old Testament passages are abbreviated so that Lord and God are used together in the New Testament quotation (‘the Lord God’). 52.  There are several textual variants where many later codices add the article before the word for God. The earliest manuscripts do not have this. 53.  Contra Archer and Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations, §36, who believe that Lk. 20.37 is only following Exod. 3.6 (see also Pao and Schnabel, ‘Luke’, pp. 368–71; Kimball, Jesus’ Exposition, p. 167); and Marshall, Luke, p. 742, who believes there is only an allusion to Exod. 3.6.

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

81

The use of these several passages together indicates an early formulation of a creedal-like statement designed to identify the God of the Jewish people. There is no need to speculate on whether this was part of a testimonia book or some other recorded form. It probably originates in the repeated practice of the Jewish people as a means of bearing witness to their God. h. Luke 22.69: Daniel 7.13 and Psalm 110(109).1 Jesus appears before the Sanhedrin and is interrogated. According to Luke, during this interrogation, he is asked by the chief priest if he is the Christ. In his response, Jesus says that, if he were to answer, the chief priest and those with him would not believe, and if he were to ask, they would not answer. Instead, he states in Lk. 22.69 that from now on: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καθήμενος ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ θεοῦ. The son of man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.

This passage draws upon both Dan. 7.13 and Ps. 110(109).1. Table 4.8. Comparison of Lk. 22.69, Dan. 7.13, and Ps. 110(109).1 Dan. 7.13

Lk. 22.69

Ps. 110(109).1

ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου (‫(כבר אנש‬

ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καθήμενος ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ θεοῦ

Εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου )‫נאם יהוה לאדני שב לימיני‬ ‫עד־אשית איביך הדם‬ ‫)לרגליך‬

This is a much-discussed passage, especially its parallel in Mk 14.62 (cf. also Mt. 26.64).54 The first question for the present study, however, is whether these are quotations or rather allusions to two passages that have been brought together.55 It has been discussed frequently elsewhere how Jesus uses ‘son of man’ as his favorite self-designation, but always in the form of the double articular ‘the son of the man’ (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου), to use a literalistic (but highly misleading) rendering. The form in Daniel 54.  For a recent treatment, see Porter, Sacred Tradition, pp. 71–76, where the range of issues is discussed, including the significance (or insignificance) of use of the Greek articles. 55.  See Pao and Schnabel, ‘Luke’, p. 392.

82

Composite Citations in Antiquity

(and elsewhere in the Old Testament) does not have the article in either the (here) Aramaic or Septuagint forms. Thus, if we use the criterion of a minimum of three identical words for a quotation, then this is at best a paraphrase or more likely an allusion to Dan. 7.13. The reference to Ps. 110(109).1 may be a quotation, in that four words of the Septuagint version are cited (with appropriate grammatical modifications) but only two words of the Hebrew version are cited. Even if Ps. 110(109).1 is a direct quotation, this would not qualify as a composite citation due to lack of citation of Dan. 7.13.56 2. The Acts of the Apostles The Acts of the Apostles has five potential composite citations that merit discussion, with four of these clearly fulfilling the criteria used in this chapter and one being more difficult to ascertain. a. Acts 3.13: Exodus 3.6, 15 and 16 Peter addresses the people when he speaks in the portico of the temple. His explanation of the healing that has just occurred is grounded in his theology, and this leads him to describe the God he follows according to a full expression of identity. This composite citation closely resembles the one in Lk. 20.37 (see above). The Acts passage complicates the situation, however, by its textual variants. The passage reads: ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ [ὁ θεὸς] Ἰσαὰκ καὶ [ὁ θεὸς] Ἰακώβ, ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν. The God of Abraham, [God of] Isaac and [God of] Jacob, the God of our fathers.

The major variants are whether the words ὁ θεός are to be included. This is an instance where the UBS5 and NA28 texts are not helpful.57 The reading with ‘God’ included, with or without the article, is found in most of the early codices, whereas its omission is found in most of the later codices and the Byzantine and lectionary traditions.58 The better reading is with 56.  Contra Mánek, ‘Composite Quotations’, pp. 184–85. 57.  The variant has a C rating in the first three editions of the UBS, and then is no longer discussed. One is not sure what to make of such treatment. 58.  The reading with θεός with or without the article is found in 𝔓74 ‫ א‬A C D 88 104 629 1175 2818 some versions and fathers, while omission is found in B E P Ψ 056 0142 0236 33 81 181 326 330 436 451 etc. the Byzantine text, the Lectionary tradition, and many versions and some fathers.

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

83

the word ‘God’, likely with, but possibly without the article59 (cf. Acts 7.32, where the use of ‘God of…’ is probably not to be included, and hence the passage follows Exod. 3.16 in the Hebrew).60 Determination of this variant reading influences whether this is a composite citation. If ὁ θεός is omitted, then this passage is probably a citation of Exod. 3.16 alone in the Hebrew, which omits repetition of ‘God of…’. However, if ὁ θεός is included, then the citation is composite, probably drawing upon Exod. 3.6 and 3.15 for the phrasing ‘the God of…’ and 3.15 and 3.16 for ‘God of your fathers’. The variants within this passage, as well as the passage’s similarities and potential differences to Lk. 20.37, indicate that this was a widespread formulation used to reinforce the identity of the God of the Jewish people. Its use is purposeful as a means of indicating with full force the historic relationship of this God to his people and the actions that have occurred. The formulation and use of such a statement may well be early, or at least no later than when the biblical traditions were being transmitted. b. Acts 3.22-23: Deuteronomy 18.15-16, 19 and Leviticus 23.29 As Peter’s speech from Solomon’s portico of the temple continues, he cites Moses (Μωϋσῆς…εἶπεν): Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέ· αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε κατὰ πάντα ὅσα ἂν λαλήσῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 23 ἔσται δὲ πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἥτις ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ τοῦ προφήτου ἐκείνου ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ. The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren; to him you shall give heed to everything he says to you. 23 And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.

In his discussion of this passage, Gert Steyn offers three different explanations: ‘explicit quotation’, ‘explicit references’, and ‘free quotation from memory’.61 What he does not suggest is a composite citation. There is, however, some question as to whether this is a composite citation, in particular whether the conflation of Deut. 18.15-16 and 19 would constitute a composite citation, and whether the passage incorporates 59.  Contra some commentators, such as C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994–98), p. 1:193. 60.  Contra Archer and Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations, §36. 61.  G. J. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995), pp. 140–41. Cf. his further discussion for particular issues regarding this passage.

84

Composite Citations in Antiquity

and follows Lev. 23.29 more closely in the second part. There are several observations to make about this quotation.62 The first is that the final two words in Acts 3.22, ‘to you’, are not found in the Deuteronomy passages. A second is that Deut. 18.19 is connected to vv. 15-16 by the use of the conjunction δέ, translated by the NASB as ‘and’.63 Third, the entire quotation is introduced simply by the words ‘Moses said’, which does not indicate the scope of what follows. The passages that are probably combined are Deut. 18.15-16 and 19, and Lev. 23.29, each of which refers to God raising up a prophet that is to be heeded.64 Table 4.9. Comparison of Acts 3.22-23, Deut. 18.15-16, 19, and Lev. 23.29 Deut. 18.15-16, 19 προφήτην ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου ὡς ἐμὲ ἀναστήσει σοι κύριος ὁ θεός σου, αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε 16 κατὰ πάντα, ὅσα ᾐτήσω παρὰ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου … 19 καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ ὅσα ἐὰν λαλήσῃ ὁ προφήτης ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐγὼ ἐκδικήσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ (‫נביא מקרבך מאחיך כמני‬ ‫יקים לך יהוה אלהיך אליו‬ ‫תשמעון׃ ככל אשר־שאלת‬ ‫מעם יהוה אלהיך … והיה‬ ‫האיש אשר לא־ישמע אל־דברי‬ ‫אשר ידבר בשמי אנכי אדרש‬ ‫)מעמו׃‬

Acts 3.22-23 Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέ· αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε κατὰ πάντα ὅσα ἂν λαλήσῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 23 ἔσται δὲ πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἥτις ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ τοῦ προφήτου ἐκείνου ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ

Lev. 23.29

πᾶσα ψυχή, ἥτις μὴ ταπεινωθήσεται ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ, ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτῆς (‫כי כל הנפש אשר לא תענה‬ ‫בעצם היום הזה ונכרתה‬ ‫)מעמיה׃‬

62.  See Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive, pp. 66–71, who treats it as a composite citation; cf. T. Holtz, Untersuchungen über die Alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (TU, 104; Berlin: Akademie, 1968), p. 73. 63.  Contra C. K. Barrett, ‘Luke/Acts’, in D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 231–44 (238), where he says that the two passages are connected by καί. 64.  See I. H. Marshall, ‘Acts’, in Beale and Carson (eds.), Use of the Old Testament, pp. 513–606 (547).

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts The Lord thy God shall raise up to thee a prophet of thy brethren, like me; him shall ye hear: according to all things which thou didst desire of the Lord thy God… 19 And whatever man shall not hearken to whatsoever words that prophet shall speak in my name, I will take vengeance on him.

The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren; to him you shall give heed to everything he says to you. 23 And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.

85

Every soul that shall not be humbled in that day, shall be cut off from among its people.

There are a number of significant changes applied to the two passages that are quoted in Acts. In the first part of the quotation, Deut. 18.15-16, the Hebrew and Greek versions are very similar. It appears nevertheless that the author of Acts, on the basis of his word order, rather than that of the Septuagint, is following the Hebrew text, at least until v. 16. At that point the author of Acts departs from the Hebrew, but only follows the first two words of the Septuagint. In the second part, the author seems to follow the Septuagint version of Deut. 18.19, even though the Hebrew and Greek versions are similar, by virtue of his mentioning the prophet. The end of the verse, however, apparently draws Lev. 23.29 into the citation, because Leviticus refers to being cut off from his people, rather than simply it being required of him or his being punished.65 There is evidence of use of Deuteronomy 18, especially the verses that are used in this passage, in a number of contemporary Jewish works (e.g., 4Q175 5-8; possibly 1QS 9.11), as well as in early Christian works (e.g., Ps.-Clement, Recog. 1.36; cf. Barn. 3.3 citing Lev. 23.29).66 As a result, Barrett speculates that the ‘prophet like Moses’ quite possibly was connected with Jewish messianic expectations, very early recognized in Jewish Christianity. Barrett thinks that ‘Probably Luke is simply following here what had in his time become an accepted Christian testimonium’.67 65.  Cf. Barrett, Acts, pp. 1:209–10. 66.  F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 3rd edn, 1990), p. 145. On Barnabas in relation to Old Testament citations, see M. J. J. Menken, ‘Old Testament Quotations in the Epistle of Barnabas with Parallels in the New Testament’, in J. de Vries and M. Karrer (eds.), Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity/Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum (SBLSCS, 60; Atlanta: SBL, 2013), pp. 295–321 (296–97). 67.  Barrett, Acts, p. 1:208; see also Albl, Early Christian Testimonia, pp. 191–95. Albl’s argument for a testimonia collection includes: the conflation of passages, a

86

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Somewhere in the process, the tradition was shaped into this composite citation. The quotation from Deuteronomy 18 has been abbreviated by deleting intervening material. Leviticus 23.29 has then been incorporated into the citation so as to provide a stronger and more explicit conclusion with reference to punishment for those who fail to hear the prophet.68 c. Acts 7.5: Genesis 17.8 and 48.4 This passage occurs within Stephen’s speech. Stephen’s speech is a recapitulation of the history of Israel, and as part of that recapitulation he tells the story of Abraham. In Acts 7.5, he refers to the fact that Abraham did not receive any of the land as an inheritance when he first entered into it, but that he and his descendants were nevertheless promised it. This passage is not introduced with one of the more usual wordings that indicate a citation, and in fact it may not be an actual quotation but a paraphrase.69 Nevertheless, the author of Acts uses the word for promising (ἐπηγγείλατο) to indicate that he is drawing upon Old Testament tradition, if not the words themselves: δοῦναι αὐτῷ εἰς κατάσχεσιν αὐτὴν καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ’ αὐτόν. He would give it to him as a possession, and to his descendants after him.

This passage draws upon two specific Old Testament passages, Gen. 17.8 and 48.4, although it also alludes to several others (Gen. 12.7; 13.15; 15.18; 24.7).70 The two passages of relevance include three key terms that are reflected in the quotation. feature not typical of Luke; the use of Deut. 18.15-19 in both Jewish and Christian literature in a messianic sense; and divergences from Lukan style. On the last see also Bock, Proclamation, p. 192. 68.  At this point I could include Acts 4.24 as a composite citation of Exod. 20.11 and Ps. 14.6, as well as Acts 14.15 citing the same two verses. These are considered Old Testament citations by the NA28, but not by the UBS5. There are several reasons that they are not to be included in the present study: the syntax gives no indication of an Old Testament citation, and even if Exod. 10.11 is a direct quotation, it is arguable that Ps. 14.6 is a paraphrase. There is the further possibility, on the basis of the use of the language in the New Testament, as well as similar wording being found in other places in the Old Testament (e.g. 2 Kgs 19.15; Isa. 37.16; Neh. 9.6), that these are not citations so much as invocations of language used to describe God and his creative greatness. See Meek, Gentile Mission, pp. 142, 144. 69.  Bruce, Acts, p. 193, who sees it as a ‘condensed quotation’ of Gen. 17.8, with parallels in Gen 48.4 and Deut. 32.49. 70.  Barrett (Acts, p. 1:344) believes that it is ‘hardly possible to say which of these passages Stephen (Luke) had in mind; probably his words are intended to give

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

87

Table 4.10. Comparison of Acts 7.5, Gen. 17.8, and Gen. 48.4 Gen. 17.8

Acts 7.5

δώσω σοι καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου μετὰ σὲ τὴν γῆν, ἣν παροικεῖς, πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν Χανααν, εἰς κατάσχεσιν αἰώνιον (‫ונתתי לך ולזרעך אחריך‬ ‫את ארץ מגריך את כל ארץ‬ ‫כנען לאחזת עולם והייתי‬ ‫)להם לאלהים‬

δοῦναι αὐτῷ εἰς κατάσχεσιν αὐτὴν καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ’ αὐτόν

I will give to thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou sojournest, even all the land of Chanaan for an everlasting possession.

He would give it to him for a possession, and to his descendants after him.

Gen. 48.4

δώσω σοι τὴν γῆν ταύτην καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου μετὰ σὲ εἰς κατάσχεσιν αἰώνιον (‫ויאמר אלי הנני מפרך‬ ‫והרביתך ונתתיך לקהל‬ ‫עמים ונתתי את הארץ‬ ‫הזאת לזרעך אחריך אחזת‬ ‫)עולם‬ I will give this land to thee, and to thy seed after thee, for an everlasting possession.

None of these Old Testament passages appears to be directly quoted in the New Testament, but they are at best paraphrased in a form that contains the three crucial elements: ‘giving’, ‘seed’, and ‘possession’. The ordering of the elements in neither the Hebrew nor Greek text matches that of the Greek New Testament, there are some incidental differences (such as reference to ‘eternal’), and there is a change from the first person verbs of the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint to the infinitive of the New Testament as appropriate for Stephen’s speech, among some other changes. In the allusive passages, restricted reference to one or two of the terms is made. The fact that allusions and paraphrases of this passage are found in numerous places in Genesis indicates that this was a well-known and often-cited tradition that was firmly embedded in Jewish history, and is drawn on by the author, whether as an allusion, paraphrase, or possibly citation. d. Acts 7.6-7: Genesis 15.13-14, Exodus 2.22, and 3.12 Almost immediately after the use of the Old Testament tradition in Acts 7.5, the author continues with a composite citation of three further Pentateuchal passages in Stephen’s speech. These more clearly constitute a composite citation. The passage in Acts 7.6-7 reads:

the general sense of all’, although he notes that Gen. 17.8 and 48.4 have wording that is used in Acts 7.5.

88

Composite Citations in Antiquity ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ πάροικον ἐν γῇ ἀλλοτρίᾳ, καὶ δουλώσουσιν αὐτὸ καὶ κακώσουσιν ἔτη τετρακόσια· 7 καὶ τὸ ἔθνος ᾧ ἐὰν δουλεύσουσιν κρινῶ ἐγώ, ὁ θεὸς εἶπεν, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξελεύσονται καὶ λατρεύσουσίν μοι ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τούτῳ. His descendants would be aliens in a foreign land, and they would be enslaved and mistreated for four hundred years. 7 ‘And whatever nation to which they will be in bondage I myself will judge’, said God, ‘and after that they will come out and serve me in this place’.

The Old Testament passages are relatively straightforward compared to some of the others. Table 4.11. Comparison of Acts 7.6-7, Gen. 15.13-14, and Exod. 2.22, 3.12 Gen. 15.13-14 πάροικον ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου ἐν γῇ οὐκ ἰδίᾳ, καὶ δουλώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ κακώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ ταπεινώσουσιν αὐτοὺς τετρακόσια ἔτη. 14 τὸ δὲ ἔθνος, ᾧ ἐὰν δουλεύσωσιν, κρινῶ ἐγώ· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐξελεύσονται ὧδε μετὰ ἀποσκευῆς πολλῆς (‫כי־גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא‬ ‫להם ועבדום וענו אתם ארבע‬ ‫מאות שנה׃ וגם את־הגוי‬ ‫אשר יעבדו דן אנכי ואחרי־כן‬ ‫)יצאו ברכש גדול׃‬ Thy seed shall be a sojourner in a land not their own, and they shall enslave them, and afflict them, and humble them four hundred years. 14 And the nation whomsoever they shall serve I will judge; and after this, they shall come forth hither with much property

Acts 7.6-7 ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ πάροικον ἐν γῇ ἀλλοτρίᾳ, καὶ δουλώσουσιν αὐτὸ καὶ κακώσουσιν ἔτη τετρακόσια· 7 καὶ τὸ ἔθνος ᾧ ἐὰν δουλεύσουσιν κρινῶ ἐγώ, ὁ θεὸς εἶπεν, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξελεύσονται καὶ λατρεύσουσίν μοι ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τούτῳ

‘His descendants would be aliens in a foreign land, and they would be enslaved and mistreated for four hundred years. 7 And whatever nation to which they will be in bondage I myself will judge’, said God, ‘and after that they will come out and serve me in this place’.

Exod. 2.22; 3.12 Πάροικός εἰμι ἐν γῇ ἀλλοτρίᾳ 2.22

(‫)גר הייתי בארץ נכריה‬

καὶ λατρεύσετε τῷ θεῷ ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ 3.12

(‫תעבדון את־האלהים על ההר‬ ‫)הזה׃‬

I am a sojourner in a strange land

then ye shall serve God in this mountain

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

89

The Hebrew and Septuagint versions of the Genesis passage are fairly close in both wording and word order apart from the list of three negative actions listed by the Septuagint (‘enslave’, ‘inflict’, and ‘humble’) as opposed to the two in the Hebrew version (‘enslaved’ and ‘oppressed’). The Exodus passages are very similar in both instances, respectively. The author of the Acts passage is probably following a version that is closer to the Hebrew version of Genesis, as evidenced by the listing of two negative features of the Israelites’ time in Egypt, apart from the opening section where he seems to draw on Exod. 2.22 regarding language of sojourner and foreign land. These features are enough to constitute a composite citation. There is the further feature, however, of the second Exodus passage, 3.12, being appended to the one from Genesis to introduce the notion of worship, with one passage being cited after the other.71 Acts has an authorial intrusion of ‘God said’ in v. 7, but this occurs in the midst of the citation of Gen. 15.14, and not at the place where Gen. 15.13-14 is joined to Exod. 3.12. The Genesis passage is also abbreviated in v. 14, where mention of possessions is deleted. Instead, Exod. 3.12 is included by means of ‘and’ with the Genesis passage as if it were part of the same quotation, which itself has a number of items joined paratactically. There is also the change from reference to the mountain in Exod. 3.12 to ‘place’ in Acts 7.7, which focuses the reference upon Jerusalem if not the temple itself.72 There is difficulty in determining the origin of this composite citation. It may have been a part of an encapsulated summary of Israelite history in Egypt, in which the time of oppression is fulfilled by God’s judgment that leads to freedom and then worship of him. It is also possible that the citation originated in the common language regarding being strangers, sojourners, or aliens that drew the passages together.73 However, it is just as likely that this was a summary of Israelite history made by the author or found in his tradition going back to the early church as represented by Stephen, even if the original uniting point was the notion of being an alien. e. Acts 13.22: Psalm 89(88).20, 1 Samuel 13.14, and Isaiah 44.28 Like Stephen in Acts 7, when Paul is in Pisidian Antioch he offers a summary of Israel’s history. This includes discussion of the kings 71.  Contra Archer and Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations, §14, who strangely state that Exod. 3.12 is ‘not quoted or alluded to in the NT, though related in sense’, even though they list it for discussion. Marshall (‘Acts’, p. 558) excludes Exod. 2.22. 72.  See Barrett, Acts, p. 1:345. 73.  Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 206.

90

Composite Citations in Antiquity

of Israel, especially the raising up of David as the inaugurator of the messianic line. As part of this recounting, the author brings three Old Testament passages into a single construction.74 These three passages are interwoven from three different parts of the Old Testament: Ps. 89(88).20, 1 Sam. 13.14, and Isa. 44.28. This passage is considered a citation of the Old Testament in the UBS5 but not in the NA28. The passage in Acts 13.22 is not introduced by a citation formula, but by words that indicate that God had appointed David and said specific things as a testimony about him (ᾧ καὶ εἶπεν μαρτυρήσας): Εὗρον Δαυὶδ τὸν τοῦ Ἰεσσαί, ἄνδρα κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν μου, ὃς ποιήσει πάντα τὰ θελήματά μου. I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who will do all my will.

This composite citation is divided into three parts, following the major divisions of the sentence above. Table 4.12. Comparison of Acts 13.22, Ps. 89(88).21, 1 Sam. 13.14, and Isa. 44.28 Ps. 89(88).21; Acts 13.22 1 Sam. 13.14 88.21 εὗρον Δαυιδ τὸν Εὗρον Δαυὶδ τὸν τοῦ δοῦλόν μου Ἰεσσαί, )‫)מצאתי דוד עבדי‬ καὶ ζητήσει κύριος ἑαυτῷ ἄνθρωπον (‫)איש‬ κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ

ἄνδρα κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν μου, ὃς ποιήσει πάντα τὰ θελήματά μου

I have found David my servant …

I have found David the son of

13.14

Isa. 44.28

ὁ λέγων Κύρῳ φρονεῖν, καὶ Πάντα τὰ θελήματά μου ποιήσει (‫האמר לכורש רעי וכל־חפצי‬ ‫)ישלם‬

And the Lord shall seek Jesse, a man after my Who bids Cyrus be wise, for himself a man after his heart, who will do all my and he shall perform all own heart. will. my will.

The first part is: ‘I have found David the son of Jesse’, in which ‘I have found David’ is a quotation of the first part of the first half of Ps. 89(88).21. 74.  See Bock, Proclamation, pp. 242–43.

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

91

The Hebrew and Greek versions are virtually identical so it is impossible to tell whether Paul or the author of Acts is following one or the other. In fact, that only two words are cited makes it difficult to know whether this is a quotation of the Old Testament or simply a fortuitous choice of words, especially since the Acts passage further describes David in words that are not found in either of the Old Testament versions. The second part of the composite citation includes further description of David, ‘a man after my heart’, which is a quotation of 1 Sam. 13.14. The quotation in Acts seems to follow the wording of the Septuagint more closely than that of the Hebrew text, with the same prepositional construction. However, the Hebrew Bible uses a more specific term for ‘man’ (‫)איש‬, rendered appropriately by the use of ἄνδρα (‘man’) in Acts, whereas the Septuagint uses a broader term for ‘person’ (ἄνθρωπον).75 The Acts passage also adapts the quotation to its context by using the first person rather than third person pronoun (‘my’ instead of ‘his’). The third part of the quotation is not indicated as a quotation by the UBS5 either. However, the use of the wording indicates that there is at least a paraphrase if not a direct quotation. The third part of the composite citation further modifies the description of David as one ‘who will do all my will’. This passage resembles, if it does not quote, Isa. 44.28. Apart from the translational issues at the beginning of the verse, the context is clearly one in which there are messianic overtones, as Cyrus is seen as God’s shepherd. This makes it highly likely that the author of Acts is citing the passage in order to strengthen further the messianic description of David.76 Acts further appears to follow the Septuagint version, which interprets the Hebrew wording regarding desire or pleasure in terms of ‘will’, here used in both the Septuagint and New Testament in the plural (cf. elsewhere only Eph. 2.3 in the New Testament).77 The New Testament uses the same five words as are found in the Septuagint, but with the verb placed at the beginning rather than the end of the clause, connected to the previous quotations by the relative pronoun. This composite citation of three passages may have been an early assimilation by Christians who wished to establish the messianic stature of David in relation to Jesus. Barrett thinks that the linkage of Ps. 89(88).20 and 1 Sam. 13.14 may have been based upon memory;78 however, the possible use of the third passage as well tends to indicate 75.  Bruce, Acts, p. 305, following Max Wilcox. 76.  See Archer and Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations, §118. 77.  Barrett, Acts, p. 1:636, although he notes that the Targum on 1 Sam. 13.14 uses a word that could be either singular or plural. 78.  Barrett, Acts, p. 1:636.

92

Composite Citations in Antiquity

a more intentional use of the three passages. Bruce suggests an early Christian testimonia, because of the use of the two passages together in the same way in 1 Clem. 18.1.79 There is a clear purpose in bringing the two or possibly three passages together as a means of establishing David’s messianic credentials as a necessary inauguration of the line that culminated in Jesus the messiah. Views of the place of Acts within early Christian history, and with it views of whether Acts reflects the language of Paul, are no doubt bound to influence one’s views of the origin of this composite citation. However, other features of this passage (e.g., reference to ‘seed’ in v. 23, language regarding Abraham, etc.) indicate that what is said here is consistent with Pauline thought elsewhere (e.g., Gal. 3.16-17), and so this composite citation may well have originated with Paul himself. 3. Conclusion There are a number of composite citations within Luke and Acts. In Luke’s Gospel there are 25 citations of the Old Testament, of which seven are appropriately labeled composite, roughly 28 percent of the total. Likewise, of the 41 Old Testament citations within the book of Acts, four are clearly composite—with one more being possibly composite— making up roughly 10 to 12 percent of the total. The function of these citations, which is more significant in the Gospel than in Acts, is difficult to establish. Whether the author created them or whether he drew them from elsewhere (including from traditions of Jesus himself), their use is difficult to classify univocally. Some of these composite citations seem to occur at significant places within their respective books (such as Lk. 4.18-19 with its composite citation of Isa. 61.1-2 and 58.6), while many of them do not appear to occupy a significant place within the argument. In fact, there are a number of composite citations that appear almost incidental to their use, and more likely reflect a tradition that was widely known at the time. More important, perhaps, is the nature and origin of these composite citations. There is a range of opinion on their origins. Some of them seem to reflect a pre-formed composite citation as perhaps part of a testimonia collection, while others of them seem to reflect a common tradition that was widely used and may not even have been viewed as a composite citation, while still others may well have originated in a Jewish or early Christian environment at the time or even been created by the author of Luke or Acts. Some may simply have been joined 79.  Bruce, Acts, p. 305. For discussion, see Bock, Proclamation, p. 243; Strauss, Davidic Messiah, p. 158; Marshall, ‘Acts’, pp. 583–84.

4. Porter  Composite Citations in Luke–Acts

93

together because of their common thematic material, whether by Luke or otherwise. For those that originated within Judaism or early Christianity, these may well reflect at least some of the theological tendencies of these religious traditions at the time. For those that originated with the individual author, one cannot help but ask whether the composite citation was the product of intentional conflation or was simply drawing upon memory to bring disparate passages together in light of the contextual situation. This chapter has offered several suggestions regarding these passages. However, it has been more concerned to identify—and in a few instances to discuss and dispute—the composite citations in Luke–Acts, with the fundamental idea that we cannot discuss their origins and purpose until we have identified the passages we are discussing.

Chapter 5 C om p os i t e C i tat i on s i n t h e G ospe l of J ohn Catrin H. Williams

1. Introduction The Gospel of John offers a number of telling clues about the significance it attaches to the ‘testimony’ of the Jewish Scriptures. Among such clues is the programmatic statement ascribed to Philip in one of the Gospel’s earliest narrative scenes: ‘We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth’ (Jn 1.45; cf. 5.39). The Jewish Scriptures in their entirety are regarded as essential to the Gospel’s hermeneutical framework because they point forward to Jesus. Furthermore, in a Gospel that generally favours allusive scriptural references and motifs, its limited number of explicit quotations serve, above all else, as individual enactments of the positive witnessing role of Scripture. Johannine scholarship has tended to focus on sourceand redaction-critical questions about the textual form of the explicit citations within John’s Gospel,1 but the methodical distribution of those quotations—marked by a shift from ‘what is written’ (ἐστιν γεγραμμένον) in the first main part (1.19–12.36) to how Scripture ‘is fulfilled’ (ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῆ) in the second2—contributes to an increasing scholarly preoccupation with how scriptural quotations operate integrally as part 1.  See especially E. D. Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (NovTSup, 11; Leiden: Brill, 1965); G. Reim, Studien zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums (SNTSMS, 22; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974); B. G. Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form and Function in the Explicit Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (SBLDS, 133; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); M. J. J. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form (CBET, 15; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996). 2.  On the two distinct patterns of citation formulas in John’s Gospel, see C. A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue (JSNTSup, 89; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 174–77; A. Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium: Eine Untersuchung

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

95

of John’s narrative design, mainly with reference to their christological and rhetorical functions within the narrative as a whole.3 These are all key issues for the task of identifying and analyzing the use of composite scriptural citations within the Gospel of John. The first step, nevertheless, is to establish what qualifies as an explicit citation in the Gospel of John and, subsequently, to set the parameters for determining which, if any, of those citations can be termed ‘composite’ as defined within the companion volume to the present collection of essays.4 As is widely acknowledged, two criteria must be tested to determine the actual number of explicit citations in a given text. First, readers/ hearers are alerted to the presence of a quotation by the author’s use of a citation formula, although, as we shall see, this is not invariably the case. Second, one must search for evidence of the use of word combinations in a manner clearly recognizable from their occurrence in an antecedent text (or texts).5 If these two criteria are applied fairly rigidly, it is possible to isolate fourteen direct quotations in John’s Gospel,6 all of which are accompanied by a citation formula (1.23; 2.17; 6.31; 6.45; 7.38; 10.34; 12.15; 12.38; 12.39-40; 13.18; 15.25; 19.24; 19.36; 19.37). In addition, the quotation of Ps. 118(117).25-26 in Jn 12.13 belongs to the category of direct quotation, and this despite the absence of such a formula; it bears striking resemblance to its Psalm source, but its presentation in direct zur johanneischen Hermeneutik anhand der Schriftzitate (WUNT, 2/83; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), pp. 78–89, 348–50. 3.  E.g., Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift; R. Sheridan, Retelling Scripture: “The Jews” and the Scriptural Citations in John 1:19–12:15 (BIS, 110; Leiden: Brill, 2012); A. D. Myers, Characterizing Jesus: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Fourth Gospel’s Use of Scripture in Its Presentation of Jesus (LNTS, 458; London: Continuum, 2012). 4.  S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation? An Introduction’, in S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, vol. 1 of Composite Citations in Antiquity (LNTS, 525; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), pp. 1–16, esp. 3–4. 5.  On these criteria, see, e.g., Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift, pp. 70–76; M. Daly-Denton, ‘Going Beyond the Genially Open “Cf.”: Intertextual Reference to the Old Testament in the New’, Milltown Studies 44 (1999), pp. 48–60 (55–56). 6.  The combination of both criteria rules out passages which are introduced by a citation formula but have no identifiable reference(s) in the Scriptures (Jn 17.12; 19.28). On those passages which qualify as composite allusions or scriptural paraphrases rather than citations, despite the presence of a citation formula and some recognizable words/themes from scriptural sources (Jn 7.42; 8.17; 12.34), see Menken, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 16–17; Sheridan, Retelling Scripture, p. 106.

96

Composite Citations in Antiquity

speech—as the content of the crowd’s acclamation—is dictated by its narrative setting. As far as composite citations are concerned, six of the fifteen direct quotations in John must instantly be ruled out because they do not conform to the working definition of a composite citation as one where ‘literary borrowing occurs in a manner that includes two or more passages (from the same or different authors) fused together and conveyed as though they are only one’.7 These six citations stem from a single source and, in all cases, are derived from the LXX, either verbatim (Jn 10.34/ Ps. 82[81].6; Jn 12.38/Isa. 53.1; Jn 19.24/Ps. 22[21].19) or they exhibit only slight differences from their Septuagintal source (Jn 1.23/Isa. 40.3; Jn 2.17/Ps. 69[68].10; Jn 15.25/Ps. 69[68].5). The quotation in Jn 6.45, ‘And they shall all be taught by God’, must also be excluded from a discussion of composite citations. Despite the distinctive (plural) attribution in its citation formula (ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις), and the fact that several prophetic traditions express the theme of God’s eschatological teaching (e.g., Jer. 24.7; Joel 2.27; Hab. 2.14; and especially Jer. 38[31].33-34), all constituent parts of the quotation in Jn 6.45 can be traced directly to the content, or are interpretatively based upon the context, of Isa. 54.13 LXX.8 The one remaining passage about which there is considerable debate as to whether it qualifies as an explicit citation is Jn 7.38.9 Notwithstanding the presence of a citation formula in this passage (καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γραφή), there is uncertainty as to whether Jn 7.37-38 contains an identifiable scriptural source, although the likelihood that it in fact cites more than one scriptural text makes it a worthy candidate for inclusion as a possible composite citation. This leaves us with eight explicit citations in John’s Gospel which, it will be argued, draw on two or more scriptural source texts to form a single, composite citation (6.31; 7.38; 12.13; 12.15; 12.40; 13.18; 19.36; 19.37). It will also be shown that the mode of scriptural referencing attested in most of these cases fits the category of ‘conflated citation’ rather than ‘combined citation’, in that they are ‘characterized by the insertion of a 7.  Adams and Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation?’, p. 4. 8.  See further C. H. Williams, ‘Isaiah in John’s Gospel’, in S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (eds.), Isaiah in the New Testament (London: T&T Clark International, 2005), pp. 101–16 (106–8). 9.  For example, it is categorized as an explicit citation by Freed (Old Testament Quotations, p. xii), Menken (Old Testament Quotations, pp. 12, 187–203) and Sheridan (Retelling Scripture, pp. 106, 173–95), but not by Schuchard (Scripture within Scripture, pp. xiii–xiv) or Obermann (Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift, p. 72).

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

97

word or phrase from one passage into a quotation from another passage with no signal to the audience that such a commingling of texts has taken place’.10 Each of these eight citations will be examined in turn, and then some concluding remarks will be offered about the profile and function of composite citations in the Gospel of John and about the contribution of those citations to our understanding of this literary phenomenon in the New Testament writings. 2. Composite Citations a. John 6.31: Psalm 78(77).24 and Exodus 16.4, 15 The third explicit quotation in John’s Gospel (cf. 1.23; 2.17) occurs during the early stages of a dispute about Jesus’ identity and origins. Against the backdrop of the multiplication of the loaves (6.4-14), the crowd in Capernaum demands a (further) sign to convince them of the validity of Jesus’ claim that he is the one sent by God (6.29). They appeal, through the words of Scripture, to the past provision of manna: ‘Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat” ’ (6.31). As this citation does not correspond exactly to any single source, three scriptural passages (Exod. 16.4, 15; Ps. 78[77].24)— all of which refer to God’s gift of bread from heaven—are frequently noted as having contributed to this citation, either individually or collectively. Table 5.1. Comparison of Jn 6.31, Ps. 77.24, Exod. 16.4, and Exod. 16.15 Jn 6.31 ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν

Ps. 77.24 LXX καὶ ἄρτον οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς

Exod. 16.4 LXX ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ὕω ὑμῖν ἄρτους ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

Exod. 16.15 LXX οὕτος ὁ ἄρτος, ὃν ἔδωκεν κύριος ὑμῖν φαγεῖν

Turning firstly to the psalm text, the rendering of this statement in the Septuagint (77.24)—which is a close translation of the Hebrew—bears striking resemblance to the citation in Jn 6.31 with the exception of two features: both ἐκ τοῦ (before οὐρανοῦ) and the verbal form φαγεῖν are absent from Ps. 78(77).24b, although the latter element does occur at the end of the previous parallel line (v. 24a). This psalm text is, understandably, regarded by many scholars as the primary source of the citation in 10.  C. D. Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 203–9 (204). See further idem, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 256, 258–59, 341–42, 349–50.

98

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Jn 6.31,11 with the use of ἄρτος instead of the customary σῖτος to render the underlying Hebrew ‫ דגן‬strongly pointing to John’s reliance on the Septuagintal version of Ps. 78(77).24.12 The two ‘additional’ components in Jn 6.31 point, nevertheless, to John’s appeal to a second (and possibly even third) scriptural statement, namely Exod. 16.4 and 15. Despite many differences between these Pentateuchal passages and Jn 6.31, a strong case can be made for positing their influence on the wording of the citation and, indeed, on its wider context in the bread of life discourse. Not only does the verbal form φαγεῖν occur specifically with reference to eating bread (Exod. 16.15), but the precise phrase ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (‘from heaven’) appears in Exod. 16.4 LXX. From a Johannine perspective this is of notable significance. The focus on Jesus’ identity as the one who has descended from heaven, both in the response and discourse that follow (6.32-33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58) and as a key feature of Johannine Christology more generally (e.g., 3.13, 31; 8.42, 47; 13.3; 16.30), requires an explicit expression of Jesus’ derivation (ἐκ τοῦ) ‘from above’.13 This cannot be achieved through the phrase ἄρτον οὐρανοῦ, which points only to the theme of heavenly bread (‘of heaven’; cf. Ps. 77.24 LXX). This particular case demonstrates, moreover, that the issue at stake for identifying a composite citation is not necessarily the number of (unusual) words, but the distinctiveness of the addition/substitution and determination of its (redactional) intentionality and plausibility. The influence of Exodus 16 is also palpable later in John 6, where the ‘murmuring’ (γογγύζω) of ‘the Jews’ evokes the murmuring of their ancestors as they ate the manna in the desert (Exod. 16.8; cf. 15.24; 16.2; 17.3).14 It expresses the failure of Jesus’ interlocutors to accept his 11.  E.g., B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCB Commentary; London: Oliphants, 1972), p. 257; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: SPCK, 2nd edn, 1978), pp. 288–89, but, in both cases, without excluding the possible influence of Exod. 16.4 and 15. See also those mentioned in the next footnote. 12.  Cf. Menken, Old Testament Quotations, p. 49; M. Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel: The Johannine Reception of the Psalms (AGJU, 47; Leiden: Brill, 2000), p. 133. 13.  See further Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift, p. 133; M. Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Kapitel 1–12 (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2009), p. 460. 14.  See, e.g., A. T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to St John (BNTC; London: Continuum, 2005), p. 227. For an insightful discussion of how the contrasts between God’s promises and their loss due to Israel’s disobedience form a contextual lens through which to interpret how ‘the Jews’ reject Jesus as the gift and giver of ‘the true bread’, see Sheridan, Retelling Scripture, pp. 149–50, 156–58.

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

99

claim to be the true bread from heaven because they refuse to recognize anything other than his earthly origins and human descent (6.41-42). For the reasons already noted, Exodus 16 cannot alone account for the scriptural citation in Jn 6.31.15 Elements from Exod. 16.4 and 16.15 have been inserted into its relecture in Psalm 78(77) to form a composite citation.16 The function of both passages as a ‘scriptural screen’17 through which to interpret John 6 strongly suggests that their original narrative contexts have played a decisive role in the composition of the citation. The ‘shared’ settings of the originating event and its retelling have also generated a common vocabulary (ἄρτος, ἔδωκεν, οὐρανοῦ), which, both here and in other places in John’s Gospel (as will be demonstrated below), plays a decisive role in the formation of composite citations. It is catchword associations or ‘analogical exegesis’ that, more often than not, provide the exegetical legitimation for John’s fusion of ‘distant’ scriptural verses,18 even if the impetus (christological or otherwise) for the composite character of a scriptural quotation lies elsewhere. The lack of a New Testament parallel to the quotation in Jn 6.31 suggests that it has not been taken by the evangelist from existing tradition. This is supported by the typically Johannine character of this composite citation, especially—as will be noted in other cases—to sharpen its christological focus, this time on Jesus as ‘the Sent One’ from (ἐκ τοῦ) heaven. This scriptural quotation is clearly integral to the narrative because it shapes Jesus’ response to the crowd (6.32-34), which, in turn, serves as a platform for his discourse on the bread of life (6.35-59).19 Thus, Jesus 15.  As suggested by Reim, Studien zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund, pp. 13– 15, 90, 96. See further P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo (Leiden: Brill, 1965), pp. 40–41, 51–52, 65–66. 16.  On the function of Ps. 78 as a relecture of Exod. 16 in late Second Temple Judaism, see Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, p. 133 n. 65 (with reference to LAB 10.7). 17.  J. M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 41–42. 18.  The fusion of analogous passages as an underpinning principle for John’s composite citations has been convincingly argued by Menken, Old Testament Quotations, especially pp. 52–53. See also C. H. Williams, ‘John, Judaism, and “Searching the Scriptures” ’, in R. A. Culpepper and P. N. Anderson (eds.), John and Judaism: A Contested Relationship in Context (RBS, 87; Atlanta: SBL, 2017), pp. 77–100. 19.  Rather than interpreting Jn 6.31-59 as based on a homiletic-midrashic pattern (see Borgen, Bread from Heaven), it is preferable to view the passage as a christologically shaped exchange between Jesus and his interlocutors. See especially J. Zumstein, ‘Die Schriftrezeption in der Brotrede (Joh 6)’, in M. Labahn, K. Scholtissek and

100

Composite Citations in Antiquity

expounds the crowd’s appeal to Scripture in three steps: it was not Moses but God (‘my Father’) who gave (δέδωκεν) their ancestors bread from heaven; God gives (δίδωσιν) the true bread from heaven; the bread of God descends from heaven and gives life to the world (6.32-33). Jesus’ response to the crowd is clearly held together by a series of contrasts, the focus of which, in all likelihood, is the contrast between Jesus’ anticipated self-identification as the bread of life and the Jewish tradition that the heavenly manna as a source of nourishment symbolizes God’s gift of the law (cf. Sir. 24.21; Wis. 16.20). The composite citation in Jn 6.31 therefore acts as a trigger for Jesus to declare that he himself is the lifegiving bread whose origins are with God. b. John 7.38: Psalm 78(77).16, 20, Isaiah 48.21, and Zechariah 14.8 The second likely composite citation in John’s Gospel is set, like the first, within a setting of conflict and division, but this time it is ascribed to Jesus himself as he appeals to what ‘Scripture has said’ (καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γραφή) on the last day of the feast of Tabernacles (7.37)—a religious context that permeates the content of John 7. He stands and calls upon those who are thirsty to come to him and for those who believe in him to drink, because ‘out of his belly’ shall flow ‘rivers of living water’ (7.38). That scriptural language is being evoked in Jesus’ declaration is indisputable, but the allusiveness of the evocation(s) has prompted many commentators to exclude it from John’s explicit citations; even if it falls within the category of composite citation, the complex nature of its formation soon becomes apparent. The intertextual challenges posed by Jn 7.38 are exacerbated by punctuation issues that cause uncertainty about the source of the ‘living water’ (Jesus or the believer). Seeking clarification on the grammatical and syntactic questions in 7.37-38 can assist in the search for specific scriptural source(s) as well as vice versa. The first option is to read the text as follows: ‘If any one is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. The one who believes in me, as Scripture has said, “rivers of living water shall flow from his belly” ’. This makes the believer the antecedent of ‘his’ (αὐτοῦ) in the scriptural citation, thus providing a parallel, in the opinion of some commentators,20 to Jesus’ earlier promise of springs of living A. Strotmann (eds.), Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevangelium (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004), pp. 123–39 (126, 130–31, 136). For other resemblances between Ps. 78(77) and Jn 6, see Myers, Characterizing Jesus, p. 107 n. 79. 20.  E.g., Lindars, The Gospel of John, p. 301; Barrett, The Gospel According to St John, pp. 328–29; M. L. Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001), pp. 125–34.

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

101

water gushing up in those who believe in him (4.14). The other, more widely accepted, option is to read: ‘If any one is thirsty let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink, as Scripture has said, “rivers of living water shall flow from his belly” ’. This reading produces a slightly awkward, but typically Johannine, parallelism between ‘being thirsty’ and ‘drinking’ and between ‘coming to’ Jesus and ‘believing in’ him (cf. 6.35, 37) as the source of the living water. More importantly, it aligns well with the emphasis on the topic of Jesus’ identity in John 7–8 and, more specifically, with the subsequent explanatory statement about Jesus’ gift of the Spirit following his glorification (7.39; cf. 19.34).21 Adopting a christological interpretation of the citation in 7.38 also connects it with the witnessing function of John’s other explicit quotations, although it stands apart in terms of the difficulty of pinning down possible contributors to what appears to be an elaborate configuration of scriptural texts. Even if ἡ γραφή is used here to denote one specific passage and that one primary source can be identified, it is likely that ‘various types of scriptural material about living water have been combined’,22 including at least one psalm text (Ps. 78[77].16, 20 LXX) and possibly more than one prophetic text (Isa. 48.21; Zech. 14.8; cf. Isa. 43.20; 44.3; Ezek. 47.1-2). The Septuagintal versions of the main contenders are cited for ease of comparison, without prejudging at this stage whether John is reliant on these exact versions or that they, in turn, are a close rendering of the Hebrew text. Table 5.2. Comparison of Jn 7.38, Ps. 77.16, 20a, Isa. 48.2, and Zech. 14.8 Jn 7.38 ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος

Ps. 77.16, 20a LXX καὶ ἐξήγαγεν ὕδωρ ἐκ πέτρας καὶ κατήγαγεν ὡς ποταμοὺς ὕδατα 77.16

ἐπεὶ ἐπάταξεν πέτραν καὶ ἐρρύησαν ὕδατα 77.20

Isa. 48.21 LXX καὶ ἐὰν διψήσωσιν, δι᾽ ἐρήμου ἄξει αὐτούς ὕδωρ ἐκ πέτρας ἐξάξει αὐτοῖς. σχισθήσεται πέτρα, καὶ ῥυήεσται ὕδωρ, καὶ πίεται ὁ λαός μου

Zech. 14.8 LXX καὶ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἐξελεύσεται ὕδωρ ζῶν ἐξ Ιερουσαλημ

The primary scriptural point of reference in Jesus’ statement is the exodus motif of water miraculously flowing from the wilderness rock 21.  E.g., R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB, 29, 29A; New York: Doubleday, 1966, 1970), pp. 1:320–25; Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, pp. 537–39; Sheridan, Retelling Scripture, pp. 181–84. 22.  Lincoln, The Gospel According to St John, p. 256.

102

Composite Citations in Antiquity

when struck by Moses to quench the people’s thirst. Verbal parallels with Jn 7.38 are not identifiable in the relevant Exodus passage (17.6; cf. Num. 20.8) but, as in Jn 6.31, in its retelling in Psalm 78(77) LXX. Three of the citation’s key components (ποταμοί, ῥέω, and ὕδωρ/ὕδατα) occur in close proximity to each other, with the same (exodus) event as their referent, in vv. 16 and 20a: ‘And he brought down waters like rivers…and he smote the rock and waters flowed’.23 The immediately preceding reference to drinking (v. 15b) also resembles Jesus’ invitation to drink in Jn 7.37. It should be noted that the terms ῥέω and ὕδωρ also occur in Isaianic recollections of the rock miracle as a model for future deliverance; particularly significant is Isa. 48.21 LXX, which notes how people’s thirst (διψήσωσιν) will be quenched when they drink (πίεται) the water (ὕδωρ, singular as in Jn 7.38) that God will bring out from a rock.24 The difficulty in opting for Ps. 78(77).16, 20 over Isa. 48.21 as the primary source for the citation in Jn 7.38 is that, in both cases, the verbal parallels comprise individual words rather than a sequence of words/phrases, although the imagery of ‘rivers’ may slightly tip the balance in favour of the psalm text. In this particular case one may need to acknowledge that both passages, precisely because they attest the same vocabulary, provide the frame for this new mosaic of scriptural words. There are other elements in Jn 7.37 that contribute to the composite character of the citation but which cannot be traced back to Ps. 78(77).16 or Isa. 48.12. The first is the use of the epithet ‘living’ (ζῶντος) to describe the water issuing forth from Jesus. The closest verbal parallel can be found in Zech. 14.8 LXX, which uses Tabernacles imagery (cf. 14.16-19) to express the eschatological vision (‘on that day’) that when God comes to the city, living water (ὕδωρ ζῶν) shall come out from Jerusalem. The more precise prophetic specification of water flowing from the temple (cf. Ezek. 47.1-2) may point to John’s evocation of Jesus’ body as the new temple from which ‘the rivers of living water’ now issue forth (cf. Jn 2.19-22).25 Consequently, on the basis of shared vocabulary and the linking of Israel’s past to its eschatological future, the life-giving water 23.  Menken, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 194–96; cf. Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, p. 150: ‘[vv. 16 and 20 together] form what we might call a double parallelismus membrorum’. 24.  Cf. also Isa. 43.20 LXX: ‘Because I have provided water in the wilderness and rivers in the dry land’; Isa. 44.3 LXX: ‘Because I will provide water in their thirst to those who walk in a dry land; I will put my spirit [cf. Jn 7.39] on your offspring and my blessings on your children’. 25.  Cf. Coloe, God Dwells with Us, pp. 130–33. On Ezek. 47.1-12 as a description of the river flowing from the purified Temple, see G. T. Manning Jr., Echoes of

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

103

from the rock is associated with the flow of water from Jerusalem and its temple, which in Jn 7.37-38, as in later Jewish tradition (cf. t. Sukkah 3.3-18), is set within the context of the Tabernacles festival. That the eschatological rock (or new temple) is Jesus himself is accentuated by the inclusion of the words ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ. It is possible that the presence of the similarly formulated phrase ἐκ πέτρας in Ps. 78(77).16 to denote water issuing from the rock offers the necessary scriptural trigger.26 The introduction of the physical κοιλία does not necessarily connote ‘the heart’ but rather, and in alignment with its use for birthing imagery elsewhere in John’s Gospel (3.4-5), could be a metaphorical reference to ‘womb’.27 The scriptural image of ‘the rock’, notably as a divine epithet (cf. Ps. 78[77].35), yields some valuable clues in this respect, not least the description of God as ‘the Rock that bore you…the God who gave you birth’ (Deut. 32.18). The Isaianic vision of God’s future salvation is that he gives water/rivers to ‘the people whom I formed for myself’ (Isa. 43.21), to those who are formed ‘from the womb’ (44.2 LXX: ἐκ κοιλίας). As a result, the overarching aim of John’s highly intricate composite citation in 7.38 is to present Jesus as effecting a new birth for those who believe in him (cf. 1.12-13; 3.5-6, 8), symbolized by the life-giving waters that flow from his crucified body (19.34). The fact that this composite citation about Jesus as the source of ‘living water’ sits slightly uncomfortably in its current setting (as suggested by the syntactical problems noted above) could be taken as evidence that the evangelist has inserted a quotation derived from tradition concerning Jesus as ‘the rock’ (cf. 1 Cor. 10.4). The same could be said about the awkward shift from Jesus’ own speech (first person) to a quotation in which he is the main referent (third person) and then to an explanatory narrative comment about the post-glorification gift of the Spirit. Nevertheless, as with Jn 6.31, there is clear evidence of Johannine elements having been incorporated into the quotation, suggesting that the evangelist has substantially modified a tradition or introduced elements into a scriptural frame about the water-issuing rock in order to highlight the role of Jesus as the agent of new birth, as the giver of new life.

a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period (JSNTSup, 270; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), pp. 177–86, esp. 179–82. 26.  On Ps. 114(113).8—where ‘rock’ becomes ‘spring’—as providing ‘the missing link’, see Menken, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 200–201. 27.  On what follows, see especially Lincoln, The Gospel According to St John, p. 257; cf. Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, p. 539.

104

Composite Citations in Antiquity

c. John 12.13: Psalm 118(117).25-26, Zephaniah 3.15, and Isaiah 44.6 The Johannine account of Jesus’ final entry into Jerusalem (12.12-19) may be set within the Passover festival (11.55; 12.1), but evocations of the ceremonial processions of Tabernacles recur in this scene as well,28 including the crowd’s acclamation as Jesus enters the city: ‘Hosanna, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, (even) the King of Israel!’ (12.13). The likelihood that John is here drawing on early Christian tradition increases considerably, given that this declaration is found in all four gospel accounts of the entry narrative (Mk 11.9; Mt. 21.9; Lk. 19.38), with the following components of the crowd’s cry cited verbatim in all four versions: εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου (albeit with the insertion of ὁ βασιλεὺς after ὁ ἐρχόμενος in Lk. 19.38). These words are identical, moreover, to the Septuagintal version of Ps. 118(117).26, which is itself a close translation of the underlying Hebrew text. It also warrants the definition of direct citation, because the embeddedness—indeed the enactment—of the psalm text in the spontaneous proclamation of the Jerusalem pilgrims who come out to meet Jesus more than adequately accounts for the absence of an introductory citation formula. Two modifications to the psalm text point to the use of different material in addition to Ps. 118(117).26 in Jn 12.13. The opening cry, ‘Hosanna’ (ὡσαννά), is a transliteration of the Aramaic phrase ‫הושענא‬, but one whose Hebrew equivalent (‫ )הושיעה נא‬occurs in the preceding psalm verse (118.25a). Whether John has incorporated a well-known liturgical formula into the citation or relies on traditional material (cf. Mk 11.9; Mt. 21.9), this element differs markedly from the rendering of the phrase in Ps. 117.25 LXX (σῶσον δή). The other additional element is the appended phrase (καὶ) ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, which raises two issues of key importance for a study of composite citations in John’s Gospel. First, there is the text-critical issue of the possibility of an initial καί, with the evidence quite evenly divided between its inclusion (𝔓75 ‫*א‬2 B L) and its omission (𝔓66 ‫א‬1 D θ).29 If καί is original to the citation, it fulfils th epexegetical purpose (‘that is’) of linking the two designations together in the closest possible terms,30 in order to emphasize that ‘the Coming One’ 28.  E.g., A. C. Brunson, Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: An Intertextual Study on the New Exodus Pattern in the Theology of John (WUNT, 2/158; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), pp. 215–22; Brown, The Gospel According to John, pp. 1:456–57. 29.  See further Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift, p. 186 n. 4. 30.  See, e.g., Barrett, The Gospel According to St John, p. 418; R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John: Volume 2 (trans. C. Hastings et al.; London: Burns & Oates, 1980), p. 525 n. 4.

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

105

enters Jerusalem as ‘the King of Israel’. This, at least, conforms to one of the criteria as to what constitutes a composite citation, in that this occurrence of καί does not establish a ‘break between the two fused texts’,31 but in fact aims to fuse them closer together. Secondly, to determine whether Jn 12.13 belongs to the category of combined composite citation,32 it must be ascertained whether the phrase (καὶ) ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ belongs to a second scriptural source appended to the first (Ps. 118[117].25-26). There is no doubt that the phrase has a strong intratextual resonance in John’s Gospel, especially Nathanael’s acclamation of Jesus with the aid of virtually the same words early in the narrative (1.49). That it represents an intertextual reference can be argued on the grounds that John’s substantive additions/substitutions to explicit citations are drawn from (and consequently legitimated by) other—usually analogous—scriptural sources (cf. 6.31; 7.38), even if there is a Johannine impetus for those modifications. It has been proposed, for example, that the phrase ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ is drawn from Isa. 44.6 LXX, which offers the only exact verbal parallel to the words in Jn 12.13.33 Much depends, however, on the connection between this psalm quotation and the composite citation that follows (Jn 12.15), which, as we shall see, combines Zech. 9.9 (‘Look, your king [βασιλεύς] is coming’) with words closely resembling Zeph. 3.16 (‘do not fear’). In this second source text, the prophet announces to Jerusalem that ‘the King of Israel (βασιλεὺς Ἰσραήλ), the Lord, is in your midst’ (Zeph. 3.15 LXX).34 Highlighting the divine kingship of Jesus would accord well with significant contours of Johannine Christology, in that ‘the Coming One’ (e.g., 1.15, 30; 4.25-26; 7.27-28) is the embodiment of God’s name (ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου; cf. 17.11-12). Nevertheless, the emphasis within the citation in Jn 12.13—at least from the crowd’s perspective—is on a triumphant heralding of what they understand to be Jesus’ messianic (even nationalistic) royal procession, as implied by the distinctively Johannine reference to their waving of palm branches (12.13;

31.  Adams and Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation?’, p. 4. 32.  Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 204: ‘ “Combined citations” occur when two or more excerpts are joined back-to-back under a single citation formula or other explicit marker to form a verbal unit that an uniformed audience would take as coming from a single source’. 33.  See Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture, pp. 77–78. 34.  The proposed influence of Zeph. 3.15 on Jn 12.13 is widely supported; e.g., Freed, Old Testament Quotations, p. 78; Brown, The Gospel According to John, p. 1:458; Barrett, The Gospel According to St John, p. 418.

106

Composite Citations in Antiquity

cf. 1 Macc. 13.51; 2 Macc. 10.7). The following section of this essay will examine other possible layers of (Johannine) meaning as the first scriptural citation in the entry narrative (12.13) is brought into dialogue with the second (12.15). d. John 12.15: Zechariah 9.9, Zephaniah 3.16, Isaiah 40.9, and Genesis 49.10-11 Jesus finds and sits on a donkey’s colt in response to the crowd’s acclamation (12.14), an act which the Johannine narrator explains retrospectively with the aid of Scripture: ‘As it is written, “Do not fear, daughter Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt” ’ (12.15). The primary source of the citation is undoubtedly Zech. 9.9, which promises the future coming of a king who will bring peace to Jerusalem and justice to the nations. This scriptural connection also underpins Mark’s version of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (11.1-10), a connection which—as in John’s Gospel—is made explicit, albeit in combination with different elements (Isa. 62.11), in the Matthean account (21.5). John cites a significantly shorter version of the underlying Zechariah text,35 but also includes ‘new’ elements that—as will now be demonstrated—are most plausibly explained as having been drawn from analogous scriptural passages on the basis of catchword links. It is unclear whether Jn 12.15 is dependent on the Hebrew or Greek text of Zech. 9.9, but the Septuagintal version is cited here for comparative purposes and to highlight the possible verbal parallels between John’s citation and other scriptural source texts.

35.  It does not include the following components from Zech. 9.9: (a) the second appeal, for the daughter of Jerusalem to rejoice; (b) the words ‘to you’ (LXX: σοι) after ‘your king comes’; (c) all the attributes of the king (‘righteous and triumphant’, ‘humble’); (d) the first parallel reference to the mount (‘donkey’). It is widely agreed that John has only retained elements that are crucial for his interpretation of the scene (the arrival of Jesus as king, sitting on a donkey’s colt), whereas the coming of the king lacks reference to a specific destination in order to align the citation with the Johannine emphasis on Jesus’ coming to ‘the world’ (e.g., 1.9; 3.19; 6.14; 11.27; 12.46) and on his universal mission (e.g., 12.19, 32); cf. Menken, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 79, 90–91; Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift, p. 210.

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

107

Table 5.3. Comparison of Jn 12.15, Zech. 9.9, Zeph. 3.16, Isa. 40.9-10, and Gen. 49.10-11 Jn 12.15

Zech. 9.9; Zeph. 3.16 LXX μὴ φοβοῦ, θυγάτηρ 9.9 χαῖρε σφόδρα, θύγατερ Σιων. Σιών. ἰδοὺ ὁ κήρυσσε, θύγατερ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεται, καθήμενος Ιερουσαλημ. ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί ἐπὶ πῶλον ὄνου. σοι, δίκαιος καὶ σώζων αὐτός, πραΰς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὑποζύγιον καὶ πῶλον νέον. ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἐρεῖ κύριος τῇ Ιερουσαλημ θάρσει (HT: ‫ )אל תיראי‬Σιων, μὴ παρείσθωσαν αἱ χεῖρές σου. 3.16

Isa. 40.9-10 LXX

Gen. 49.10-11 LXX

ἐπ᾽ ὄρος ὑψηλὸν ἀνάβηθι, ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος Σιων. ὕψωσον τῇ ἰσχύι τὴν φωνήν σου, ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος Ιερουσαλημ. ὑψώσατε, μὴ φοβεῖσθε (HT: ‫)אל תיראי‬. εἰπὸν ταῖς πόλεσιν Ιουδα, Ἰδοὺ ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν. ἰδοὺ κύριος μετὰ ἰσχύος ἔρχεται..

οὐκ ἐκλείψει ἄρχων ἐξ Ιουδα ... δεσμεύων πρὸς ἄμπελον τὸν πῶλον αὐτοῦ καὶ τῇ ἕλικι τὸν πῶλον τῆς ὄνου αὐτοῦ.

The first element to support the categorization of Jn 12.15 as a composite citation is the seemingly curious replacement of the words ‘rejoice greatly’, addressed to daughter Zion in the first line of Zech. 9.9 (LXX: χαῖρε σφόδρα), with the appeal ‘do not fear’ (μὴ φοβοῦ). This substitution is sufficiently striking to enable scripturally literate readers/hearers of the Jewish Scriptures to be able to identify the phrase as a deviation from Zech. 9.9. In other words, it marks itself out as a deliberate ‘intertextual signal’36 to a different scriptural passage with the aim of bringing the meaning of both texts together to describe the arrival of Jesus as king.37 With regard to the scriptural source and intended Johannine application of this intertextual reference, the phrase ‘do not fear’ is, of course, attested in a large number of texts in the Jewish Scriptures. However, its inclusion in the quotation of Jn 12.15 has—as in earlier cases—not been randomly

36.  J. Zumstein, L’Évangile selon Saint Jean (1-12) (CNT, IVa; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2014), p. 394. 37.  It therefore offers an example of what Christopher Stanley describes as ‘blatant intrusions of words or phrases that signal to the audience how the quoting author intends for the quoted texts to be understood and/or applied’ (‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 206).

108

Composite Citations in Antiquity

selected from any such source, but is drawn specifically from another prophetic passage (or even passages) whose mutually interpretative relationship with the Zechariah text is supported by striking contextual similarities, including shared verbal and thematic patterns. Both Zeph. 3.16 and Isa. 40.9, which proclaim the eschatological coming of God and/or the messianic king to Jerusalem, are the most likely source texts because of the decisive keywords that they share with Zech. 9.9 in their immediate context (Zeph. 3.14-17; Isa. 40.9-10).38 Some of these linkwords are found in the Hebrew and/or the Greek text of Zeph. 3.14-17, including a virtually identical version to the first line of Zech. 9.9 (Zeph. 3.14 LXX: χαῖρε σφόδρα, θύγατερ Σιων, κήρυσσε, θύγατερ Ιερουσαλημ) and, of particular import for John’s entry narrative, the declaration in Zeph. 3.15: ‘The king of Israel, the Lord (LXX: βασιλεὺς Ἰσραηλ κύριος), is in your midst’ (cf. 3.17). If Zeph. 3.16 is the secondary source text for Jn 12.15a,39 the cited words ‘do not fear’ have been drawn from the Hebrew text (‫ )אל תיראי‬because the Septuagint translates the phrase as θάρσει rather than μὴ φοβοῦ.40 Some shared, but also different, catchword links with Zech. 9.9 can be identified in Isa. 40.9-10 LXX (especially ἰδοὺ, Σιων, Ιερουσαλημ, and ἔρχεται), where the cited phrase ‘do not fear’ does occur in both the Hebrew and Greek versions (albeit in the plural in the LXX: μὴ φοβεῖσθε).41 Since both Zeph. 3.14-17 and Isa. 40.9-10 are contextually very close to Zech. 9.9 and given that these two prophetic passages, both individually and collectively, betray several striking parallels with the Zechariah citation, it is very difficult to determine which one of these scriptural source texts has contributed to the formation of Jn 12.15. Indeed, I am inclined to agree with Maarten Menken that it should not be necessary to decide between them,42 and that both—for the same and also separate reasons—are being evoked in this composite element in Jn 12.15. From an intertextual perspective, Zeph.

38.  As noted in connection with Jn 12.13, Schuchard (Scripture within Scripture, pp. 76–78) proposes that the most likely source is Isa. 44.2 LXX (μὴ φοβοῦ), particularly as an identical counterpart to the additional element in Jn 12.13 occurs in Isa. 44.6 LXX (ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ). The verbal parallels are certainly striking, but Isa. 44.2-6 betrays less contextual similarity with Jn 12.15 than Zeph. 3.16 and Isa. 40.9. 39.  As accepted by, e.g., Brown, The Gospel According to John, p. 1:458; Lindars, The Gospel of John, pp. 423–24; Zumstein, L’Évangile selon Saint Jean, p. 394. 40.  Cf. Menken, Old Testament Quotations, p. 84. 41.  Favoured by Barrett, The Gospel According to St John, pp. 417–19; Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift, p. 207 n. 29. 42.  Menken, Old Testament Quotations, p. 84.

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

109

3.15-16 can account for the inclusion of the phrase ‘the king of Israel’ in Jn 12.13 and, in the case of the Hebrew text, for the words ‘do not fear’ in 12.15; there is, however, a much more well-established Isaianic heritage for associating the phrase ‘do not fear’ (Hebrew and Greek) with the assurance of God’s eschatological coming and the proclamation of his salvation (cf. Isa. 35.4; 40.9; 41.10, 13, 14; 43.1, 5; 44.2; 51.7; 54.4). Furthermore, it should be noted that, intratextually, an evocation of Deutero-Isaiah’s message of deliverance at the end of Jesus’ public ministry (Isa. 40.9) forms a striking inclusio with the narrative’s opening scene, where John the Baptist heralds the appearance of Jesus as ‘the Coming One’, the one who enacts ‘the way of the Lord’ in accordance with Isaiah’s prophecy (Jn 1.23; cf. Isa. 40.3).43 In fact, the Johannine motivation for this change to ‘do not fear’ probably lies in the evangelist’s attempt to shape this scriptural citation as a proclamation of God’s presence and salvation. The phrase is often found (most notably in the prophecies of Isaiah) in the context of assurances of God’s theophanic presence and the deliverance of Israel.44 This provides a more satisfactory explanation of the motive behind the modification to this quotation, especially given its function as retrospective reflection, than that it serves to allay the fear of the crowd who, after the miraculous raising of Lazarus (cf. 12.18), misinterpret Jesus as a national king because his divine power is ‘frightening’.45 Similarly, and as will become apparent from an examination of other composite elements in Jn 12.15, the substitute ‘do not fear’ aligns more closely with John’s emphasis upon Jesus as ultimately manifesting his kingship by means of his death. An exhortation to rejoice would certainly appear incompatible with this Johannine christological theme.46 The other Johannine modifications to the Zechariah quotation are intended to highlight Jesus’ identity as king but also, in conjunction with the narrative setting, to accentuate a specific understanding of his kingship. One of the major differences in John’s Gospel, in comparison with the Synoptic entry accounts, is that Jesus is not presented as riding a donkey before the crowd’s accolades but rather finds the animal and sits

43.  See further Williams, ‘Isaiah in John’s Gospel’, pp. 114–15. 44.  Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift, pp. 208–9: ‘Heilsverkündigung’; cf. Sheridan, Retelling Scripture, p. 228. 45.  Menken, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 85–88. 46.  Cf. W. R. Bynum, ‘Quotations of Zechariah in the Fourth Gospel’, in A. D. Myers and B. G. Schuchard (eds.), Abiding Words: The Use of Scripture in the Gospel of John (Atlanta: SBL, 2015), pp. 47–74 (59).

110

Composite Citations in Antiquity

on it after, and consequently in response to, their cry that he is ‘the king of Israel’ (12.15). That Jesus chooses to sit upon a ‘young donkey’ is, in the light of this sequence, an interpretative correction of the pilgrims’ nationalistic expectations (12.14);47 the youthfulness of the animal is in itself a sufficient signal of the unwarrior-like character of Jesus’ arrival, and, as a result, the overt reference to the king’s humility (πραΰς) in the Zechariah citation is not required. The Johannine reinterpretation of how ‘the Coming One’ is ‘the King of Israel’ is encapsulated in Jesus’ act of sitting on a donkey’s colt, and two composite elements in the final line of the quotation in Jn 12.15 (καθήμενος ἐπὶ πῶλον ὄνου) are designed to highlight the royal connotations of that act. First, the reference to ‘riding’ in Zech. 9.9 (LXX: ἐπιβεβηκὼς) is replaced by ‘sitting’ (καθήμενος), which matches the verb used by John in the previous verse to describe Jesus’ act (ἐκάθισεν) and which is frequently used in the Jewish Scriptures to describe a king seated on a throne. Of particular relevance in this respect is the narrative about the enthronement of Solomon (1 Kgs 1.13-46), where the reference to him being seated (LXX: ἐπικαθίζω) on David’s mule before his enthronement acts as a symbolic anticipation of him seated on the royal throne (1.38, 44).48 Secondly, the slightly different final words in John’s quotation, ‘donkey’s colt’ (πῶλον ὄνου) instead of ‘new colt’ (πῶλον νέον) as in the Zechariah text, are similarly motivated by the highlighting of Jesus’ royal identity. It is scripturally informed in that it evokes Jacob’s blessing to Judah, specifically its analogous (and, in the LXX, unparalleled) reference to a ruler expected by the nations who will bind ‘his colt to a vine and his donkey’s colt (LXX: τὸν πῶλον τῆς ὄνου αὐτοῦ) to the tendril’ (Gen. 49.11). This blessing, like the placing of Solomon on a mule, is intended as ‘an anticipation of…royal destiny’,49 one characterized by a kingly rule of peace and prosperity. Similarly, these subtle evocations of (future) kingship in the composite citation in Jn 12.15 are designed as scriptural pointers to the paradoxical nature of Jesus’ kingship as presented in the Gospel of John (18.28–19.22), namely as the one whose ‘lifting up’ and enthronement take place on a cross.

47.  Brunson (Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John, pp. 266–77) argues that Jesus’ act is an affirmation rather than a correction of the crowd’s acclamation, but this does not adequately take into account the use of the adversative δέ in Jn 12.14. 48.  See especially Menken, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 92–94; Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture, pp. 81–82. 49.  Sheridan, Retelling Scripture, p. 224.

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

111

e. John 12.40: Isaiah 6.10, Isaiah 42.18-20, and Isaiah 44.18 John’s summary assessment of Jesus’ public ministry is shaped by two fulfilment quotations drawn from the prophecies of Isaiah. The unbelief and rejection encountered by Jesus is said to fulfill the words of Isa. 53.1 (LXX), whereas the purpose of the second quotation, Isa. 6.10, is to account for the lack of belief in Jesus (12.39): ‘He has blinded their eyes and maimed their heart, lest they should see with the eyes and understand with the heart and turn, so that I would heal them’. Among the most distinguishing features of the Isaianic quotation in Jn 12.40, when compared with the Hebrew and LXX versions,50 are the absence of the reference to ‘this people’, the omission of the two lines referring to ears and hearing, and the change in line sequence which places ‘eyes’ before ‘heart’. These differences are most plausibly explained as the result of Johannine redaction,51 for although the quotation is familiar to the evangelist from earlier Christian tradition, its wording in 12.40 does not match any known form of Isa. 6.9-10 (cf. Mk 4.12; Mt. 13.14-15; Acts 28.26-27). This assessment is also supported by the close correspondence between these divergences and the reflections on the relationship between blindness and unbelief in the immediate Johannine context in which Isa. 6.10 is cited. John singles out Jesus’ signs (12.37), seen with the eyes, as the one aspect of Jesus’ earthly ministry that should, from a Johannine perspective (cf. 2.11, 23; 4.48; 20.31), have resulted in faith (in the heart). As to whether the redactional activity identifiable in Jn 12.40 extends to the inclusion of composite elements from different scriptural source texts, attention must first be paid to the initial lines of the quotation. There has of course been extensive scholarly debate about the first two clauses of the quotation, ‘He has blinded (τετύφλωκεν) their eyes and maimed (ἐπώρωσεν) their heart’, especially in seeking to determine the identity of the subject responsible for the blindness leading to unbelief. These opening statements part company with the first lines of Isa. 6.10 LXX, where the emphasis on the people’s heart being fat (ἐπαχύνθη) and on their eyes being closed (ἐκάμμυσαν) is described as an already

50.  See, e.g., C. A. Evans, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9-10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation (JSOTSup, 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), pp. 129–35; cf. R. Schnackenburg, ‘Joh 12,39-41: Zur christologischen Schriftaus­ legung des vierten Evangelisten’, in H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke (eds.), Neues Testament und Geschichte: Historisches Geschehen und Deutung im Neuen Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972), pp. 167–77. 51.  Menken, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 105–22; Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift, pp. 242–54.

112

Composite Citations in Antiquity

existing condition for which they themselves are responsible (6.9). According to the Hebrew text, the prophet Isaiah is instructed by God to ‘Make the heart of this people fat’ and to ‘shut their eyes’. God, in other words, brings about this obduracy through the agency of his prophet. And despite various attempts at identifying different initiators of the obduracy described in Jn 12.40 (like the devil, Jesus or his message),52 the unbelief of those who reject Jesus is, as in the Hebrew text, viewed as initiated by God (cf. 6.64-65; 9.39; 10.26).53 Given the strong arguments in favour of John’s dependence on the Hebrew version of Isa. 6.10 as its base-text for the first two lines of the quotation, the use of the verbs τυφλόω (‘to blind’) and πηρόω (‘to maim’)54 warrants explanation. In the Hebrew text the verb used with reference to the eyes (hiphil of ‫ )שעע‬actually means ‘to paste’, whereas ‘to make fat’ (hiphil of ‫ )שמן‬when used metaphorically connotes the motif ‘to make insensible’. In comparison, the two Greek verbs in Jn 12.40a (τυφλόω, πήροω) therefore point to a ‘certain intensification’ as far as the condition of unbelief is concerned.55 There is a clear verbal connection with Jn 9.39, the only other passage in John’s Gospel where sight/blindness is associated with belief/unbelief; indeed, the reference to the blindness of ‘the Jews’ (οἱ βλέποντες τυφλοὶ γένωνται)—because they refuse to see the sign of the healing of the man born blind—is itself a likely allusion to Isa. 6.9.56 It cannot be ruled out that the motivation for John’s use of τυφλόω in 12.40 is not to be sought intratextually alone (that is, by evoking 9.39), but is exegetically justified by several Isaianic parallels, especially 42.18-19 LXX: ‘Hear, you that are deaf, and you that are blind (οἱ τυφλοί), look up 52.  On these and other proposals, see J. Painter, ‘The Quotation of Scripture and Unbelief in John 12,36b-43’, in C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner (eds.), The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), pp. 432–58. 53.  See R. Kühschelm, Verstockung, Gericht und Heil: Exegetische und bibeltheologische Untersuchung zum sogenannten “Dualismus” und “Determinismus” in Joh 12,35-50 (Bonner Biblische Beiträge, 76; Frankfurt am Main: Hain, 1990), pp. 188–92. 54.  While some manuscripts (𝔓66.75 ‫ א‬K W) read ἐπήρωσεν (‘he maimed’), others (A B* L X Θ) attest the reading ἐπώρωσεν (‘he hardened’). The former is to be preferred on the grounds of its earlier attestation and because it represents the more difficult reading. See further Menken, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 101–4; Lincoln, The Gospel According to St John, p. 355 n. 1. 55.  Menken, Old Testament Quotations, p. 111. 56.  J. M. Lieu, ‘Blindness in the Johannine Tradition’, NTS 34 (1988), pp. 83–95 (85).

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

113

to see! And who is blind (τὶς τυφλός) but my servants, and defeat but they who lord it over them?’ (cf. Isa. 43.8; 56.10).57 Influence from a second Isaianic source text is widely thought to be recognizable in the fourth component of John’s quotation: ‘and understand with the heart’ (καὶ νοήσωσιν τῇ καρδίᾳ). This line bears some resemblance to Isa. 6.10 LXX (καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν), but the closest analogue to its use of νοέω—a verb otherwise unparalleled in John—is to be found at the end of Isa. 44.18 LXX, a passage replete with verbal and thematic catchword links to 6.10: ‘They did not know how to think, because they were blinded so as not to see with their eyes (τοῦ βλέπειν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτῶν) and understand with their heart (και τοῦ νοῆσαι τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν)’.58 The quotation returns to the wording of Isa. 6.10 LXX for its final line, where the shift to the first person singular (‘and I heal them’) points to Jesus rather than God as its subject. This composite citation therefore concludes by stressing that the obduracy brought about by God has only one possibility of being overturned, that is, if those who lack belief turn so that Jesus, God’s agent, may heal them. f. John 13.18: Psalm 41(40).10 and 2 Samuel 18.28 Another, potentially composite, fulfilment citation occurs within the context of the footwashing scene, where Jesus, in a second interpretation of his symbolic act (13.12-20), speaks openly—for the second time (6.70)— about the ‘choosing’ of his betrayer. Jesus knows (οἶδα) that this is integral to the divine plan, a fulfilment of the Scripture that says: ‘He who eats my bread has raised his heel against me (ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον ἐπῆρεν ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν αὐτοῦ)’ (13.18). This quotation is undeniably drawn from Ps. 41.10b, where the righteous sufferer describes how the opposition against him has even included an act of treachery from a close friend. There is a strong basis, moreover, for arguing that the first part of John’s quotation—as in the first lines of 12.40—closely resembles the Hebrew version of this psalm text: it has the singular ‘bread’, whereas ‘heel’ (πτέρνα) is a precise rendering of the underlying Hebrew (‫)עקב‬.59 The LXX version (40.10), in contrast, offers a significantly different reading 57.  Freed, Old Testament Quotations, p. 87; Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture, pp. 102–3. 58.  Cf. Kühschelm, Verstockung, Gericht und Heil, p. 130; Menken, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 117–18, 121; Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift, p. 248. 59.  E.g., Brown, The Gospel According to John, pp. 2:554, 571; Freed, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 89–90, 92. Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture, pp. 116–17, who seeks to trace all of John’s explicit citations to the ‘Old Greek’ text, proposes that

114

Composite Citations in Antiquity

of the main clause as ‘he has magnified trickery against me’ (ἐμεγάλυνεν ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ πτερνισμόν). John’s preference for the term ‘heel’ (as in ΜT) is understandable in view of the emphasis on Jesus’ foreknowledge of his betrayal by one who, ironically, has just participated in the footwashing,60 thereby ruling out any deceptive ‘trickery’ on Judas’ part. The other difference is that the opening phrase of Ps. 40.10 LXX reads ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου (cf. its evocation in Mk 14.18) while Jn 13.18 has ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον. John’s use of a different, though synonymous, verb for ‘eating’, particularly when combined with the singular ‘bread’, can be most plausibly accounted for on an intratextual level: it deliberately recalls the repeated use of the same verb (τρώγω) in the bread of life discourse, where the metaphorical references to eating the flesh of Jesus, the true living bread (6.54, 56-58), are soon followed by Jesus’ first prediction of his betrayal by one who does not believe (6.64, 70-71). The psalm quotation in Jn 13.18 parts company with both the Hebrew and LXX versions in its use of the verb ‘to raise’ (ἐπαίρω) rather than ‘to make great/magnify’ (ΜΤ: ‫ ;הגדיל‬LXX: μεγαλύνω) to describe the act of hostility by the psalmist’s opponent. The presence of this element in Jn 13.18 has been subjected to detailed study by Maarten Menken in a sevenstep investigation of its origin and appropriation.61 Menken’s explanation warrants close scrutiny, because he proposes that John introduces a second scriptural source text into the psalm quotation at this point so that it forms a composite citation. Hence, given the traditional view that many of the psalms reflect events in David’s own life,62 the statement in Ps. 41.10 about the psalmist’s experience of enmity by a close friend (one who had eaten bread with him) can be linked to the story of Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sam. 15) and, in particular, his co-conspirator Ahithophel, David’s counsellor and close confidant (15.12, 31, 34; 16.20-23) who eventually hangs himself (17.23). The scriptural statement of relevance to Jn 13.18 occurs in 2 Sam. 18.28, where Ahimaaz informs David of the fall of his conspirators and blesses God for having ‘delivered up the men who raised (ΜT: ‫ )נשאו‬their hand against my lord the king’. Based on catchword

πτέρνα in Jn 13.18 is not necessarily a translation of the Hebrew, but recalls the use of the same term in Gen. 3.15 LXX; however, there is otherwise little point of contact between the two passages. 60.  Cf. Lincoln, The Gospel According to St John, p. 373. 61.  Menken, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 131–36; he is followed by DalyDenton, David in the Fourth Gospel, pp. 193–96; and his explanation is regarded as ‘plausible’ by Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift, pp. 265–66. 62.  See Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, pp. 59–113, esp. 79–80.

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

115

links and a ‘shared’ contextual setting, John, it is proposed, could have replaced ‘magnified (the heel)’ with ‘raised (the heel)’.63 This would certainly create a ‘clear and unequivocal translation of the psalm verse’,64 and it accords with John’s use of analogical exegesis in other explicit (and composite) citations (6.31; 12.15, 40). There is also firm evidence in later Jewish tradition that Ps. 41.10 (and Ps. 55.13-14) was interpreted with reference to Ahithophel’s disloyalty to David.65 Having said that, it must be acknowledged that the attempt to establish the composite character of the psalm quotation in Jn 13.18 presents more exegetical challenges than in the case of the quotations examined earlier in this essay. An oblique allusion to the link between Ps. 41.10 and Judas can be detected in Mk 14.18 (ὁ ἐσθίων μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ) and also, more indirectly, in the other Synoptic accounts (Mt. 26.23; Lk. 22.21-22). This suggests that the use of Ps. 41.10 in Jn 13.18 is actually of pre-Johannine origin, although the new elements in the citation, not least the highlighting of Judas’ enmity as a ‘raising’ of his heel, points to an interpretative rendering that, above all else, has a christological impetus. Judas’ betrayal is no act of trickery, but is further proof of Jesus’ omniscience and control over his own fate, as confirmed by its immediate enactment (13.21-30) in Judas’ acceptance of the morsel offered to him by Jesus. g. John 19.36: Exodus 12.10, 46, Numbers 9.12, and Psalm 34.20 (33.21 LXX) Of particular significance to the scriptural shaping of John’s passion narrative is the clustering together of two explicit quotations to explain specific aspects of the manner of Jesus’ death and the state of his crucified body (19.31-37): the piercing of his side—from which blood and water 63.  The link is, nevertheless, established on the basis of the Hebrew text of 2 Sam. 18.28, because the LXX does not have the verb in question (ἐπαίρω). Cf. however 2 Kgdms 20.21 where, in a somewhat similar case of rebellion against David, Sheba is said to have ‘lifted his hand against’ (καὶ ἐπῆρεν τῆν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπί) the king (cf. Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture, pp. 115–16). There may be no evidence of a Jewish (or early Christian) analogical/contextual connection being forged between Ps. 41.10 and 2 Sam. 20, but the verbal parallels between 2 Kgdms 20.21 LXX and Jn 13.18 are certainly striking. 64.  Menken, Old Testament Quotations, p. 134. 65.  See b. Sanh. 106b-107a; cf. m. ’Abot 6.3; Num. Rab. 18.17; Midr. Teh. 55.1. For a recent discussion of links between Ahithophel’s betrayal and Judas’ betrayal of Jesus as depicted in the four gospel accounts, see H. D. Zacharias, Matthew’s Presentation of the Son of David: Davidic Tradition and Typology in the Gospel of Matthew (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), pp. 152–62.

116

Composite Citations in Antiquity

issue forth—so that a Roman soldier can verify that he is already dead (19.34), which is also an act that prevents Jesus’ legs from being broken (19.32-33). Both of these elements are then interpreted (ἐγένετο γὰρ ταῦτα), in reverse order, through the lens of scriptural fulfilment with the aid of a double citation (19.36-37). Thus, if composite citations in John’s Gospel are designed to function as a single scriptural attestation that strengthens a particular point or argument, the double quotations which draw the first and second halves of the Gospel to its conclusion (12.38-40; 19.36-37) are intended to affirm two separate, albeit related, points, with the second citation in each case providing an explanation of the origins or consequences of the ‘fact’ articulated by the first.66 The initial quotation in 19.36-37 relates explicitly to Jesus’ unbroken bones: ‘Not one of his bones shall be broken’ (19.36). Two scriptural candidates, or rather two clusters of source texts, are generally proposed for this quotation, namely a configuration of Pentateuchal passages (Exod. 12.46; cf. 12.10 LXX; Num. 9.12) and Ps. 34.20 (33.21 LXX), all of whose Septuagintal versions exhibit close verbal parallels to Jn 19.36. Table 5.4. Comparison of Jn 19.36, Exod. 12.10, 46, Num. 9.12, Ps. 33.21 LXX Jn 19.36 ὀστοῦν οὐ συντριβήσεται αὐτοῦ

Exod. 12.10, 46 LXX καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ

Num. 9.12 LXX καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψουσιν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ

Ps. 33.21 LXX κύριος φυλάσσει πάντα τὰ ὀστᾶ αὐτῶν, ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐ συντριβήσεται

The three passages from the Pentateuch outline the stipulations for eating the Passover lamb, including the prohibition to break the animal’s bones; the two statements in Exod. 12 LXX are identical (there is no Hebrew counterpart for v. 10), and the only difference in Num. 9.12 is the use of the third person plural (συντρίψουσιν) in comparison with the second person plural in its Exodus counterparts. These Pentateuchal texts have a high proportion of words in common with John’s citation,67 whereas the 66.  Cf. also J. M. Lieu, ‘Narrative Analysis and Scripture in John’, in S. Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North (JSNTSup, 189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 144–63 (151), who notes the ‘pointed irony’ that the second quotation in Jn 12.38-40 declares, ‘he has blinded their eyes…lest they see’, and the second in 19.36-37 states, ‘they shall look on the one whom they have pierced’. 67.  As emphasized, e.g., by Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift, p. 299.

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

117

absence of the preposition ἀπό from Jn 19.36 results, in all likelihood, from the shift of the referent from an animal to Jesus himself. A quotation which centres on regulations about the Passover lamb also aligns well, as is widely recognized, with the prominence of Passover motifs in John’s passion narrative (cf. 1.29, 36), including the timing of Jesus’ death to coincide with the slaughtering of the lambs (18.28; 19.14) and the intriguing reference to hyssop (19.29; cf. Exod. 12.22).68 Nevertheless, the verbal form in Jn 19.36, ‘shall not be broken’ (συντριβήσεται), is notably different from the Pentateuchal passages in question. It does have an identical parallel in Ps. 33.21 LXX, which describes how the bones of the righteous ones will remain intact even after death as a sign of how God can offer them deliverance: ‘He [the Lord] will guard all their bones; not one of them shall be broken’. To be able to posit that the psalm text alone is the source text for Jn 19.36, the word ὀστοῦν in the citation must serve as a substitute for ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν, referring back to the previous line in the psalm (v. 21a: πάντα τὰ ὀστᾶ αὐτῶν) and compressing the two scriptural lines into one (cf. Jn 1.23). It should be noted, however, that the use of ὀστοῦν, both in terms of form (nominative singular) and its positioning in the statement, is precisely what one finds in the Pentateuchal passages about the Passover lamb. Furthermore, whereas the psalm text refers to ‘the righteous ones’ (v. 21a: τὰ ὀστᾶ αὐτῶν), the Pentateuchal texts refer specifically to one figure (αὐτοῦ), thus lending itself for the use of Jesus as the referent in question. The most likely solution is that elements from both (sets of) scriptural sources have been fused together, on the basis of their analogous features, to form a composite citation; certain components derive from the Pentateuchal texts, but the future passive verbal form (συντριβήσεται) has been drawn from Ps. 33(34).21 LXX. There is no consensus as to which of the two sets provides the ‘primary’ scriptural source. On the basis of word count alone, a passage like Exod. 12.46 LXX is a clear contender;69 but it could be argued that συντριβήσεται from Ps. 33.21 LXX represents the nucleus of the citation, especially as its future (eschatological) promise is more likely to form the basis of Johannine hermeneutical reflection than a ritual (legal) regulation.70 Perhaps a more pertinent issue, from the viewpoint of this essay, is why a composite citation is deemed to be more appropriate in this particular narrative context than a single-source quotation, especially as the future tense of συντρίβω is used in all the 68.  See further Myers, Characterizing Jesus, pp. 165–67. 69.  Cf. Freed, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 113–14; Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture, pp. 135–36. 70.  Menken, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 158, 160.

118

Composite Citations in Antiquity

source texts and that the third person plural (Num. 9.12: συντρίψουσιν), or even the second person plural (Exod. 12.10, 46: συντρίψετε), would not significantly alter the force of the quotation in its new Johannine context.71 The most likely explanation for the combination of these different source texts is that the use of the passive voice in the psalm text (συντριβήσεται) highlights the divine passive and that, as in the original context, it points to God’s protection of the righteous; ultimately, it belongs to God’s plan whether Jesus’ bones remain unbroken, as indeed is confirmed by the testimony of Scripture. Furthermore, and rhetorically speaking, the citation in Jn 19.36 signals a composite portrayal of Jesus: he is not only the righteous one of the psalms who is protected and vindicated by God,72 but, at the same time, the Passover lamb whose bones will not be broken upon his death.73 As to whether the composite character of Jn 19.36 has been shaped by earlier Christian tradition, it can certainly be noted that quotations and allusions from Psalm 34 appear frequently in New Testament writings (e.g., Ps. 34.9 in 1 Pet. 2.3; Ps. 34.13-17 in 1 Pet. 3.10-12). Having said that, the introduction to Jn 19.36 (ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ) is characteristically Johannine, while its status as the first component of a double quotation which forms an inclusio with Jn 12.38-40 belongs to the hermeneutically conditioned distribution of scriptural quotations in the Gospel of John. Above all else, the fusion of divergent scriptural motifs—even if separately drawn from traditional material—results in a composite presentation of Jesus that is part and parcel of the aims and contours of Johannine Christology.

71.  Menken, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 149–50, also notes that the use of the passive voice in Ps. 33.21 LXX is not necessarily a decisive factor for the composite character of the citation, given that the middle and active forms are retained in the quotation from Zech. 12.10 in Jn 19.37 (ὄψονται and ἐξεκέντησαν). 72.  For other traces of the influence of ‘righteous sufferer’ motifs on the Johannine presentation of Jesus, see, e.g., Jn 2.17 (Ps. 69[68].10); 13.18 (Ps. 41[40].10); 15.25 (Ps. 35[34].19); 19.24 (Ps. 22[21].19). 73.  See, most recently, R. Bauckham, Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015), p. 154 n. 61. The fusion of Passover and righteous sufferer traditions, to express the nation’s hope for deliverance, also has Jewish analogues; see especially Jub. 49.13: ‘They shall roast it in fire without breaking any of its bones within it because no bone of the children of Israel will be broken’. Cf. Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, pp. 236–37.

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

119

h. John 19.37: Zechariah 12.10 and Isaiah 52.10, 15 The second scriptural citation to conclude John’s account of Jesus’ crucifixion looks back at the piercing of his side by a Roman soldier (19.34). In what has been described as the second part of a ‘Zecharian inclusio’ to mark the end of the passion narrative,74 John draws on the words of Zechariah about the death of and mourning for a (shepherd) figure: ‘They shall look upon the one whom they have pierced’ (ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν). There is universal agreement that Zech. 12.10 is the ‘primary’ scriptural source, but its textual form continues to generate much scholarly debate. It bears some affinities with the Hebrew text, although it is difficult to determine whether the MT represents an oddly constructed sentence or has suffered textual corruption. Literally it reads: ‘And they shall look on me (‫)והביטו אלי‬, on one who is pierced’. Unless the verbal form has a double object, the ‘me’ in question—and indeed ‘the pierced one’—is none other than God. The Septuagintal version evidently seeks to clear up the possible textual obscurities, but its reading, ‘And they shall look on me because they have mocked (or: danced mockingly)’ (καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο), is based on a (deliberate?) confusion of consonants which leads to the substitution of ‫‘( דקר‬to pierce’) with ‫‘( רקד‬to mock’).75 What is clear is that the citation in Jn 19.37 betrays no dependence on the Septuagint text of Zech. 12.10; the two renderings do not have a single word in common. Much is made of the fact that the Greek versions (LXX, Theodotion, Aquila) use ἐπιβλέψονται to render the hiphil of ‫‘( נבט‬they shall look’) whereas Jn 19.37 has ὄψονται. The use of ὁρᾶω is generally acknowledged to be a possible though less natural translation of the Hebrew verb ‫נבט‬ (cf. Num. 12.8; Job 6.19; Isa. 38.11 LXX) than ἐπιβλέπω (‘to look upon [attentively]’). This raises the possibility that Jn 19.37 is dependent on another source for ὄψονται. If this verbal form was already present in an underlying Greek source used by John, this could be due to the general preference for ‫ ראה‬in the prophecies of Zechariah (a verb which is invariably translated by different forms of ὁρᾶω in the LXX).76 Nonetheless, in view of its absence from the extant Greek versions of Zech. 12.10, Menken and others trace John’s use of ὄψονται to an early Christian 74.  Bynum, ‘Quotations of Zechariah in the Fourth Gospel’, p. 48. 75.  Cf. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John, p. 559. 76.  See further W. R. Bynum, The Fourth Gospel and the Scriptures: Illuminating the Form and Meaning of Scriptural Citation in John 19.37 (NovTSup, 144; Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 140–42 (with reference to Zech. 1.8; 4.2, 10; 5.2; 9.5, 8; 10.7).

120

Composite Citations in Antiquity

testimonia collection.77 This is because there is close similarity between Jn 19.37 and other NT quotations/allusions to Zech. 12.10, including Rev. 1.7: ‘and every eye shall see him (ὄψεται αὐτὸν), also those who pierced (ἐξεκέντησαν) him’ (cf. Mt. 24.30; Justin, 1 Apol. 52.12; Dial. 14.8; 32.2).78 If other early Christian writers interpreted Zechariah’s reference to people ‘seeing [the pierced one]’ in a purely eschatological sense in the context of Christ’s parousia,79 the verbal form ὄψονται takes on realized-eschatological significance in Jn 19.37 to denote the ‘seeing’ of Jesus, ‘the pierced one’, with reference to his crucifixion. It should be noted that appealing to a hypothetical early Christian testimonia collection is not the only possible explanation of the textual form of Zech. 12.10 in Jn 19.37.80 One could reasonably propose that the evangelist has translated the passage directly from the Hebrew text, especially if the word ‫ אלי‬had been interpreted as a poetic form of the preposition ‫אל‬: ‘on’ (‫)א ֵלי‬ ֱ rather than ‘on me’ (‫)א ַלי‬. ֵ 81 With regard to the conscious selection of ὄψονται at the beginning of the citation, it cannot be ruled out that it betrays John’s awareness of the use of this verbal form in one or more of the Synoptic Gospels to describe the future ‘seeing’ of the Son of Man (e.g., Mk 13.26; Mt. 24.30), although its application in Jn 19.37 relates more closely to the characteristically Johannine focus on the motif of ‘seeing’ elsewhere in the Gospel narrative. The other factor to be taken into account, particularly in view of the findings of earlier sections in this essay, is that substantive substitutions/additions 77.  C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), p. 428 n. 1; Lindars, The Gospel of John, pp. 590–91; Menken, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 168–70, 177. 78.  Mt. 24.30 uses the same verbal form as Jn 19.37 (‘they will see [ὄψονται] the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’), although, as noted by Christopher Tuckett, this may stem from Mk 13.26 or 14.62—two Markan statements that do not necessarily betray the influence of Zech. 12.10. See C. M. Tuckett, ‘Zechariah 12:10 and the New Testament’, in C. M. Tuckett (ed.), The Book of Zechariah and its Influence (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), pp. 111–21 (113). 79.  Menken, Old Testament Quotations, p. 175, also notes several other New Testament cases where ὁρᾶω is used in an eschatological sense (e.g., Mk 13.26; Heb. 12.14; 1 Jn 3.2). 80.  For a cautious approach to the theory that the scriptural quotations in John’s passion narrative have been drawn from a testimonia collection, see Bynum, The Fourth Gospel and the Scriptures, pp. 133–35. 81.  See Freed, Old Testament Quotations, p. 114; cf. M. J. J. Menken, ‘The Minor Prophets in John’s Gospel’, in M. J. J. Menken and S. Moyise (eds.), The Minor Prophets in the New Testament (LNTS, 377; London: T&T Clark International, 2009), pp. 79–96 (87).

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

121

to a ‘primary’ source text in all of John’s other composite citations can invariably be traced to, and are exegetically legitimated by, a ‘secondary’ scriptural source text (or texts). In other words, one must entertain the possibility that ὄψονται in Jn 19.37 is derived from a scriptural passage other than Zech. 12.10, one which exhibits lexical and thematic links with the Zechariah text but also coheres with the reception of the Scriptures attested elsewhere in John’s Gospel. Some scholars have noted the likely contribution of the prophecies of Isaiah to John’s understanding of ‘seeing’, principally in relation to faith (cf. Jn 12.38-41, with reference to Isa. 6.9-10; 42.18-20; 44.18; 53.1), although this connection has not been pursued in any detail with reference to specific Isaianic passages.82 Two declarations are instructive in terms of identifying a ‘composite’ scriptural element in Jn 19.37, namely Isa. 52.10 and 52.15, both in terms of their analogous features with Zech. 12.10 and its wider context as well as their alignment with characteristically Johannine elements. The similarities between Isaiah 52–53 and Zech. 12.9-13 are well documented, not least the affinities between their descriptions of the death of a figure who is then mourned by the people.83 In Isaiah 52 the suffering of the servant figure is set within the context of God’s return to and self-manifestation in Jerusalem (cf. Zech. 9.9) and this leads to a proclamation of his universal kingship. Particularly noteworthy is Isa. 52.10, which, according to the Septuagint version, reads: ‘The Lord shall reveal (ἀποκαλύψει; MT: ‘has revealed’) his holy arm in the sight of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see (ὄψονται) the salvation that comes from God’. This promise is swiftly followed by the announcement of the suffering and future exaltation of the Servant and of the reaction of many nations (52.13-15), which, again in the Septuagint 82.  Cf. Freed, Old Testament Quotations, p. 115; Brown, The Gospel According to John, p. 2:938. See in particular Schuchard, Scripture Within Scripture, p. 147, who notes the prominence of the people’s eschatological ‘seeing’ of God in Isaiah (e.g., 6.5; 29.18; 33.10-11; 40.9-10, 26; 42.6-7; and especially 52.6-10), but then draws the conclusion: ‘still it may be best to argue that John simply regarded ὄψονται as a suitable synonym for the verb he found in his OT Vorlage’ (p. 147). 83.  On specific links between Isaiah 52–53 and Zechariah 12–13, including the likely influence of the former on the latter, see M. Hengel with D. P. Bailey, ‘The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period’, in B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher (eds.), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (trans. D. P. Bailey; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 75–146 (85–90). See also K. D. Liebengood, The Eschatology of 1 Peter: Considering the Influence of Zechariah 9–14 (SNTSMS, 157; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 51–52

122

Composite Citations in Antiquity

(much more explicitly than the Hebrew text), links the message about the Servant to the response of the nations: their reaction to him will be one of wonder, because they, who have never been told about the Servant, shall see (ὄψονται), and they, who have previously not heard, shall understand (52.15). The presence of common vocabulary, including the use of the same verbal form ὄψονται, means that Isa. 52.10 and 52.13-15 LXX lend themselves to being interpreted in the light of each other: the Lord to be revealed to the nations can be identified with the Servant who will be exalted and glorified.84 To determine the possible relevance of these intertextual connections for interpreting the scriptural quotation in Jn 19.37, the function of ὄψονται within its new Johannine setting needs to be clarified. The immediately preceding narrative could suggest that the subject of the ‘seeing’ and the ‘piercing’ is one and the same: the Roman solider(s) who is/are responsible for piercing Jesus’ side and, by extension, ‘the Jews’ (19.31), although neither is said to ‘see’ Jesus.85 The context suggests, however, that ὄψονται should not be interpreted in this overly limited sense, not least because it functions as the main verb (and focal point) of the declaration. As noted by Marianne Thompson: ‘Although Scripture has foreseen the soldier’s action, it is taken not so much as foreshadowing the spear thrust itself as its result: they “shall see…” ’.86 Furthermore, a different act of ‘seeing’ is highlighted in the context, one which is linked specifically to testimony and belief: ‘the one who saw (ὁ ἑωρακώς) this has testified so that you also may believe’ (19.35). The positive seeing ascribed to this eyewitness means that he sees ‘the pierced one’ with 84.  See further C. H. Williams, ‘The Testimony of Isaiah and Johannine Christology’, in C. Mathews McGinnis and P. K. Tull (eds.), “As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL (SBLSymS, 27; Atlanta: SBL, 2006), pp. 107–24 (119–22). 85.  Ruth Sheridan has recently proposed that the primary subject of ‘seeing’ in Jn 19.37 is ‘the Jews’ and that it is intended as a statement with ‘condemnatory overtones’ based on earlier predictions that they will know/realize Jesus’ true identity when they have lifted him up (8.28-29). See R. Sheridan, ‘They Shall Look Upon the One They Have Pierced: Intertextuality, Intra-Textuality and Anti-Judaism in John 19:37’, in C. A. Evans and J. J. Johnston (eds.), Searching the Scriptures: Studies in Context and Intertextuality (LNTS, 543; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), pp. 191–209. The indeterminate character of ὄψονται does, nevertheless, lend itself as a reference to an unspecified group of subjects, and greater weight should be placed (more than Sheridan actually acknowledges) on the emphasis in vv. 34-35 on the eyewitness ‘seeing’ the piercing of Jesus’ body as a catalyst for belief. 86.  M. M. Thompson, John: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2015), p. 405.

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

123

faith,87 which also makes him a representative figure for future believers (19.35: ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς πιστεύ[σ]ητε). This connotation is further suggested by the indeterminate character of ὄψονται (plural) and because its verbal form points to the future rather than the past.88 As this interpretation of Jn 19.37 establishes a connection between seeing the crucified/pierced Jesus and faith/salvation, the quotation is often associated with the three ‘lifting up’ sayings in the first half of the narrative (3.14-15; 8.28; 12.32-33).89 The first saying focuses upon the necessity for the Son of Man to be ‘lifted up’ (ὑψωθῆναι) so that whoever believes in him may have eternal life; a connection with the visual aspect in 19.37 becomes clearer when one notes that the life-restoring ‘seeing’ of the elevated serpent by the Israelites in the wilderness, as implied in 3.14a, is paralleled by ‘believing in’ Jesus (3.15) with reference to his lifting up (3.14b).90 The character and timing of Jesus’ ‘lifting up’ is left open-ended in Jn 3.14; and although the second saying sheds some light on Jesus’ elevation by noting that its agents are ‘the Jews’ (8.28), it is left until the third pronouncement for an explanatory aside to clarify that the lifting up of Jesus will take place on the cross and that ‘all’ (πάντας) will be drawn to him (12.32-33). This resonates with the interpretation of Jn 19.37 as encapsulating the paradoxical notion that salvation is available to all those who ‘see’ Jesus as the crucified/pierced one who is exalted on the cross.91 That the network of associations between the Johannine ‘lifting up’ sayings and Jn 19.37 is intertextual as well as intratextual is strengthened by the connection between ‘lifting up’ (ὑψόω) and ‘seeing’ (ὁρᾶω) in 87.  Tuckett, ‘Zechariah 12:10 and the New Testament’, p. 116. 88.  Cf. J. Zumstein, L’Évangile selon Saint Jean (13–21) (CNT, IVb; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2007), p. 261. See further Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift, p. 322. 89.  See, e.g., Brown, The Gospel According to John, p. 2:955; Menken, Old Testament Quotations, pp. 180–82; Tuckett, ‘Zechariah 12:10 and the New Testament’, pp. 116–17. 90.  A close alignment between ‘seeing’ and ‘believing’ is argued on the basis of the parallel structure and content of Jn 3.15 (πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ ἔχῇ ζωὴν αἰώνιον) and Num. 21.8 LXX (πᾶς ὁ δεδηγέμνος ίδὼν αὐτὸν ζήσεται). See J. Frey, ‘ “Wie Mose die Schlange in der Wüste erhöht hat…”: Zur frühjüdischen Deutung der “ehernen Schlange” und ihrer christologischen Rezeption in Johannes 3,14f.”, in M. Hengel and H. Löhr (eds.), Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum (WUNT, 73; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), pp. 153–205 (184). 91.  Cf. J. Frey, ‘ “dass sie meine Herrlichkeit schauen” (Joh 17.24): Zu Hintergrund, Sinn und Funktion der johanneischen Rede von der δόξα Jesu’, NTS 54 (2008), pp. 375–97 (387).

124

Composite Citations in Antiquity

the fourth Isaianic Servant song (especially Isa. 52.13-15 LXX). The influence of this Isaianic passage on John’s ‘lifting up’ sayings is widely acknowledged,92 and it offers a theological impetus for the presentation of Jesus’ ‘lifting up’ as an event of revelation and salvation, mainly through Isa. 52.13 LXX: ‘See, my servant shall understand, and he shall be exalted and glorified greatly’ (καὶ ὑψωθήσεται καὶ δόξασθήσεται σφόδρα). The Septuagintal version of the divine oracle (52.13-15) also points to a twofold ‘vision’ of the servant: one that characterizes those who see him only in a physical sense (52.14), and the other centred on the divine perspective on ‘seeing’ his exaltation and glorification (52.13). The emphasis on the visual aspect of ‘lifting up’ is established in the opening call of Isaiah’s song (52.13: ἰδού) and then receives affirmation when they—to whom it was not previously announced about the servant—will finally see (52.15: ὄψονται). LXX Isaiah thus forges a strong link between the divine challenge to ‘see’ the exalted and glorified servant and the eventual ‘coming to see’ attributed to the nations. Similarly, Jesus’ claim that it is by means of his death that he brings fruit (12.24) and draws ‘all’ to himself (12.32) is proleptically signaled by the request of the Greeks to ‘see’ (ἰδεῖν) him (12.20-22). John’s gradual elucidation of the ‘lifting up’ theme therefore coincides with an increasingly more explicit outworking of links between Jesus and the Isaianic servant in terms of seeing the exalted/glorified one. This association, I would suggest, reaches its culmination in John’s crucifixion account. The indeterminate reference in the Zechariah quotation to the future ‘seeing’ (ὄψονται) of the crucified/pierced Jesus functions rhetorically as a deliberate evocation of the Isaianic connection between seeing and ‘lifting up’—a link that progressively shapes the Johannine presentation of Jesus’ death as the means of revelation and salvation for those with eyes to ‘see’. 3. Conclusions This essay has sought to demonstrate that composite citations represent an important mode of scriptural referencing in the Gospel of John. There are good grounds for arguing that eight of the Gospel’s 15 explicit quotations—that is, over 50 per cent—match this volume’s working definition of a composite citation as one which fuses together two or more scriptural 92.  E.g., R. Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 47–51, 64–65.

5. Williams  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

125

source texts to form a single quotation. Apart from the one occurrence of a ‘combined’ quotation in John 12.13 (Ps. 118[117].25-26, to which four words have been appended from Zeph. 3.15 or Isa. 44.6), all of the relevant Johannine examples can be termed ‘conflated’ composite citations in that components from a second (or third) scriptural passage have been woven into the quotation as a substitution for, or addition to, words cited from the primary source text. And although in most cases it is possible to determine which are the ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ sources within the citation (Jn 6.31; 12.13; 12.15; 12.40; 13.18; 19.37), it is not as clear-cut for others (7.38; 19.36), thus again confirming the elaborate character of a number of these citations. It has also been proposed in this essay that, at times, an individual composite element is not necessarily to be pinned down to a single source; John may be deliberately evoking the same words from different passages (e.g., μὴ φοβοῦ from Isa. 40.9 and Zeph. 3.16 in Jn 12.15; cf. Isa. 48.21 and Ps. 78[77].16, 20 in Jn 7.38) if they can be shown to contribute additional layers of signification to the citation in question. In addition, it is evident that a fairly sizeable proportion of the explicit citations in John’s Gospel were already firmly anchored in early Christian tradition, including the core source texts in some of its composite citations (12.13; 12.15; 12.40; 13.18; 19.37). Nevertheless, there is no evidence to suggest that the additional/secondary scriptural elements had already been built in to John’s composite citations and that these citations were in circulation during the pre-Johannine stage of composition. In other words, the composite character of the citations is the result of the redactional activity undertaken by John, and this primarily for christological purposes. The ‘new’ elements in the quotations under consideration are totally in alignment with the uniquely Johannine presentation of Jesus, whether it is to heighten and sharpen the focus on his heavenly origins (6.31), his function as the source of ‘living water’ (7.38), his identity as the embodiment of God’s kingship and theophanic presence (12.13; 12.15), his divine foreknowledge (13.18), his identity as the true Passover lamb and righteous sufferer (19.36)—as the one whose true significance must be ‘seen’ so that belief can lead to life (19.37; cf. 12.40). In fact, this study has proposed that the close Johannine association between ‘seeing’ and proper faith that is attested in some of the composite citations plays a key role in establishing intertextual connections between the different scriptural passages, and that these in turn make a decisive contribution, from a rhetorical perspective, to the intratextual framework on which this association is developed.

126

Composite Citations in Antiquity

As is true of the majority of single-source explicit quotations in the Gospel of John, the main scriptural resources for its composite citations—primary and/or secondary elements—are the Psalms, Isaiah, and Zechariah. The author engages mostly with the Septuagintal versions of these scriptural sources, though not exclusively so (cf. 12.40; 13.18; 19.37). Also, more often than not, it is the retellings of exodus events in the psalms and not the originating narratives that form the basis of the composite portrayal of Jesus’ life-giving significance (6.31; 7.38; cf. 19.36), while closely related future-orientated expressions of hope and judgement are similarly brought into conversation with each other (12.15; 12.40; 19.37). What enables the author to make substantive additions and/or substitutions to his primary resources for the purpose of composite citations is a rigorous application of what I have termed ‘analogical exegesis’ or ‘catchword associations’. In the case of all the composite citations examined in this study, the fusion of different scriptural passages from a variety of contexts is legitimated by the presence of shared words and themes. Although relatively uncommon,93 many of the essays in the companion to this volume have highlighted the attestation of this exegetical/literary phenomenon in Greek, Roman, and Jewish texts in antiquity.94 However, the closest parallels to the analogical principles and techniques applied to composite citations in the Gospel of John are to be found in late Second-Temple Jewish texts and, more specifically, in the translation methods of the Septuagint. In a variety of Septuagintal books one encounters renderings in which translational decisions—additions, omissions or modifications—are dictated by the presence of a specific Greek (or even Hebrew) word or phrase in a separate but analogous

93.  Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 203. 94.  See especially the following contributions to Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses: S. A. Adams, ‘Greek Education and Composite Citations of Homer’, pp. 17–34 (21–22); S. M. Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in Plutarch’, pp. 35–56 (45–49); J. R. Royse, ‘Composite Quotations in Philo of Alexandria’, pp. 74–91 (81–87); J. D. H. Norton, ‘Composite Quotations in the Damascus Document’, pp. 92–118 (103–10); S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in the Septuagint Apocrypha’, pp. 119–39 (124); G. V. Allen, ‘Composite Citations in Jewish Pseudepigraphical Works: Re-Presenting Legal Traditions in the Second Temple Period’, pp. 140–57 (144, 148). Cf. Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 206: ‘In nearly every case [examined in the companion volume] the texts that were linked together to form a composite citation share common language or ideas’.

5. Porter  Composite Citations in the Gospel of John

127

context.95 The mechanics of this analogical method points to the work of a profoundly literate scriptural exegete, which, in the case of John’s explicit (and composite) citations, suggests the author’s solid awareness of, and engagement with, the original contexts of the scriptural quotations in question.96 The notoriously challenging question with which to end this essay is whether the first hearers/readers of John’s Gospel would (also) have been adequately equipped to ‘reverse engineer’97 the composite citation and identify the original context of its various components. As far as this particular Gospel is concerned, its multilayered engagement with the Jewish Scriptures—much like its polyvalent vocabulary—points to a wide ‘spectrum’ of implied readers/hearers.98 The profile of its original audience probably not only embraces those who were well-versed in the Scriptures and able to appreciate the author’s textual and exegetical maneuvers, but also actual and potential (Gentile) believers who were encouraged to engage with the composite citations, as with the singlesource quotations, in their capacity as explicitly signaled and reliable ‘ancient’ witnesses to John’s very distinctive view of Jesus.

95.  See further Williams, ‘John, Judaism, and “Searching the Scriptures” ’, especially the discussion of Exod. 15.3 LXX and Ps. 56(55).9 LXX (pp. 93–94). 96.  See especially Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift; Sheridan, Retelling Scripture. 97.  Adams and Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation?’, p. 13. 98.  See C. R. Koester, ‘The Spectrum of Johannine Readers’, in F. F. Segovia (ed.), “What is John?” Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel (SBLSymS, 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp. 5–19.

Chapter 6 ‘ P r om i s ed B ef or eh a n d T hr ough H i s P r op h et s i n t h e H oly S cr i ptur e s ’: C om p os i t e C i tat i on s i n R omans Mark Reasoner

In Paul’s letter to the house churches of Rome, which of all Paul’s letters most deliberately and explicitly employs Scripture to support its presentation of Paul’s gospel (1.2; 4.23-25; 9–11 passim; 15.4, 9-12), there are many places where Paul quotes disparate Scriptures in close proximity, in order to score a specific point in the logical or rhetorical development of his argument. These quotations generally function in Romans to show the unified support of Scripture for Paul’s gospel and represent foundational development of early Christian literature’s claim that all of the Scriptures point to Jesus and the Gentile-inclusive church. There are different ways that Paul associates Scriptures together when offering Scripture proofs in Romans. One way is the composite citation, which occurs ‘when literary borrowing occurs in a manner that includes two or more passages (from the same or different authors) fused together and conveyed as though they are only one’.1 By this definition, composite citations in Romans are found in 3.10-18; 9.20; 9.25-26; 9.27-28; 9.33; 10.6; 11.8; 11.26-27; 11.34; 13.9; and 14.11-12. But one does not need to have memorized Romans to hear an interlocutor asking, ‘Who are you, whoever you are who are studying my letter, to think that your “composite citations” have any advantage over my

1.  S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation? An Introduction’, in S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, vol. 1 of Composite Citations in Antiquity (LNTS, 525; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), pp. 1–16 (4).

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

129

other quotations? Don’t you see that I have joined together the prophetic writings elsewhere in my letter in ways that your definition ignores?’ So to satisfy this interlocutor, I will consider briefly other quotations in Romans that link Scriptures together more explicitly than the composite citations, which fuse disparate Scriptures together more seamlessly. I define these linked citations as separately introduced Scripture quotations that occur in the close but non-contiguous context. They are a subset of textual clusters that can also be called ‘chain-link citations’. These linked citations are found in Rom. 4.6-9; 4.17-18; 10.5-8; 10.15-16; 10.1821; 11.3-4; 11.8-10; and 15.9-12. I consider these below, after treating combined, conflated, and condensed citations in Romans. 1. Combined Citations in Romans Intact phrases or sentences of Scripture are juxtaposed in contiguous fashion to form some of the most well known composite citations of Romans. The long catena in 3.10-18 as well as the stirring benediction in 11.34-35 are among the combined citations considered in this section. a. Romans 3.10-18 The first composite citation quotes Eccl. 7.20 LXX; Ps. 13.1-3 LXX; Ps. 5.10 LXX; Ps. 139.4 LXX; Ps. 9.28 LXX; Isa. 59.7-8; Prov. 1.16; and Ps. 35.2 LXX. Since the citations are quoted back to back, they represent a ‘combined’ composite citation.2 (1) Romans 3.10 Follows Ecclesiastes 7.20 LXX. In Rom. 3.10b, the catena begins with a three-word verbatim quotation from Eccl. 7.20a LXX, to which there is an added οὐδὲ εἷς for emphasis. In the LXX, οὐδὲ εἷς is sometimes used to emphasize the totality of an action or condition.3 The phrase here seems to be used in a way that is close to how it is used in Job 14.4 LXX, where it is contracted to οὐθείς, in the context of humanity’s transient and sinful condition.

2.  C. D. Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 203–9 (204). 3.  All references that follow are from the LXX: Exod. 14.28; 24.11; Num. 26.65; 31.49; Josh. 10.30; 11.14; Job 14.4; 1 Macc. 8.14; 11.36, 70; Sir. 42.20; 49.14; Jer. 15.10; 51.43; Zech. 10.10.

130

Composite Citations in Antiquity Table 6.1. Comparison of Rom. 3.10 and Eccl. 7.20

Eccl. 7.20 LXX

ὅτι ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος ἐν τῇ γῇ, ὃς ποιήσει ἀγαθὸν καὶ οὐχ ἁμαρτήσεται.4

Rom. 3.10

καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς,

(2) Romans 3.11-12 Follows Psalm 13.1-3 LXX. The next segment of the catena follows Ps. 13.2b-3. Verse 1 of the psalm is frequently listed as well, since its conclusion matches Ps. 13.3b. It is also evident that the catena has conclusively simplified the discourse of Ps. 13.2b. Instead of gently saying that God is looking to see if there is anyone who understands or seeks God, the catena states that no one does either of these. Table 6.2. Comparison of Rom. 3.11-12 and Ps. 13.1-3

Ps. 13.1-3 LXX

Εἰς τὸ τέλος· ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυιδ. Εἶπεν ἄφρων ἐν καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ Οὐκ ἔστιν θεός· διέφθειραν καὶ ἐβδελύχθησαν ἐν ἐπιτηδεύμασιν, οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν χρηστότητα, οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός. 2 κύριος ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ διέκυψεν ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων τοῦ ἰδεῖν εἰ ἔστιν συνίων ἢ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν. 3 πάντες ἐξέκλιναν, ἅμα ἠχρεώθησαν, οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν χρηστότητα, οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός.

Rom. 3.11-12

οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ συνίων, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν· 12 πάντες ἐξέκλιναν, ἅμα ἠχρεώθησαν· οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν χρηστότητα, οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός.

Leander A. Keck follows Sanday and Headlam in suggesting that Ps. 52 LXX may also lie behind this segment of the catena. Psalm 52.2-4 LXX indeed is nearly identical; the only differences are two substitutions of ἀγαθόν for χρηστότητα in 52.2, 4.5 Because Paul’s quotation has χρηστότητα (Rom. 3.12), it is more accurate to say that this segment of the catena is following Ps. 13.1-3 LXX, rather than Ps. 52.2-4 LXX.

4.  Eccl. 7.20a LXX—ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος ἐν τῇ γῇ—closely follows a textual tradition also preserved in the MT—‫אדם אין צדיק בארץ‬. 5.  ‘The Function of Rom 3:10-18: Observations and Suggestions’, in J. Jervell and W. A. Meeks (eds.), God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), pp. 141–57 (144).

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

131

The two texts are very similar in the MT as well. The only differences are: the fourth word in the end of line 1—‫ עלילה‬in Ps. 14.1 and ‫ עול‬in Ps. 53.2; the name of God at the beginning of line 2—the tetragrammaton in Ps. 14.2 and ‫ אלהים‬in Ps. 53.3; and the expression for ‘all’ at the beginning of line 3—‫ הכל‬in Ps. 14.3 and ‫ כלו‬in Ps. 53.4. There is no clear indication that the catena as reflected here is depending on any textual tradition other than that reflected in Ps. 13.1-3 LXX. (3) Romans 3.13a-b Follows Psalm 5.10 LXX. Romans 3.13a is a nine-word quotation of Ps. 5.10. The immediately following context in the psalm (Ps. 5.11 LXX) asks God to judge these evil people, to repay them for all their iniquities. It is clear enough that the catena is following a textual tradition preserved for us in the LXX. (4) Romans 3.13c Follows Psalm 139.4 LXX. Romans 3.13c is a six-word, verbatim quotation of the second line of Ps. 139.4, a Davidic psalm that petitions God for deliverance from evil people and functions in the catena as a metaphorical description of the sinful speech to which all humanity is prone. (5) Romans 3.14 Follows Psalm 9.28 LXX. The differences in the number of the pronoun and word order when comparing Rom. 3.14 with Ps. 9.28a LXX prompt a comparison with the Hebrew, but the catena is not any closer to the Hebrew than it is to the LXX. Indeed, since πικρίας in Rom. 3.14 is best read as a singular genitive, the catena’s text is closer to the LXX than to the MT, which has the plural ‫מרמות‬. Table 6.3. Comparison of Rom. 3.14, Ps. 9.28, and Ps. 10.7 Ps. 9.28 LXX οὗ ἀρᾶς τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ γέμει καὶ πικρίας καὶ δόλου, ὑπὸ τὴν γλῶσσαν αὐτοῦ κόπος καὶ πόνος.

Rom. 3.14 ὧν τὸ στόμα ἀρᾶς καὶ πικρίας γέμει·

Ps. 10.7 MT ‫אלה פיהו‬ ‫מלא ומרמות ותך‬ ‫תחת לשונו‬ ‫עמל ואון‬

The initial pronoun is changed to plural to fit with the preceding subjects in Rom. 3.12-13, and the word order is simplified so that the objects, reduced in the catena to two, only follow the subject, instead of sandwiching it, as in both the LXX and the MT.

132

Composite Citations in Antiquity

(6) Romans 3.15-17 Follows Isaiah 59.7-8 and Proverbs 1.16. The catena here is loosely quoting the LXX. It omits the phrase ἐπὶ πονηρίαν τρέχουσιν (‘they run to evil’), so as to abbreviate Isa. 59.7. The catena then substitutes ὀξεῖς for ταχινοί, a usage not found in the LXX.6 Table 6.4. Comparison of Rom. 3.15-17 and Isa. 59.7-8

Isa. 59.7-8 LXX

οἱ δὲ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐπὶ πονηρίαν τρέχουσιν ταχινοὶ ἐκχέαι αἷμα· καὶ οἱ διαλογισμοὶ αὐτῶν διαλογισμοὶ ἀφρόνων, σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν. 8 καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ οἴδασιν, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν κρίσις ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν· αἱ γὰρ τρίβοι αὐτῶν διεστραμμέναι, ἃς διοδεύουσιν, καὶ οὐκ οἴδασιν εἰρήνην. Cf. Prov. 1.16 LXX οἱ γὰρ πόδες αὐτῶν εἰς κακίαν τρέχουσιν καὶ ταχινοὶ τοῦ ἐκχέαι αἷμα·

Rom. 3.15-17

ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷμα, 16 σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν, 17 καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ ἔγνωσαν.

Paul’s line, ‘swift their feet to shed blood’ is also sometimes traced to Prov. 1.16 LXX, but because Isa. 59.7-8 contains all of what Paul quotes in 3.15-17, it is best to consider this section of the catena simply as a condensed and selective quotation of Isa. 59.7-8. There is no strong evidence that Prov. 1.16, whether in a tradition behind the MT or a tradition behind the LXX, is being quoted and not Isa. 59.7. Romans 3.16 is a verbatim quotation of Isa. 59.7c LXX. Romans 3.17 is a verbatim quotation of Isa. 59.8a LXX, with the understandable substitution of ἔγνωσαν for οἴδασιν. (7) Romans 3.18 Follows Psalm 35.2 LXX. The final quotation in the catena, found in Rom. 3.18, is from Ps. 35.2 LXX. After the superscription in 35.1, the psalm begins as follows: Table 6.5. Comparison of Rom. 3.18 and Ps. 35.2 LXX Ps. 35.2 LXX Φησὶν ὁ παράνομος τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὐκ ἔστιν φόβος θεοῦ ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτοῦ·

Rom. 3.18 οὐκ ἔστιν φόβος θεοῦ ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.

6.  The variant in Alexandrinus at Ps. 13.3 LXX is obviously due to reverse assimilation to Rom. 3.13-18.

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

133

As the bold portion shows, this is a verbatim quotation of Ps. 35.2b LXX, with the substitution of the plural pronoun αὐτῶν for the singular αὐτοῦ. Now that we have examined the individual parts of this citation, we can consider whether this unusually long catena was written by Paul for this letter, or whether it was a catena written and used by others before Paul wrote to the Romans. Fitzmyer definitely thinks that this was not composed as Paul was dictating the letter, though he withholds judgment on whether Paul or someone else composed it earlier. He draws an analogy to a similar testimonia unit in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho 27.3. He also mentions CD 5.13-17 and Assumption of Moses 5.2-6.7 Here is the version of the catena as found in Justin and Romans. Table 6.6. Comparison of Rom. 3.10-18 and Justin, Dial. 27.3

Justin, Dial. 27.3

Rom. 3.10-18

καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς, 11 Καὶ πάντες γὰρ ἐξέκλιναν, βοᾷ, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ συνίων, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν. πάντες ἅμα ἠχρειώθησαν· (cf. Ps. 13.3) 12 οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ συνιῶν, οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός. πάντες ἐξέκλιναν ἅμα ἠχρεώθησαν· οὐκ (cf. Ps. 13.3) ἔστιν ὁ ποιῶν χρηστότητα, [οὐκ ἔστιν] ἕως ἑνός. 13 Ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν τάφος τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν, ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν, ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν, ἰὸς ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν, (cf. Ps. 139.4) ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν· 14 ὧν τὸ στόμα ἀρᾶς καὶ πικρίας γέμει, 15 ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷμα, σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς 16 σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ ἔγνωσαν. ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν, 17 (cf. Isa. 59.7-8) καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ ἔγνωσαν. 18 οὐκ ἔστιν φόβος θεοῦ ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν

Keck considers this very similar catena that is found in Justin’s Dialogue as evidence that this catena was known outside of the letter to the Romans.8 But this consideration ignores the patent fact that Justin especially selects and quotes Old Testament texts in his Dialogue that Paul has quoted in Rom. 2–4 and 9–11.9 Bobichon considers Justin’s citation to be an

7.  J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB, 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 334. 8.  Keck, ‘Function of Rom 3:10-18’, p. 150. 9.  R. Werline, ‘The Transformation of Pauline Arguments in Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho” ’, HTR 92/1 (1999), pp. 79–93 (80).

134

Composite Citations in Antiquity

adaptation of Rom. 3.10-18 that narrows the catena to the Jewish world.10 To explore further whether this composite quotation existed before Paul wrote Romans, or whether it is composed for the letter of Romans, we need to examine the quotation in relation to its context. Leander Keck finds the purpose of the catena to be consistent with the preceding context in Romans, such that he calls the catena a ‘horizon’ toward which Paul’s discourse in 1.18–3.9, 19, ‘a sustained theological exposition of the catena’, is moving.11 While admitting that there are no verbal links, Keck finds Paul’s indictment of Gentiles and Jews in chapters one and two to be consistent with the composite quotation of 3.10-18, in a plight to solution reading of the letter. While Keck helpfully situates this composite quotation within the apocalyptic discourse of Second Temple Judaism, he fails to admit that the composite quotation does not explicitly describe the foundational charges of Gentile idolatry and Jewish hypocrisy in chapters one and two. His summary of 1.18–3.9, 19 as ‘a sustained theological exposition of the catena’ is an inaccurate exaggeration of the catena’s compatibility with the preceding material. Wendy Dabourne does not consider the catena to be an effective proof that all are under sin: Rom. 3.9-20 can be taken as proving universal sinfulness by the authority of Scripture, cited in the catena, but this involves accepting that Paul places Gentiles with Jews ἐν τῷ νόμῳ (Rom. 3.19). Some exegetes do this, but in the context of an argument proving the sinfulness of Jews and Gentiles, we would expect that τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ would be taken as referring to Jews unless there were some clear indication to the contrary, and Paul gives none.12

Dabourne is highlighting differences between this catena and the conclusions that Paul draws from it. The catena does not logically prove that all, Jews and Gentiles, are sinners. It is true that νόμος can refer to 10.  P. Bobichon, ‘Composite Features and Citations in Justin Martyr’s Textual Composition’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 158–81 (167). 11.  Keck, ‘Function of Rom 3:10-18’, p. 152. 12.  W. Dabourne, Purpose and Cause in Pauline Exegesis: Romans 1.16–4.25 and a New Approach to the Letters (SNTSMS, 104; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 11. Dabourne has a footnote within this quotation that specifies the exegetes who do include Gentiles within τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ. They are: G. Bornkamm, Paul (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1971), pp. 121–22; E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), p. 82 n. 45; L. Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987), pp. 29–31.

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

135

the Jewish Scriptures in general, but since Paul explicitly states ὅσα ὁ νόμος λέγει τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λαλεῖ in 3.19, it seems strange that there is no quotation from the section of the Jewish Scriptures most concerned with marking God’s people as chosen, the section particularly known as νόμος or Law. Michael Graham similarly argues that the main point of this catena is not that all humanity is sinful, but rather that assent to the law of Moses will not guarantee that one is judged to be ‘righteous’ by God. Graham summarizes that ‘the original context of each of the verses Paul cites in Romans 3:10-18 place the Jews in the group who are under the judgment of God and it emphasizes that God’s saving commitments are accomplished on behalf of and through David’.13 For Graham, the argument that Paul has directed toward the Jew who depends on Mosaic Law in Romans 2 is strong evidence that this catena is challenging readers to look beyond the law of Moses to the promises given to David. The various interpretations of this catena’s actual function are sufficient evidence that it does not completely fit its context in the letter. The differences between this composite quotation in 3.10-18 and Paul’s other Scripture quotations in Romans are: (1) this is much longer than all other Scripture proofs in Romans and (2) this is disproportionately composed of texts from the Writings, for all other proofs from multiple Scriptures include a much higher concentration of texts from either the Law or the Prophets, and usually from both. But the catena in Romans 3, a composite quotation of seven discrete texts of Scripture, has only one quotation from a prophet (Isa. 59.7-8 in Rom. 3.15-16), and none from the Law, even though the Law seems very significant to Paul (3.19). This does not seem to bother Watson, who writes on the catena: ‘None of the texts cited is actually derived from the Pentateuch. Paul hears scripture’s negative verdict on human endeavor beyond the Law of Moses as well as within it, and, insofar as the later writers are all saying the same thing as Moses, they too articulate the voice of the law’.14 Still, this is very different from all other catenae in the letter, where Paul is ready to quote from the Torah. Paul makes up for the catena’s omission of Law by the next Scripture proof he develops in 3.31–4.25, all on Gen. 15.6, with support from the ancillary Scripture of Ps. 31.1-2 LXX. 13.  M. Graham, ‘To David? Paul’s Use of Composite Quotations in Romans 3:10-18: Taking the Context into Account’, unpublished paper sent to me on July 22, 2016. 14.  F. Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), p. 58.

136

Composite Citations in Antiquity

It is rather easy to construct a catena that the implied author of the rest of Romans would have been more likely to compose at this point. If we strung together LXX Gen. 6.5-6; Deut. 32.18-20; Isa. 59.11b-12; Ps. 50.5 we would have a catena of about the length as other catenae in Romans, which draws quotations from all three areas of the Tanak, clearly captures the orientation to sin found among both the Gentiles and Israel, and cites the Law as part of its proof, which seems significant to Paul (Rom. 3.19). In contrast, Rom. 3.10-18, the longest composite citation found in the New Testament, does not aim to compass the canon of Law, Prophets and Writings, such as we find in the Tanak proofs of Rom 10.18-21; 11.8-10; 15.9-12. The anomalous nature of this quotation within the Scripture quotations of Romans and its strangely a-νόμος character within the discourse of Romans 2–3 are strong arguments against Paul’s composition of this catena for its express use in this letter. The composite quotation that we encounter in Rom. 3.10-18 is a catena that was composed before Paul wrote his letter. Because the catena is different from all other Scripture citations in the Pauline corpus, it is probable that someone other than Paul composed it for another purpose, though I cannot conclusively exclude Pauline authorship. Paul uses it here because he and his first audience are familiar with it. It relates to Paul’s agenda of showing how Jew and Gentile are under God’s wrath because of their sins (3.19), which includes the idea that identification with and reliance on the works of the law do not save (2.17; 3.28), but it does not prove the universal sinfulness of humanity. It is quoted because it is an authoritative Scripture collection known to Paul and his readers that touches on human sinfulness. We now come to that section of Romans in which Paul is most intensely wrestling with Scripture. This section, chs. 9–11, is known for being the most densely populated with Scripture citations of anywhere in Paul’s letters. It is no wonder that most of the composite citations also occur here. b. Romans 9.25-26 Romans 9.25 is a combined composite quotation of Hos. 2.25 and 2.1: ‘not my people’ will be called ‘my people’. Paul’s quotation of Hos. 2.25 is very similar to the wording preserved in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Venetus. It is also noteworthy that Paul inverts the verse, beginning with the line wherein ‘not my people’ are called ‘my people’.15 Paul seems to want to begin the quotation with the bottom line, or conclusion, of 15.  P. C. Beentjes, ‘Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern’, Bib 63 (1982), pp. 506–23 (517).

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

137

Hosea’s hopeful oracle in ch. 2 of his book, since this fits best with his discourse in Rom. 9.22-24. Paul then follows with the poetic lines of Hos. 2.1 LXX, which render the quotation composite. Table 6.7. Comparison of Rom. 9.25-26, Hos. 2.1, and Hos. 2.25

Hos. 2.1 LXX

Καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, ἣ οὐκ ἐκμετρηθήσεται οὐδὲ ἐξαριθμηθήσεται· καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ τόπῳ, οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς Οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος.

Rom. 9.25-26

ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ λέγει· Καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου λαόν μου καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην· 26 καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς· Οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος.

Hos. 2.25 LXX

(apud Codexes Vaticanus and Venetus) καὶ ἀγαπήσω τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην καὶ ἐρω τῷ οὐ λαῷ μου λαός μου εἶ συ.

I would extend Beentjes’s description of this quotation to call it a sandwiched inversion. There is an inversion of two lines in Hos. 2.25, and in Paul’s composite quotation as a whole, the verses from Hosea 2 are inverted. In general, the reasons for the inversions may be twofold. First, as I just remarked, Paul needs to begin with the ‘not my people’ being called ‘my people’ since this offers the strongest connection to what he has just expressed in 9.24. Second, the inverted ordering of the Hosea texts might seize the attention of the hearers of this text in a way that the traditional ordering would not. This is how Beentjes explains the rationale behind inverted quotations: ‘At this moment we can say that in an existing formulation (a sentence, a colon, an established expression, a rare combination of words) the author reverses the sequence. And by this “deviating” model he attains a moment of extra attention in the listener (or the reader), because the latter hears something else than the traditional words.’16 It is analogous to how a Scrabble player might scramble the letters on her tray in order to see new possibilities. In Paul’s quotation of Hos. 2.1—‘it shall be in the place…’—it is possible that Paul is alluding to Gentiles being called God’s people in 16.  Beentjes, ‘Inverted Quotations’, p. 523. My own hypothesis is that sometimes the inverted quotation is used not because of the ‘attention-getting’ motive, but because of a ‘complete the quotation impulse’: a speaker/writer will think of someone else’s phrase that is appropriate in his/her own discourse and will quote the phrase; then the speaker/writer will remember the preceding context of that phrase, and, in a desire to include this context or show that he/she knows the Vorlage of the phrase, he/ she will quote the additional material from the phrase’s preceding context.

138

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Jerusalem, in different though analogous imagery to how some of the prophets look ahead to a gathering of the nations to worship with God’s people in Jerusalem (Isa. 66.18-23; Hab. 2.13-14; Zech. 8.22-23; 14.1619). This possibility is rendered more credible by Paul’s quotation of Isa. 11.1, 10 in Rom. 15.12, the final composite quotation of the letter, a quotation from an oracle of Isaiah that is especially focused on God’s ‘holy mountain’ (Isa. 11.9a). Wagner does not offer any evidence that this composite citation was formed by someone prior to Paul. We will therefore consider it as a Pauline combination that does not antedate the letter’s composition. c. Romans 11.34-35 Romans 11.34-35 is a composite quotation of Isa. 40.13 LXX and a non-LXX version of Job 41.3. Hanson may be right in tracing Rom. 11.35 to a Targumic version of Job 41.3.17 Here is the composite quotation as we find it in Romans: Table 6.8. Comparison of Rom. 11.34-35, Isa. 40.13, and Job 41.3a Isa. 40.13 LXX Rom. 11.34-35 τίς ἔγνω νοῦν κυρίου, Τίς γὰρ ἔγνω νοῦν κυρίου; καὶ τίς αὐτοῦ σύμβουλος ἢ τίς σύμβουλος αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, ὃς συμβιβᾷ αὐτόν; ἐγένετο; 35 ἢ τίς προέδωκεν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἀνταποδοθήσεται αὐτῷ;

Job 41.3a MT

‫מי הקדימני‬ ‫ואשלם‬

This quotation is significant in that it combines Job 41.3 and Isa. 40.13, a pairing that is attested also in Jewish literature. It also illustrates the literary and theological overlap between Job and Second Isaiah that is recognized by Old Testament scholars. Hanson suggested in The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture that Paul’s combination of these texts came from a Jewish exegetical tradition, as illustrated in at least two early rabbinic sermons.18 Johnson agrees with Hanson that these two verses were joined together in Jewish

17.  A. T. Hanson, The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture (London: SPCK, 1980), p. 85, as cited in E. E. Johnson, The Function of Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9–11 (SBLDS, 109; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), p. 167. 18.  J. R. Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “in Concert” in the Letter to the Romans (NovTSup, 101; Leiden: Brill, 2002), p. 302 n. 245, cites Hanson, New Testament Interpretation of Scripture, pp. 85–89 and Pesiq. R. 25.2; Pesiq. R. Kah. 9.2.

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

139

exegesis, but rejects his view that Paul quotes them here as Christological statements built on the tradition’s use of them to laud the pre-existent wisdom of God.19 Johnson’s rejection on the basis of the purported lack of any Christological reference between Rom. 10.17 and this benediction ignores Paul’s Christological presuppositions that drive him to describe the mystery of Israel’s salvation.20 It also ignores Paul’s tendency to conclude sections of his discourse in Romans with Christological references.21 But this Christological question is tangential to our main quest in the present study. Both Hanson and Johnson agree that the combination of these two texts almost certainly antedates Paul, coming from the exegetical traditions or liturgical practice.22 We must therefore include this text as one of the composite citations that seems to antedate Paul’s composition of Romans. Critical scholars have also noted the similarities between Job and Second Isaiah. Samuel Terrien suggested that Second Isaiah made use of Job, but Will Kynes’s work seems more persuasive in arguing that Job is making use of Second Isaiah.23 Cross contends that the book of Job appeared in the sixth century as a critique of Israelite religion, moving people’s focus away from the God of the Exodus, the God involved in the history of Israel, and back to the God of the storm cloud, the mythic God of creation who fights against the monsters of the deep. Second Isaiah is written at this same time, and seeks to revise Judah’s theology by recasting the Exodus language into an eschatologically oriented future.24 Janzen describes God’s defense against Job’s charges as ‘the equivalent 19.  Johnson, Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9–11, pp. 167–68. 20.  For these assumptions, see E. P. Sanders, ‘Paul’s Attitude toward the Jewish People’, USQR 33 (1978), pp. 175–87. 21.  Rom. 4.23-25; 5.20-21; 8.38-39; 15.7-12. 22.  Hanson, New Testament Interpretation, pp. 85–89, and Johnson, Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9–11, pp. 164–74. Wagner (Heralds of the Good News, p. 302 n. 245) is mildly affirmative of the possibility that Paul is using a pre-existing hymn: ‘Whatever the origin of the hymn, it is likely that Paul recognized the allusion to Isaiah embedded within it’. 23.  S. Terrien, ‘Quelques remarques sur les affinités de Job avec le DeutéroEsaïe’, in S. Terrien (ed.), Volume du Congrès Genève 1965 (VTSup, 15; Leiden: Brill, 1966), pp. 295–310; W. Kynes, ‘Job and Isaiah 40–55: Intertextualities in Dialogue’, in K. Dell and W. Kynes (eds.), Reading Job Intertextually (LHBOTS, 574; New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), pp. 94–105. 24.  F. M. Cross Jr., ‘A Note on the Study of Apocalyptic Origins’, in idem (ed.), Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (1973; reprint. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 343–46.

140

Composite Citations in Antiquity

questions’ of Job 38.2a (‘Who is this that darkens counsel’) and 40.8a (‘Will you also disannul my judgment?’). He goes on to state that the only other place in the Old Testament where ‘counsel’ (‫ )עצה‬and ‘judgment’ )‫ (משפט‬are used together is in Isa. 40.13-14. As Janzen summarizes, ‘Concerns over the question of mišpāt run through this exilic prophet (Isaiah 40–55)’.25 While Paul is not thinking of the evolution of Israel’s religion in the terms that Frank Cross is, Paul instinctively understands that both Job and this section of Isaiah are theodicies for an Israel who is questioning God’s justice. It is thus very fitting that he would craft a composite quotation from these two places in his closing benediction of the three chapters (i.e., Rom. 9–11) that address the question of God’s justice in relation to Israel that animates much of the letter’s first eight chapters (1.16-17; 2.1-24; 3.1-8, 21-31; 4.1-25; 8.18-39). The composite quotation from Isaiah 40 and Job 41 in the benediction at the end of Romans 11 is Paul’s way of saying that God is completely just in how he deals with Israel, as he was during and after the exile when Israel’s ancestors could not figure out what God was doing, and as the rabbis have taught by combining Isa. 40.13 with Job 41.3. God does not have to explain his ways, but just as God was ultimately shown to be just in the book of Job and in the poems of Second Isaiah, so God is just even when it looks like he has allowed his people to miss his provision of Christ. d. Romans 14.11 Romans 14.11 is a combined composite quotation of LXX phrases from Isa. 49.18 and Isa. 45.23. Table 6.9. Comparison of Rom. 14.11, Isa. 49.18, and Isa. 45.23 Isa. 49.18 LXX ἆρον κύκλῳ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς σου καὶ ἰδὲ πάντας, ἰδοὺ συνήχθησαν καὶ ἤλθοσαν πρὸς σέ· ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγει κύριος, ὅτι πάντας αὐτοὺς ἐνδύσῃ καὶ περιθήσῃ αὐτοὺς ὡς κόσμον νύμφης.

Rom. 14.11

γέγραπται γάρ· Ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγει κύριος, ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσεται τῷ θεῷ.

Isa. 45.23 LXX κατ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω ῏Η μὴν ἐξελεύσεται ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου δικαιοσύνη, οἱ λόγοι μου οὐκ ἀποστραφήσονται ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ καὶ ἐξομολογήσεται πᾶσα γλῶσσα τῷ θεῷ.

25.  J. G. Janzen, At the Scent of Water: The Ground of Hope in the Book of Job (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 98–99.

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

141

The phrase ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγει κύριος is a stock introductory formula of attention-getting emphasis for prophetic oracles of judgment found in LXX texts Jer. 22.24; Ezek. 5.11; 14.16, 18, 20; Zeph. 2.9 or for prophetic oracles that announce a new dimension of God’s relationship with his people in LXX texts Isa. 49.18; Ezek. 18.3; 20.31, 33. The frame of this quotation in Rom. 14.10c and 14.12 indicates that Paul uses Second Isaiah’s announcement of the universal acclamation of God’s lordship in the eschaton to support his assertion of humanity’s ultimate appointment before God’s judgment bench, an appointment that should influence how the strong and weak treat each other within the Roman house churches. The connection of Isa. 45.23 with judgment is different from the use of this text in the Christ hymn of Philippians (Phil. 2.10-11). ‘As I live, says the Lord’ is a common introductory formula, and there is no way I can argue that it was already combined with Isa. 45.23 in the tradition. This composite citation must be credited to Paul. He selects the ‘As I live, says the Lord’ prophetic introduction to add gravity to his presentation of the judgment of God as a solemn deterrent to the judgment that the weak showed toward the strong, and the scorn that the strong showed toward the weak. He also probably selects it because he intends to deliver on his description that his gospel is promised beforehand through the prophets (Rom. 1.2). Finally, this characteristically prophetic introduction is selected because it is voiced in the divine first person, matching the voice of Isa. 45.23. 2. Conflated Citations in Romans A single word or very short phrase of Scripture can be inserted into a separate sentence of Scripture to form composite citations by conflation. In Romans, we find this sort of composite citation only in chs. 9–11. Paul’s need to reconfigure his understanding of Scripture in this section of the letter seems to have led him to employ this specific sort of citation. a. Romans 9.20 Like Rom. 9.9, Rom. 9.20 may be a composite quotation of Isa. 29.16 and 45.9. It is possibly composite because only the interrogative pronoun comes exclusively from Isa. 45.9 LXX.

142

Composite Citations in Antiquity Table 6.10. Comparison of Rom. 9.20, Isa. 29.16, and Isa. 45.9

Isa. 29.16 LXX οὐχ ὡς ὁ πηλὸς τοῦ κεραμέως λογισθήσεσθε; μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι Οὐ σύ με ἔπλασας; ἢ τὸ ποίημα τῷ ποιήσαντι Οὐ συνετῶς με ἐποίησας;

Rom. 9.20 ὦ ἄνθρωπε, μενοῦνγε σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος τῷ θεῷ; μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι Τί με ἐποίησας οὕτως;

Isa. 45.9 LXX Ποῖον βέλτιον κατεσκεύασα ὡς πηλὸν κεραμέως; μὴ ὁ ἀροτριῶν ἀροτριάσει τὴν γῆν ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν; μὴ ἐρεῖ ὁ πηλὸς τῷ κεραμεῖ Τί ποιεῖς, ὅτι οὐκ ἐργάζῃ οὐδὲ ἔχεις χεῖρας;

Wagner summarizes the significance of Isa. 29.16 in its context: ‘The challenge of the clay to the potter, then, is part of a larger narrative in Isaiah 28–29 in which Israel doubts God’s wisdom and power to save them, trusting instead in their own schemes for deliverance’.26 Isaiah 45.9 similarly comes in a section where the prophet is addressing people who doubt God’s promises that Cyrus is God’s anointed who will bring Judah back from exile. So the prophet likens those who are questioning God to a clay (vessel) asking the potter why the potter has made it, or a child asking parents why it was conceived and birthed (Isa. 45.9-10). This context helps us see that these texts in Isaiah and even in their use in Romans as a composite quotation are not so much about how God chooses individuals for salvation in heaven, as they are about trusting that God has a plan for what is happening with Israel. Wagner describes how the Targum translators have associated Isa. 29.16 and 45.9. The same association is made at Qumran, in 1QS 11.22. While Wagner does not claim that Paul’s composite quotation is dependent on a tradition in which the Targumists or the Qumran scribes participate, I think this is probable. Thus this composite quotation, like Rom. 3.10-18, is probably dependent on a previous tradition that has connected these two texts in Isaiah. b. Romans 9.27-28 Paul continues his inverted quotation pattern by finally quoting the beginning of Hos. 2.1 (cf. Rom. 9.25-26) in his next composite quotation. This one states that a remnant of the children of Israel will be saved, and adds the assertion that the Lord works his λόγος effectively on earth.

26.  Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, p. 65.

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

143

Table 6.11. Comparison of Rom. 9.27-28, Isa. 10.22-23, Hos. 2.1, and Isa. 28.22 Rom. 9.27-28 Ἠσαΐας δὲ κράζει ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ· ἐὰν ᾖ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ ὑπόλειμμα σωθήσεται· 28 λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ποιήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 27

Isa. 10.22-23 LXX καὶ ἐὰν γένηται ὁ λαὸς Ισραηλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ κατάλειμμα αὐτῶν σωθήσεται· λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, 23 ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον ποιήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ ὅλῃ. 22

Hos. 2.1a LXX Καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης

Isa. 28.22b LXX διότι συντετελεσμένα καὶ συντετμημένα πράγματα ἤκουσα παρὰ κυρίου σαβαωθ, ἃ ποιήσει ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν.

Wagner notes how LXX Isaiah contains the collocation of συντελέω and συντέμνω only at Isa. 10.22 and 28.22b, the verses quoted here. In addition, the LXX translator has added ἃ ποιήσει in 28.22b, aligning this text with the ποιήσει ὁ θεός phrase in 10.23.27 Because the LXX translator has translated these verses in such a way as to highlight their similarities, I think it probable that the combination of Isa. 10.22-23 with Isa. 28.22b represents an inherited composite citation, or at least an inherited reading tradition. Paul perhaps has added the introductory discourse from Hos. 2.1, but the Isaiah segment of the composite quotation antedates Paul’s letter. Koch observes in passing that ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ in 9.27 does not exactly build on 9.25-26, where Paul is out to show that the nations become included in God’s people. Here in 9.27-28, according to Koch, Paul is out to show that ‘Israel’ is not every ethnic descendant, but only the remnant. Koch offers Rom. 9.6 to support his case.28 So far we have encountered three composite quotations for which a good case can be made for their existence prior to Paul’s composition of Romans (i.e., 3.10-18; 9.20; and 9.27-28).

27.  Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, pp. 98–99. 28.  D.-A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT, 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), p. 168. But this is not how Paul concludes his argument (cf. 11.2527), and thus should not be absolutized as Paul’s position on the salvation of Israel.

144

Composite Citations in Antiquity

c. Romans 9.33 Romans 9.33 is a conflated composite quotation of Isa. 28.16 and 8.14 as the following table, slightly adapted from Wagner, shows.29 The two Isaianic texts both refer to a ‘stone’ (λίθος) and this probably contributed to their fusion. Table 6.12. Comparison of Rom. 9.33, Isa. 28.16, and Isa. 8.14a

Isa. 28.16 LXX

Rom. 9.33

Isa. 8.14a LXX

διὰ τοῦτο οὕτως λέγει κύριος

καθὼς γέγραπται·

καὶ ἐὰν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ πεποιθὼς ᾖς,

᾿Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιων λίθον πολυτελῆ ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἔντιμον εἰς τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ.

Ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου,

ἔσται σοι εἰς ἁγίασμα, καὶ οὐχ ὡς λίθου προσκόμματι συναντήσεσθε αὐτῷ οὐδὲ ὡς πέτρας πτώματι·

καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται.

This composite quotation sandwiches ‘the stone of stumbling and the rock of offense’ from Isa. 8.14 between wording from Isa. 28.16, which only describes the stone that God lays as a valuable foundation stone. So the composite quotation exchanges the positively described foundation stone of 28.16 for the stone of stumbling and rock of offense of 8.14.30 The ending of Paul’s quotation of Isa. 28.16 is very close to the LXX and differs from the MT. But the beginning of Isa. 28.16 that Paul quotes is closer to the MT. After surveying all the evidence, Wagner concludes, ‘This evidence strongly suggests that Paul used a manuscript of the Septuagint that had already been revised toward a Hebrew form of the text’.31 Significantly for our quest to determine the origins of Paul’s composite citations, Wagner sees that the author/editor of Isaiah 28 was writing in light of Isaiah 8, and that the relationship between these passages is even 29.  Stanley uses ‘conflated’ for composite quotations that insert part of one text into a different text (‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 204); Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, p. 128. 30.  Or, as Wagner says, ‘Paul’s composite citation takes an A–B–A form, with a portion of 8:14 spliced into the middle of 28:16’ (Heralds of the Good News, p. 127). 31.  Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, p. 130.

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

145

closer in the LXX.32 But when comparing Rom. 9.33 with 1 Pet. 2.8, Wagner says that Paul may well have linked Isa. 28.16 with 8.14, while the author of 1 Pet. 2.6-8 separates the two, using Ps. 117.22 LXX as a wedge.33 Wagner is overstating the difference, for it is clear that 1 Pet. 2.6-8 is simply adding one more ‘stone’ text in its linked citation, not exactly making a semantic or logical separation between 28.16 and 8.14. In general, we may conclude that there is a strong probability that Isa. 28.16 and 8.14 were already combined in an interpretive tradition, the texts being used mutually to interpret one another. Since they were combined in this way, it would be a short step to quoting them as a composite text of Scripture. Thus we have here one more case of a probable, pre-existing composite citation that Paul uses in Romans. d. Romans 10.634 Table 6.13. Comparison of Rom. 10.6, Deut. 9.4, and Deut. 30.12 Deut. 9.435 μὴ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ἐν τῷ ἐξαναλῶσαι κύριον τὸν θεόν σου τὰ ἔθνη ταῦτα ἀπὸ προσώπου σου λέγων Διὰ τὰς δικαιοσύνας μου εἰσήγαγέν με κύριος κληρονομῆσαι τὴν γῆν τὴν ἀγαθὴν ταύτην· ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν τῶν ἐθνῶν τούτων κύριος ἐξολεθρεύσει αὐτοὺς πρὸ προσώπου σου.

Rom. 10.6 ἡ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη οὕτως λέγει· μὴ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου· Τίς ἀναβήσεται εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν; τοῦτ’ ἔστιν Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν·

Deut. 30.12 οὐκ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω ἐστὶν λέγων Τίς ἀναβήσεται ἡμῖν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ λήμψεται αὐτὴν ἡμῖν; καὶ ἀκούσαντες αὐτὴν ποιήσομεν.

32.  Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, p. 127. I side with Wagner against Koch, Die Schrift, p. 162, who, unlike Wagner, has not considered the relationship between chs. 8 and 28 of Isaiah and has not examined the tendencies of the Greek translations of Isaiah as closely as Wagner. 33.  Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, p. 133. 34.  In addition to the quotation, it is possible that Paul’s ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη (Rom. 10.6) contrasts the language διὰ τὰς δικαιοσύνας μου εἰσήγαγέν με κύριος κληρονομῆσαι τὴν γῆν τὴν ἀγαθὴν ταύτην (Deut. 9.4) in a way that may suggest Paul is contrasting the righteousness of faith with a kind of righteousness that would lead the Israelites to boast. 35.  I quote only Deut. 9.4 here to keep the table manageable. See also Deut. 8.17-18 and discussion on it that follows.

146

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Watson draws on the preceding context in Romans 10 to suggest that ‘Do not say in your heart’ is probably addressed to the ‘man’ in Lev. 18.5 (cited in Rom. 10.5) who represents Israel.36 It is noteworthy that the ‘Do not say in your heart’ phrase with which this combined composite citation begins appears earlier in Deuteronomy where Moses is telling Israel not to tell themselves that it was their own strength that allowed them to be in covenant relationship with God (Deut. 8.17-18) or their own righteousness that prompted God to dispossess the nations and give them the promised land as their inheritance (Deut. 9.4).37 For some readers of Paul this ‘Do not say in your heart’ phrase might resonate with Rom. 9.30-31, as though Paul is saying in this composite quote that Israel, who does not follow Messiah Jesus, should not depend on its observance of Mosaic Law as adequate for receiving God’s approbation of ‘righteous’ (10.6a), nor should it look for this righteousness as if it is far away, since actually what Israel needs is to believe in the gospel about Messiah Jesus. There is no evidence that the ‘Do not say in your heart’ texts from Deuteronomy 8–9 were combined earlier with Deuteronomy 30, so we will categorize this citation as a Pauline combination unique to his Romans letter. e. Romans 11.8 The conflated composite citation in Rom. 11.8 offers a snippet of Isaiah sandwiched between phrases from Deuteronomy to show that Israel’s unresponsiveness is a theologoumenon already predicted in the Scriptures.38 Table 6.14. Comparison of Rom. 11.8, Deut. 29.3, and Isa. 29.10

Deut. 29.3 LXX καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῖν καρδίαν εἰδέναι καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς βλέπειν καὶ ὦτα ἀκούειν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης.

Rom. 11.8

καθὼς γέγραπται· ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς πνεῦμα κατανύξεως, ὀφθαλμοὺς τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν καὶ ὦτα τοῦ μὴ ἀκούειν, ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας.

Isa. 29.10 LXX ὅτι πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς κύριος πνεύματι κατανύξεως καὶ καμμύσει τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων αὐτῶν, οἱ ὁρῶντες τὰ κρυπτά.

36.  Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 340. 37.  A. Gignac notes that the citation of either Deut. 8.17-18 or 9.4 here emphasizes the undeserved divine initiative that characterizes Paul’s discourse in 9.6-29 (L’épître aux Romains [ConBNT, 6; Paris: Cerf, 2014], p. 383). 38.  Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, p. 243, Figure 4.3.

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

147

The opening phrase from Deuteronomy comes after Moses has just told the congregation of Israel that they had seen everything that God did in all the land of Egypt in delivering them, including the signs and wonders. Then the verse just quoted comes, highlighting the contrast between what the Israelites saw and what they took to heart. The sense in Deuteronomy is that, though the Israelites physically saw and heard the divine signs and wonders, they did not really see, hear or understand what God was doing for them. In Isaiah, the prophet hears God telling him that his audience’s unresponsiveness to God’s message is God’s own doing, a difficult saying that some ancient translations tried to soften. The Hebrew text of Isa. 29.10 does state that God has made Isaiah’s audience dull to sense what is happening and unresponsive in heart to God’s communications to them. The composite nature of Paul’s citation thus seems to fuse two explanations for the lack of response in God’s chosen people together: the Israelites failed by their own apathy to understand what God was doing (Deut. 29.1-3) and God has rendered his people unresponsive to the message God wants his people to hear (Isa. 29.10; 6.9-10). The idea that Israel’s unbelief is Israel’s own fault is already offered in Rom. 10.18-21. What is new in this composite citation is that Paul adds the idea from Isa. 29.10 that it was in God’s plan to make his people unresponsive. This is preparing readers for Paul’s conclusion in Rom. 11.25-26, in which the partial hardening is arguably God’s doing, to allow the fullness of the Gentiles to enter. The analogy between Isa. 29.10 and Paul’s topos in Romans 9–11 is easily made. Though Paul’s contemporary kin have heard the good news (Rom. 10.18-21), they have not heard it in faith. The ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας phrase, which refers in Deut. 29.3 to the time of the occupation of the land, signifies within the composite citation the time in which Paul is composing his letter.39 Paul thus reworks this time reference to fit with the repeated references to the time contemporaneous with the letter’s composition that emerge in ch. 11 (vv. 5, 13, 30-31). The Nestle-Aland editors also suggest that Isa. 6.9-10 could be behind Paul’s quotation. Likewise, Wagner considers Isa. 6.9-10 to be a bridge text that Paul used to emphasize God’s responsibility for Israel’s unresponsiveness. Paul probably reflects an interpretive tradition similar to Jn 12.40 rather than other traditions that minimize divine responsibility such as the LXX, Symmachus, the Targum and the Peshitta.40

39.  Koch, Die Schrift, p. 171. 40.  Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, pp. 244–50.

148

Composite Citations in Antiquity

We do not have strong evidence for a pre-existing composite citation here. Wagner thus finds it likely that Paul himself has combined these texts by means of Isa. 6.9-10.41 Koch says the question is too close to call whether Paul first combined these texts or if someone did so before Paul.42 In the series of responses to the problem of Israel that Paul attempts between 11.6 and 11.10, this composite citation represents Paul’s reworking of the deterministic approach he floated in ch. 9. Here it is reworked to include the idea, from Deuteronomy, that the people did not understand what they experienced, and the idea, from Isaiah, that the dulling effect from God was always part of God’s plan.43 Paul and the Synoptic Gospels employ Isa. 6.9-10 differently, and this difference also strengthens the probability that the citation in Romans is Pauline.44 f. Romans 11.26-27 Romans 11.26-27 is a composite quotation of Isa. 59.20-21 and Isa. 27.9a. Table 6.15. Comparison of Rom. 11.26-27, Isa. 59.20-21, and Isa. 27.9a

Isa. 59.20-21 LXX 20 καὶ ἥξει ἕνεκεν Σιων ὁ ῥυόμενος καὶ ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ιακωβ. 21 καὶ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη …

Rom. 11.26-27

καθὼς γέγραπται· Ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος, ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ. 27 καὶ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ παρ’ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη, ὅταν ἀφέλωμαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν.

Isa. 27.9a LXX διὰ τοῦτο ἀφαιρεθήσεται ἡ ἀνομία Ιακωβ, καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἡ εὐλογία αὐτοῦ, ὅταν ἀφέλωμαι αὐτοῦ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν …

41.  Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, p. 256. 42.  Koch, Die Schrift, p. 171. 43.  For an argument that Rom. 9–11, like 1 Cor. 8–10, is a series of preliminary responses to a question, with a conclusion representing Paul’s final position that is not identical to any of the preliminary responses, see M. Reasoner, ‘Israel in the Outline of Romans 9–11’, Letter & Spirit 10 (2015), pp. 105–24. For a similar reading of Rom. 9–11, see G. Tatum, ‘Law and Covenant in Paul and the Faithfulness of God’, in C. Heilig, J. T. Hewitt, and M. F. Bird (eds.), God and the Faithfulness of Paul: A Critical Examination of the Pauline Theology of N. T. Wright (WUNT, 2/413; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), pp. 311–29 (318–19 n. 13). 44.  Cf. Rom. 11.8 with Mt. 13.13-15; Mk 4.11-12; Lk. 8.10. The full quotation in Acts 28.26-27 is more in line with Rom. 11.8.

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

149

Paul quotes all of Isa. 59.20-21, as far as the seventh word of 59.21. Mark Seifrid’s observation here is apt, and not always recognized by readers: If…Paul supposes that his readers are familiar with the septuagintal reading of Isa. 59:20b, he presents an ironic reversal of their usual reading of the passage: the “ungodly deeds” that the Redeemer removes from Jacob are those not of the adversaries, but rather of “Jacob” himself.45

Then Paul inserts words from Isa. 27.9 LXX, changing its ‘when I forgive his sin’ to ‘when I forgive their sins’. The phrase ‘their sins’ reminds us of Jer. 38.34 LXX, in which God says he will remember ‘their sins’ no more. I have argued elsewhere how Romans 9–11 seems to be subverting the first scroll of Jeremiah, contradicting texts like Jer. 6.15b; 7.16, 29; 11.14, 16; 14.11-12. And then the only possible quotation from Jeremiah comes right after the text has climactically proclaimed that God will save all Israel.46 Another revisionist reading may be recoverable in Paul’s use of Isa. 59.20-21 here, with a possible allusion to Ps. 13.7 LXX. We have already seen how the catena of Romans 3 uses Ps. 13.3 and Isa. 59.7-8 to express human sinfulness (Rom. 3.10-11, 15-16). Here Paul is clearly citing a text from the same section of Isaiah, and perhaps alluding to Ps. 13.7 LXX, which asks who will bestow God’s gift of the salvation of Israel ‘from Zion’ and then confidently predicts a time of praise when this happens. If Paul is indeed returning to texts from the catena of Romans 3, he is now offering a resolution to the problem of sin that the catena posed. An analogous move is evident in his revisionist transition from an indicting citation of Isa. 52.5 LXX in Rom. 2.24 to a positive citation of Isa. 52.15 LXX in Rom. 15.21. Stanley thinks that ‘the substitution of ἐκ for ἕνεκεν in Rom 11.26 had already taken place in Paul’s Greek Vorlage’.47 Wagner thinks this judgment depends too much on LXX texts that may have been assimilated to Paul’s quotation, and instead notes the Diaspora perspective of this change. Since Paul was a Diaspora Jew, Wagner is more open to the 45.  M. A. Seifrid, ‘Romans’, in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), pp. 607–94 (675). 46.  M. Reasoner, ‘The Redemptive Inversions of Jeremiah in Romans 9–11’, Bib 95 (2014), pp. 388–404 (391–96, 401–4). 47.  C. D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 166–68 (168).

150

Composite Citations in Antiquity

possibility that Paul made this change, though he does cite other ἐκ Σιών texts from the Prophets and the Psalms that show this Diaspora perspective.48 Stanley’s description of ‘the total absence of any “Zion” theme in Paul’s theology’ may ironically be evidence for the possibility that Paul made this change, to avoid any readers in Rome or Jerusalem concluding that he expected a political messiah to return to Zion.49 Lest we lose the forest for the trees, it is worth noting here that the citation of these two texts from Isaiah at this point in Paul’s discourse on Israel serves to ground his whole mission strategy of bringing redemption from Zion to the nations. Paul assumes that the good news of redemption comes from Jerusalem when he grounds his apostolic authority in a commission from the reputed pillars in Jerusalem and when he explains why he is organizing a collection for the believers in Jerusalem (Gal. 2.6-10; Rom. 15.27). 3. Condensed Citations in Romans Composite citations formed by condensing a passage of Scripture can be useful as a sort of summarizing quotation format. I examine a weak candidate for such a citation in Rom. 9.9, turning then to the only clear example of such a citation in Romans, the composite citation from the Decalogue in Rom. 13.9. a. Romans 9.9 This text represents a possibly condensed citation of Gen. 18.10 and Gen. 18.14. Table 6.16. Comparison of Rom. 9.9, Gen. 18.10, and Gen 18.14 Gen. 18.10 LXX εἶπεν δέ ᾿Επαναστρέφων ἥξω πρὸς σὲ κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον (‫)כעת חיה‬ εἰς ὥρας καὶ ἕξει υἱὸν Σαρρα ἡ γυνή σου (‫והנה בן‬ )‫לשרה אשתך‬

Rom. 9.9 ἐπαγγελίας γὰρ ὁ λόγος οὗτος· Κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἐλεύσομαι καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ υἱός.

Gen. 18.14 LXX μὴ ἀδυνατεῖ παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ῥῆμα; εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον (‫ )כעת חיה‬ἀναστρέψω πρὸς σὲ εἰς ὥρας καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σαρρα υἱός (‫)ולשרה בן‬

48.  Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, pp. 284–86 (Isa. 2.3-4 / Mic. 4.2-3; Joel 3.16 LXX; Ps. 13.7 LXX; Ps. 109.2 LXX). 49.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, pp. 166–67.

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

151

‘At this time’ is the same in Gen. 18.10, 14 MT but different in the LXX of these two verses. Since Paul usually quotes from the LXX and is probably doing so here, the vocabulary his quotation shares with these two texts in Genesis, with only the preposition κατά from one, render this a possibly composite citation. There are also variants of Gen. 18.14 LXX that begin the second clause with κατά, and include the verb ἐλεύσομαι, which Wevers thinks arose from familiarity with Rom. 9.9.50 The possibly composite nature of the citation seems to result from Paul’s familiarity with the text and need to summarize God’s word to Abraham and Sarah in the year before Isaac was born. The LXX translator has aligned Gen. 18.14 with Gen. 18.10 against the MT of 18.14, so one could say that 18.14 LXX itself represents the early stages of a condensed, composite citation.51 But since the opening preposition of the quotation is not a clear quotation from Gen. 18.10, I only consider Rom. 9.9 as a marginal composite, and will not include it in my final tally of Paul’s composite quotations below. b. Romans 13.9 Romans 13.9 is a composite quotation of phrases from Deut. 5.17-21 LXX or Exod. 20.13-17 LXX. Table 6.17. Comparison of Rom. 13.9, Exod. 20.13-17, and Deut. 5.17-21 Exod. 20.13-17 LXX οὐ μοιχεύσεις.— 14 οὐ κλέψεις.— 15 οὐ φονεύσεις.— 16 οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις κατὰ τοῦ πλησίον σου μαρτυρίαν ψευδῆ.— 17 οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον σου. οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις … 13

Rom. 13.9

τὸ γάρ· Οὐ μοιχεύσεις, Οὐ φονεύσεις, Οὐ κλέψεις,

Deut. 5.17-21 LXX

οὐ μοιχεύσεις.— 18 οὐ φονεύσεις.— 19 οὐ κλέψεις.— 20 οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις κατὰ τοῦ πλησίον σου Οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις, καὶ εἴ τις μαρτυρίαν ψευδῆ.— ἑτέρα ἐντολή, ἐν τῷ λόγῳ 21 οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν τούτῳ ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται, ἐν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον σου. τῷ· Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις … σου ὡς σεαυτόν. 17

50.  J. W. Wevers (ed.), Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vol. I, Genesis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), p. 186 at Gen. 18.14. 51.  J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (SBLSCS, 35; Atlanta: Scholars, 1993), p. 253.

152

Composite Citations in Antiquity

As can be seen from this table, Paul seems to follow the order of the commandments as found in Deuteronomy, making Rom. 13.9 a condensed quotation of Deut. 5.17-21. Paul’s point in listing these quotations is made clear by his statement ‘if there be any other commandment’. Paul is trying to give the reader the sense that he is spreading the net widely for the ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ command. Whatever other commands there are, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ will fulfill them. It is possible that Paul’s condensed list of the Ten Words begins with the adultery prohibition because he perceived a problem with sexual license in the Roman communities.52 The prohibitions against murdering and stealing are common placeholders that evoke the Ten Words, and the citation ends with the prohibition against coveting, a prohibition already raised in Rom. 7.7-8, especially useful for Paul because of the broad indictment it offers on humanity, whether Jew or Gentile. If this is so, then perhaps this particular combination originates with Paul. The Ten Words are frequently abbreviated in Jewish and Christian traditions, and it is therefore probable that Paul knew of shortened ways of referring to them. But I do not know of parallels to this particular combination from among the Ten, so I will not include this composite citation as one that antedates Paul’s letter. 4. Interlude on Allusions Before we move to consider linked citations in Romans, it would be good to note that Paul’s discourse is densely populated with language from his Scriptures, even where no citation formulae are used. For example, the phrase that defines the Gentiles as τὰ μὴ διώκοντα δικαιοσύνην (‘the ones not pursuing righteousness’) is an inversion of a phrase used of Israel in Isa. 51.1, οἱ διώκοντες τὸ δίκαιον (‘the ones pursuing right’).53 Also, in Rom. 11.1-2, Wagner finds it likely that Paul has formed a composite allusion to 1 Kgdms 12.22 LXX and Ps. 93.14 LXX.54 If we could continue to channel in Paul as an interlocutor, he might respond that I am selling his letter short, since the composite citations and linked quotations surveyed here are only part of his Scripture-combining, interactive

52.  See also Rom. 2.22; 13.13, and M. Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14.1–15.13 in Context (SNTSMS, 103; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 67–68. 53.  Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, p. 122. 54.  Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, pp. 223–24.

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

153

discourse. Allusions can be more effective in epistolary argument than quotations, for they draw the reader into the argument by requiring the reader to recognize the allusive reference and cinch the knot, as it were, in the implied author’s argument. For example, the allusions in Rom. 4.9-12 to Gen. 15.6; 17.1-8 and Sir. 44.19-21 help to engage the reader fully into Paul’s perspective that Abram received the covenant before he had kept a Torah-like command. 5. Linked Citations in Romans While not formally composite because of glosses or introductory formulae for the separate texts that are conjoined, linked citations are worth considering briefly, since they also represent Paul’s tendency in Romans to juxtapose different texts of Scripture. As can be seen by reading the citations in 10.5-8 or 10.18-21, these quotations afford Paul the advantage of inserting hermeneutical glosses into the citation. These linked citations also explicitly signal that texts are being combined, prompting the reader to meld the texts on one’s own, rather than simply reading them as already melded together in composite citations. a. Romans 4.6-9 This citation occurs after Paul has already cited (in 4.3) the main text from the Law that he will be exegeting, Gen. 15.6. In this linked citation, after a very focused introduction in 4.6, Ps. 31.1-2 LXX is cited and then Gen. 15.6 is cited again. b. Romans 4.17-18 These two verses cite, in the middle of Paul’s exegesis of Gen. 15.6, the text of Gen. 17.5 LXX, followed by Gen. 15.5 LXX, with intervening commentary. This linked citation therefore provides key points from the context of Gen. 15.6 to assist in Paul’s exegesis. c. Romans 10.5-8 In support of Paul’s assertion that the Gentiles attained to a faith-based righteousness while Israel pursued a law-based righteousness (9.30-31), Paul offers this Scripture proof to contrast the two sorts of righteousness. He is trying to communicate that the Torah itself distinguishes between these two kinds of righteousness, so all the citations come from the Torah in this proof. Within this larger proof there is also a composite citation (Rom. 10.6) of Deut. 9.4 and 30.12.

154

Composite Citations in Antiquity

d. Romans 10.15-16 Within Paul’s diagnosis of Israel’s unbelief, he cites Isa. 52.7. Then he states that not all have obeyed the gospel, and follows this up with a quote from Isa. 53.1 LXX. This linked quotation is leading readers to see that Israel’s unbelief is not a new phenomenon, but was on Isaiah’s agenda as well. e. Romans 10.18-21 This linked citation, a Tanak proof in Writings–Law–Prophets order, conclusively emphasizes Paul’s point that though the good news has gone out into all the world, Israel continues—in the unresponsiveness for which she was indicted by Isaiah—to ignore it. Here, as can be seen also in linked citations G and H below, this format that explicitly calls attention to the different texts from which the Scripture proof comes is rhetorically advantageous. Paul wants his audience to know that he is quoting from each of the three sections of his Scripture. This is more clearly marked in a linked, rather than composite, citation, since the breaks in a linked citation highlight the differing sources of the combined quotation that are elided in one of composite form. A second advantage to the linked citation format that is especially seen here is that it allows for Paul to make interpretive comments that precisely clarify the exegetical traction he seeks by quoting the texts. Thus the ‘first Moses says’ in 10.19 emphasizes that Paul’s point has its foundation in the Torah. ‘Isaiah is bold and says’ in 10.20 alerts the reader to the prophet Isaiah’s frustration with Israel’s unbelief, a frustration shared by Paul. And ‘But to Israel he says’ in 10.21 makes it clear that Paul reads the first verse of Isaiah 65 as focusing on the nations and the second verse on Israel, a reading not patently obvious to all readers of Isaiah. f. Romans 11.3-4 Romans 11.3-4 might initially appear to be a composite quotation of 3 Kgdms 19.10, 14, 18 LXX. But Elijah’s words in 3 Kgdms 19.10, 14 LXX are repeated almost verbatim (Paul in 11.3 uses the verb κατέσκαψαν for ‘overturned’, not the καθεῖλαν that is used in 3 Kgdms 19.14 LXX), so there is really no meaningful way to say that Paul has combined these verses. And God’s reply to Elijah is introduced with a quotation formula at the beginning of Rom. 11.4, so there is no way that we can call the combination of Elijah’s complaint in 3 Kgdms 19.10 or 14 with God’s reply in 3 Kgdms 19.18 LXX a composite quotation.

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

155

g. Romans 11.8-10 After the composite citation in Rom. 11.8, Paul immediately introduces a quotation from Ps. 68.23-24 LXX, so our composite quotation in Rom. 11.8 gets taken up into a larger linked citation, thus canonically completing Paul’s Scripture proof in 11.8-10, in the order Law–Prophets– Law–Writings. About the whole quotation cluster in 11.8-10, Manék writes ‘With the help of this citation Paul intends to answer the question: How can men fail to accept what is God’s gracious act on their behalf unless they have been blinded? The apostle answers this question as the old prophets did: God has made men blind so that they should not see and deaf so that they should not hear.’55 While Paul’s introductory formulae are not as hermeneutically leading in this linked citation as we saw in 10.18-21, the ‘and David says’ in 11.9 lends rhetorical emphasis to the citation in a way that composite citations cannot. This introductory formula, coming as it does in the middle of the citation, declares ‘Here is one more voice that agrees—the prophet David!’ The linked citation form offers the advantage of highlighting how its components come from different parts of the canon. In the conclusion below, I will suggest how Paul’s strategy of combining texts from different parts of his canon influenced another New Testament author. h. Romans 15.9-12 The final linked quotation of Romans is the powerful, Tanak proof that concludes the argument of the letter (15.9-12). This Tanak proof employs four introductory formulae used to introduce quotations from four discrete books of Scripture. After the last formula, Paul quotes Isa. 11.10 LXX. This Isaiah text combines Paul’s Messiah-oriented theology with his mission focus, a wonderful conclusion to the Scripture proof for a letter sent to the churches in the world’s capital by a missionary hoping for their support in his mission endeavors beyond them. 6. Conclusion The bold and significant exegetical moves that Paul makes with Scripture in his letter to the Romans, signaled by the ‘promised beforehand’ language in 1.2, are acknowledged by the scribe who added the benediction of 16.25-27. His phrase ‘made manifest now through the prophetic

55.  J. Manék, ‘Composite Quotations in the New Testament and Their Purpose’, Communio Viatorum 13 (1970), pp. 181–88 (185).

156

Composite Citations in Antiquity

scriptures’ in 16.26a clearly accepts Paul’s gospel as proven from the Scriptures.56 Of all Paul’s letters, his letter to the Romans is most aggressive in combining Scriptures as a means for developing his argument, both in the twelve composite citations and the eight linked citations found in the letter. The sheer number of citations in Romans that combine different Scripture texts, in various forms of composite citations and in linked citations, indicates that Paul is intent on showing that the whole of his Scriptures point to the Gentile mission. Of the 45 Old Testament citations in Romans, the eleven composite citations amount to 24 percent of his citations in this letter.57 If we add the eight linked citations, we see that 42 percent of Paul’s Scripture quotations are combining texts in some way. About 75 percent of Paul’s Scripture quotations come in three places (4.1-25; 9.6–11.36; 15.1-12) that each concern God’s inclusion of Gentiles alongside Israel. Thus, the density of composite citations within Romans 9–11 helps us to see that a driving motive for Paul to quote Scripture in the combining ways he does within Romans seems to be an urgent need he has to prove that his Scriptures account for his missionary strategy.58 It is likely that the implied audience of Paul’s composite and linked citations were those who questioned Paul’s Torah-free proclamation of Israel’s God and Messiah to Gentiles. This implied audience must have known and respected Israel’s Scriptures. Paul’s need to convince them of the legitimacy of his mission prompted him to make a significant move in early Christian literature: in parallel with the idea that Scriptures are fulfilled by Christ in some of the gospels, this letter begins to argue that all of Scripture is fulfilled in Christ and in Paul’s law-free proclamation of Christ to the nations. The only other author in the New Testament who is as explicitly interested in the combined witness of Scripture to Christ and the proclamation of Christ is the author of Luke–Acts, who possibly refers to how the distinct parts of his Scriptures point to Jesus because of

56.  For Rom. 16.25-27 as a later addition by a scribe, a text-critical judgment made by most contemporary Romans students, see R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), pp. 998–1002. 57.  The figure of 45 Old Testament citations in Romans is derived from R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1999), pp. 92–93. 58.  C. D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), pp. 142–43.

6. Reasoner  Composite Citations in Romans

157

his reading of Romans.59 Thus we see summaries of Jesus’ appeals to Scripture in Lk. 24.27, 44 that indicate the implied author is impressed by Tanak proofs. The implied author of Luke–Acts is also rather taken with the hyperbolic assertion that all the prophets of his Scriptures point to Jesus, an idea that arises from a syllogism based on Rom. 1.2 and 15.4 (Lk. 24.25, 27; Acts 3.18; 10.43). Luke–Acts explicitly expands the fulfillment paradigm of early Christian literature from ‘Jesus fulfills a prophecy’ to ‘Jesus fulfills what all the prophets announced’, and to ‘Jesus fulfills what all of Scripture announces’. Paul’s composite and linked citations in Romans definitely move the discourse in these more all-encompassing fulfillment patterns, which develop his iconic ‘promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures’ phrase in Rom. 1.2. The specific forms of the composite citations in Romans may be summarized as follows: four are combined (3.10-18; 9.25-26; 11.34-35; 14.11) six are conflated (9.20, 27-28, 33; 10.6; 11.8, 26-27), and one is condensed (13.9). In regard to their origin, it is my judgment that five of the composite citations seem to be pre-existing citations that Paul employs for his own purposes in this letter. These are the combined citations found in 3.10-18 and 11.34-35, as well as the conflated citations in 9.20, 9.27-28 and 9.33. The remaining six composite citations, as well as all eight linked citations, are of Paul’s own construction, due to the exigencies of his argument in Romans. It is instructive to reflect on the difference of employing linked citations and composite citations. Table 6.18: Comparing Linked and Composite Citations Linked Citations Expects exegetical energy from implied audience Asks audience to make interpretive steps by explicitly juxtaposing different quotations. Disclosed (new) combination of Scripture Is more of a ‘full disclosure’ way to combine texts.

Composite Citations vs. Less exegetical input from audience is expected Presents a pre-mixed combination as Scripture, so less exegetical energy is asked of the readers/hearers. vs. Undisclosed, reconfigured Scripture Presents the composite citation as Scripture without disclosing interpretive moves (e.g., Rom. 11.8).

59.  On the intertextuality between Romans and Acts, see R. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2006), pp. 53, 68–69, 91, 98, 101–6, 109, 116–20, 131–32, 137.

158

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Allows for interpretive comments within citation Provides a running commentary or gloss (e.g., Rom. 10.20-21).

vs. Interpretive comments within citation are limited/excluded Because of the pre-mixed nature of the composite citation, Paul usually presents these as ‘Scripture’, so all the implied audience is asked to do is read and accept the citation as Scripture. Interpretive comments within the citation would let the cat out of the bag that a combination/ juxtaposition not found in the canon is occurring. The composite citation works because it is pre-mixed, one-stop shopping for the audience. Squeezes more meaning out of vs. Seeks one point of emphasis A composite citation offers one, each text sometimes new, point of emphasis The linked citation can get more that the texts taken separately do interpretive or figurative (derash) not exactly provide, but that arises meaning out of each text in the in the chemical reaction from their chain by means of the interpretive combination. comments sometimes linking texts or simply by openly presenting the texts as linked.

Both ways of associating texts for Scripture proofs serve Paul’s purpose of showing that his gospel was ‘promised beforehand in the prophetic writings’ (Rom. 1.2). This gospel includes the equality of Jew and Gentile before God, particularly with reference to Gentile inclusion in God’s plans for Israel. The preponderance of combined citations in Romans, whether composite according to the definition used in this volume, or linked with introductory formulae such as we see in the three Tanak proofs, indicate that Paul seeks to show that all of the Scriptures support his Torah-free call to the nations to share through Christ in the blessings of Israel, who irrevocably remain God’s chosen people.

Chapter 7 C om p osi t e C i tat i on s i n 1 –2 C or i nthi ans a n d G a l at i ans Roy E. Ciampa

1. Introduction Paul’s use of Scripture has been a subject of extended and detailed scholarly discussion for quite some time. Thanks to the influential work of Richard Hays, Paul’s ‘echoes of Scripture’ has been a particularly growing area of study. Still, there has been little focused attention given to his use of combined and conflated citations, perhaps because it is a less common phenomenon.1 While Paul typically brings together multiple texts at particular points in his letters, they are usually pretty clearly recognized as a series of discrete citations rather than suggesting the profile of one (composite) citation.2 When he brings texts together without clearly indicating that he has produced a chain or series of citations and leaves the impression that he may have produced a singular citation, we do well to pay attention and ask what difference it makes. The creation of new, conflated texts from multiple scriptural intertexts reflects a remarkable approach to the interpretation and application of Scripture 1.  See S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation?: An Introduction’, in S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, vol. 1 of Composite Citations in Antiquity (LNTS, 525; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), pp. 1–16 (9), and C. D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 258–59, 342, for Stanley’s categories of combined and conflated citations. 2.  See, e.g., Rom. 4.3-8 (Gen. 15.6; Ps. 32.1-2), 17-18 (Gen. 17.5; 15.5); 9.7-9 (Gen. 21.12; 18.10), 12-13 (Gen. 25.23; Mal. 1.2-3), 15-17 (Exod. 33.19; 9.16), 25-29 (Hos. 2.23; 1.10; Isa. 10.22; Hos. 1.10; Isa. 10.23; 1.9); 10.6-21 (Deut. 9.4; 30.12-14; Isa. 28.16; Joel 2.31; Isa. 52.7; Nah. 1.15; Isa. 53.1; Ps. 19.4; Deut. 32.21; Isa. 65.1-2); 11.3-10 (1 Kgs 19.10, 18; Deut. 29.4; Isa. 29.10; Ps. 69.22-23); 13.9 (Exod. 20.13-15, 17; Deut. 5.17-19, 21); 1 Cor. 3.19-20 (Job 5.13; Ps. 94.11); etc.; 1 Cor. 3.19-20; 10.7-10; Gal. 3.6-13 (Gen. 15.6; 12.3; Deut. 27.26; Hab. 2.4; Lev. 18.5; Deut. 21.23); 4.21-31 (Gen. 21.10 and context; Isa. 54.1).

160

Composite Citations in Antiquity

for new contexts. This essay will look at examples from 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians. Within these three letters, combined or conflated citations have been identified by some scholars in 1 Cor. 2.9, 1 Cor. 14.21, 1 Cor. 15.54-55, 2 Cor. 6.16-18, and Gal. 3.10 (and possibly 3.13). These do not all reflect the same clarity, type or extent of conflation. The similarities as well as the differences deserve attention. Starting from the most elaborate example we will work towards the subtlest examples and then summarize our observations at the end. 2. 2 Corinthians 6.16-18: Leviticus 26.11-12/Ezekiel 37.27, Isaiah 52.11, Ezekiel 20.34, 2 Kingdoms 7.14, and 2 Kingdoms 7.8 This composite citation is the most elaborate example within these letters. Whereas each of the other examples in this chapter consists in the bringing together of just two texts, here we find five or six Old Testament texts that are brought together into what could pass for one extended citation. Before examining the citation we need to address the question of the disputed nature of the passage in which it is found. The authenticity of 2 Cor. 6.14–7.1 has been doubted by many scholars.3 It has been noted that one could skip directly from 6.13 to 7.2 (from the reference to Paul’s heart to the Corinthians’ hearts) without sensing that anything was missing, while the text itself strikes many modern scholars as something of a disruption in the flow of thought. Many also feel this section does not cohere well with Paul’s spirit and theology as found elsewhere in this and his other letters. In a related development, after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls scholars noted that this passage seems to have much in common with strands of thought found in that literature. Since the beginning of the nineteenth century there have been five main approaches to the question of the nature of this passage: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

a non-Pauline interpolation; an interpolation from Paul’s previous letter; an interpolation from a dislocated portion of 1 Corinthians; a dislocated part of 2 Corinthians; a paragraph written by Paul for its present context.4

3.  See, e.g., the discussion in M. E. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2004), pp. 29–34; R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC, 40; Dallas: Word, 1998), pp. 191–92. 4.  W. J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6.14–7.1 (JSNTSup, 85; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), p. 19.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

161

Balla points out that, ‘even if one agreed that a non-Pauline text is used by Paul here, one might argue that he uses the Old Testament at least in a secondary way: he chose to incorporate material that contains Old Testament quotations’.5 While certainty is not fully achievable it is taken here that the passage was probably written by Paul either for this letter to the Corinthians or originally for a different context and incorporated here by the apostle himself.6 The features of the citation are generally consistent with features of Paul’s combined citations elsewhere in his letters.7 Webb argues that in this passage Paul ‘draws together a mosaic of Old Testament quotations: (1) Ezek. 37.27 cited with influence from Lev. 26.11-12; (2) Isa. 52.11; (3) Ezek. 20.34, et al.; (4) 2 Sam. 7.14 with influence from Isa. 43.6’.8 It is a challenge to decide whether the series of texts cited by Paul are presented as one composite citation, or multiple citations, with at least one still being a composite citation.9 Within the quoted material that stretches from v. 16 to v. 18 there are three citation formulae: καθὼς εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι10 at the start in v. 16, λέγει κύριος in the middle of v. 17, and λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ at the very end of v. 18.11 In this and other ways, the passage ‘gives sure signs of having 5.  P. Balla, ‘2 Corinthians’, in D. A. Carson and G. K. Beale (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), pp. 753–83 (769). 6.  See the discussion in Thrall, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 25–36; and M. J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 14–25. On the other hand, Koch takes the material in 2 Cor. 6.16-18 to be part of non-Pauline material inserted into the letter at some point in the textual tradition (running from 6.14–7.1) and therefore omits it from his discussion. See D.-A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT, 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), p. 24 n. 43. 7.  See the discussion in Stanley, Language of Scripture, pp. 217–30. 8.  Webb, Returning Home, p. 32. 9.  See Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 217. 10.  Thrall points out that this introductory formula ‘is found nowhere else in the New Testament but has a Qumran counterpart in CD 6.13; 8.9. It is not unlike his own phraseology in 4.6, and in chaps. 3–6 he introduces quotations in various ways without restricting himself to any one formula. We do not need to suppose that he is dependent here on the terminology of Qumran’ (Thrall, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 477). 11.  Harris suggests, ‘there are three OT quotations (v. 16d, e, f; v. 17a, c; vv. 17d, 18a, b)’ and that ‘the three quotation formulae [are] placed symmetrically: at the beginning (v. 16c) and at the end (v. 18c) of the unit, and at the center (v. 17b)

162

Composite Citations in Antiquity

been knit together ahead of time into a tightly woven rhetorical unit rather than being thrown together haphazardly in the moment of dictation’.12 Table 7.1. Comparison of 2 Cor. 6.16-18 and Parallel Texts 2 Cor. 6.18-18

Lev. 26.11-12; Isa. 52.11 τίς δὲ συγκατάθεσις 26.11-12 καὶ θήσω τὴν ναῷ θεοῦ μετὰ διαθήκην/σκηνήν14 εἰδώλων; ἡμεῖς γὰρ μου ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ ναὸς θεοῦ ἐσμεν οὐ βδελύξεται ἡ ζῶντος, καθὼς ψυχή μου ὑμᾶς εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ ἔσομαι ὑμῶν θεός καὶ καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθέ μου καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῶν λαός. θεὸς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μου λαός. 17 52.11 διὸ ἐξέλθατε ἀπόστητε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν ἀπόστητε ἐξέλθατε καὶ ἀφορίσθητε, ἐκεῖθεν καὶ λέγει κύριος, καὶ ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε ἐξέλθατε ἅπτεσθε· κἀγὼ ἐκ μέσου αὐτῆς/ αὐτῶν ἀφορίσθητε εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς 18 οἱ φέροντες τὰ καὶ ἔσομαι ὑμῖν εἰς πατέρα καὶ ὑμεῖς σκεύη κυρίου ἔσεσθέ μοι εἰς υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας, λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ.

Ezek. 37.27;13 20.34 37.27 ἒσται ἡ κατασκήνωσίς μου ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἒσομαι αὐτοῖς θεός, καὶ αὐτοί μου ἒσονται λαός.

2 Kgdms 7.8, 14

7.8 καὶ νῦν τάδε ἐρεῖς τῷ δούλῳ μου Δαυιδ τάδε λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ ἔλαβόν σε ἐκ τῆς μάνδρας τῶν 20.34 καὶ ἐξάξω ὑμᾶς προβάτων τοῦ εἶναί σε εἰς ἡγούμενον ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν μου εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς ἐπὶ τὸν Ισραηλ ἐκ τῶν χωρῶν οὗ διεσκορπίσθητε 7.14 ἐν αὐταῖς ἐν χειρὶ ἐγὼ ἔσομαι κραταιᾷ καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα βραχίονι ὑψηλῷ καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται καὶ ἐν θυμῷ μοι εἰς υἱόν καὶ ἐὰν κεχυμένῳ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀδικία αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐλέγξω αὐτὸν ἐν ῥάβδῳ ἀνδρῶν καὶ ἐν ἁφαῖς υἱῶν ἀνθρώπων

of the middle quotation’. He also suggests the ‘similarity of thought between v. 16e, f in the first citation and v. 18a, b in the third is also noteworthy’ (Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 493). 12.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 217. 13.  Some MSS conform to 2 Corinthians. 14.  While Rahlfs’ edition of the LXX, following A B and some other miniscule and versional support reads διαθήκην, the Göttingen LXX reads σκηνήν, with the support of F M V O′’-29 C′’ b d f s t-84 z-68 (J. W. Wevers and U. Quast (eds.), Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vol. II.2, Leviticus [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986], p. 284). Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 219, argues that ‘the breadth of support for the second reading makes it highly probable that the latter text could have been available to Paul in the first century C.E.’ and that Paul’s wording is best explained as a revision of such a Vorlage.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

163

All of the texts are consistently presented as direct address from God to his people. Indeed in Lev. 26.11-12/Ezek. 37.27, Ezek. 20.34, and 2 Kgdms 7.14 the Lord speaks in the first person singular (and he was the one identified as speaking in 2 Kgdms 7.8). But in the original context of Isa. 52.11 it is not clear who is speaking. In this combined citation, however, the two parts from Isa. 52.11 are separated by the introduction of the citation formula λέγει κύριος, which thereby conforms that text to the others as direct divine speech also. So there are clear signs of editorial activity in various parts of the citation. This text is filled with a series of conjunctions, some of which appear between material from different sources. The working definition of a composite citation suggested that the fusing together of texts ‘must not include conjunctions that break between the two fused texts (e.g., καί, καὶ πάλιν, etc.)’.15 However, it was recognized that ‘[i]n some instances, the presence of a conjunction within a citation will need to be examined more closely in order to determine if the syntax is broken’. As in the case of Barn. 6.6, discussed by Adams and Ehorn, there are various factors that complicate the assessment here but a sufficient number suggest that this should be considered an extended composite citation.16 As we shall see, the opening material seems to reflect a modified version of both Lev. 26.11-12 and Ezek. 37.27. The καί that comes before ἔσομαι in v. 16 is found in both texts. The material from Isa. 52.11 in v. 17 is introduced with the inferential conjunction διό, suggesting it was an exhortation tied to the prior material. The contents from Isa. 52.11 are also presented in inverted order with a new citation formula embedded in the middle of it. The material from Ezek. 20.34 begins with κἀγώ but the καί comes from the Ezekiel text. The καί that introduces the material from 2 Kgdms 7.14 in v. 18 has been added to the text, but it introduces ἔσομαι and the καί fits the pattern for καὶ ἔσομαι found in v. 16 (and in Lev. 26.11-12 and Ezek. 37.27). If a reader/hearer happened to know the texts well enough to identify them by their contents, they might have recognized the introduction of a new text with or without a conjunction. If they did not know the texts very well they would not have been able to discern whether any of the conjunctions functioned to signal a transition or not. It seems that even the original or other ancient readers who knew the original source texts well could not have been certain about whether or not Paul was presenting them as one complex citation or as two or three different (complex) citations. 15.  See Adams and Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation?’, p. 4. 16.  Adams and Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation?’, pp. 5–7.

164

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Furthermore, this passage contains some of the criteria proposed for detecting early Christian use of a testimonia collection. The criteria include ‘quotations that deviate considerably from known scriptural texts (e.g., LXX, LXX revisions, or the MT)’, ‘composite quotations’, ‘editorial or interpretive comments indicative of a collection (e.g., a “thesis” heading followed by proof-texts)’, and ‘evident lack of awareness of the biblical context of a quotation’.17 The composite material from Lev. 26.11-12 and Ezek. 37.27 fulfill the first criteria. Paul’s line ἡμεῖς γὰρ ναὸς θεοῦ ἐσμεν ζῶντος in v. 16 may play the role of a thesis heading for the cited material that follows. And since Lev. 26.11-12 and 2 Kgdms 7.14 reflect on the establishment of a physical sanctuary in the past and Ezek. 37.27 and Isa. 52.11 seem to look forward to one being established in the future (and Ezek. 20.34 is about returning to the land of Israel after the exile), one might conclude that the biblical context has been overlooked or ignored. On the other hand, this composite text does not meet some of the other key criteria for a testimonia collection.18 Since the different kinds of editorial work we see here are consistent with Paul’s own work elsewhere, it seems just as likely that here we are dealing with Paul’s employment of his own collection of texts put together to address the question of God’s dwelling with his people.19 Having introduced some key issues relating to the passage as a whole, we now turn to a discussion of each of the source texts within it, treating each one in turn. a. Leviticus 26.11-12 and/or Ezekiel 37.27 in 2 Corinthians 6.16 Scholars are remarkably divided on the primary source behind v. 16. As summarized by Webb, At least six views exist: (1) only Lev. 26.11-12 is cited, (2) Lev. 26.11-12 is cited with influence from Ezek. 37.27; (3) both Lev. 26.11-12 and Ezek. 37.27 are equally in view, (4) Ezek. 37.27 is cited with influence from Lev. 26.11-12; (5) Lev. 26.12; Ezek. 37.27 along with MT Exod. 25.8 for ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς, and (6) Lev. 26.12; Ezek. 37.27 along with Jer. 32.38.20

17.  See M. C. Albl, ‘The Testimonia Hypothesis and Composite Citations’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 182– 202 (184). 18.  Including ‘false attributions’ and, more importantly, ‘use of the same series of texts in independent authors’ and ‘use of the same exegetical comments in independent authors’ (Albl, ‘The Testimonia Hypothesis and Composite Citations’, p. 184). 19.  See Albl, ‘The Testimonia Hypothesis and Composite Citations’, p. 186; Koch, Die Schrift, pp. 98–101; Stanley, Language of Scripture, pp. 73–78. 20.  Webb, Returning Home, p. 34.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

165

The key debate is whether Paul’s primary text in v. 16 is Lev. 26.11-12 or Ezek. 37.27. While neither text has the expression ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς, they both have what translators might call ‘dynamic equivalence’, with Ezek. 37.27 LXX reading ἒσται ἡ κατασκήνωσίς μου ἐν αὐτοῖς and MSS of Lev. 26.11 LXX reading θήσω τὴν σκηνήν μου ἐν ὑμῖν.21 Of the potential Old Testament intertexts, the Leviticus text is the only one that also has Paul’s wording, καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω. It is the Ezekiel text that, as in 2 Cor. 6.16, has the third person plural pronouns and form of εἰμί and that also reflects an eschatological context referring to the establishment of a new covenant. Stanley observes that changing the pronouns of a text is a common Pauline practice (as well as being common in other quotation practices of the time), which leads him to conclude, after comparing all the details of the relevant texts, that Paul’s text here is ‘the product of a careful reshaping of Lev 26.11-12 [as reflected in the Göttingen LXX] to suit a particular argumentative context (note v. 16b, ἡμεῖς γὰρ ναὸς θεοῦ ἐσμεν ζῶντος) under the influence of a thoroughly Christian view of existence, and not a loose conflation of Lev 26.11-12 with Ezek 37.27’.22 As Stanley admits, the explanation for why Paul would have changed the second person pronoun (ὑμῖν) in Lev. 26.11-12 to the third person plural forms (αὐτοῖς) in 2 Cor. 6.16 ‘is no easy matter’ since ‘the secondperson plurals of Lev 26.11-12 would appear preferable in the present context, since the following verses are framed entirely in second-person address’. He also admits that ‘the Ezekiel passage might have influenced the casting of the present citation into third-person speech’.23 21.  Many scholars have treated Rahlfs’s edition of the LXX as though it represented the Septuagint, and have noted that its expression, θήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου ἐν ὑμῖν, provides a poor parallel to Paul’s text. Webb (Returning Home, p. 35), for example, wrote that ‘[c]onsidering the quotation’s form, the first part, ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς, finds no exact parallel in either Lev. 26.11-12 or Ezek. 37.27. Neither passage has the verb ἐνοικέω in the LXX—Ezek. 37.27 has ἡ κατασκήνωσίς μου; whereas Lev. 26.11 has τὴν διαθήκην μου. Clearly, however, the LXX Ezek. 37.27, “my dwelling place” (ἡ κατασκήνωσίς μου) is conceptually much closer to ἐνοικέω than the LXX Lev. 26.11, “my covenant” (τὴν διαθήκην μου). Only if one were to argue that the quotation has come strictly from the MT (which has ‫ ִמ ְׁש ָּכנִ י‬in both cases), could Lev. 26.11 be the source of this portion’. Stanley (Language of Scripture, p. 219) recognizes and follows the Göttingen LXX reading, θήσω τὴν σκηνήν μου ἐν ὑμῖν, and argues that ‘the breadth of support’ for this reading ‘makes it highly probable that the latter text could have been available to Paul in the first century C.E.’ and that Paul’s wording is best explained as a revision of such a Vorlage. 22.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 219. 23.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 220 n. 135.

166

Composite Citations in Antiquity

The idea that both texts have influenced Paul’s thinking has grown in popularity. Margaret Thrall argues that In v. 16d there is a conflation of [the] two texts…. Paul’s ἐνοικήσω is the equivalent of Ezekiel’s κατασκήνωσις (‘dwelling’): perhaps the alteration is a reminiscence of 1 Cor 3.16. The third plurals also come from Ezekiel, whilst the ἐμπεριπατήσω comes from Leviticus. Perhaps there is implicit use of two texts in order to ground the argument in the Law as well as in the Prophets. It is interesting that the promise ‘I will be their God’ is ‘the ancient language of covenant’, and that both texts, in their original context, are preceded by an allusion to covenant (Ezek 37.26; Lev 26.11). Paul sees these scriptural promises fulfilled in the community he has founded as the messenger of the new covenant.24

Webb follows Hughes in thinking that ‘the contextual emphasis on the new temple (2 Cor. 6.16) almost certainly requires Ezek. 37.27 to be the source’.25 One wonders if Paul himself might have seen Ezek. 37.27 as a postexilic prophetic and eschatological retrieval and reaffirmation of the hope originally expressed in Lev. 26.11-12. He may have recognized an organic relationship between the two texts that could be reinforced by producing a version of the Leviticus text that incorporated elements of the version found in Ezekiel. In this line of thinking the key is not to decide which of the passages is best considered the source of Paul’s wording, but how his wording (and the structuring of the near context) reflects his understanding of the reality to which they both pointed in their own ways. Stanley suggests ‘[t]he quotation in v. 16b supplies a biblical foundation for the assertion in v. 16a (ἡμεῖς γὰρ ναὸς θεοῦ ἐσμεν ζῶντος), while the thought of vv. 17-18 is picked up and applied in 7.1 (ταύτας οὖν ἔχοντες τὰς ἐπαγγελίας, ἀγαπητοί, καθαρίσωμεν ἑαυτούς)’.26 The focus in v. 16a on the people as God’s temple suggests the relevance of ‘the eschatological new temple context of the Ezekiel passage’, which also matches ‘the other quotations in the catena and the rest of 6.14–7.1’.27 Webb is right that, ‘[t]he first half, emphasizing Yahweh’s temple presence, ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω, is essential to the new covenant. In Ezek. 37.26, the verse immediately preceding the material quoted, Yahweh promises, “I will make a covenant of peace with them; 24.  Thrall, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 477. 25.  Webb, Returning Home, p. 37. 26.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 217 n. 127. 27.  Webb, Returning Home, p. 37.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

167

it will be an everlasting covenant (‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫)ּב ִרית‬ ְ with them” (Ezek. 37.26).’28 It is remarkable that, in the version of Lev. 26.11-12 that Paul most likely has in mind, God promises to place his tabernacle/tent in Israel’s midst (θήσω τὴν σκηνήν μου ἐν ὑμῖν) and Ezek. 37.26-27 seems to have a similar idea when God promised to place his ‘holy things’ (θήσω τὰ ἅγιά μου, v. 26) in their midst and says his shelter or lodging (ἡ κατασκήνωσίς) is among them (v. 27). Thanks to Paul’s introductory thesis statement in v. 16 (ἡμεῖς … ναὸς θεοῦ ἐσμεν ζῶντος), however, his composite text indicates God will dwell and walk ‘in them’ (ἐν αὐτοῖς, in this case understood to refer to believers) rather than doing so ‘among them’ through the instrumentality of his sanctuary. It is because God dwells in them as his eschatological temple and people, because of their holy status, that the Corinthians must avoid all contaminating impurities (2 Cor. 6.14-15, 17; 7.1). b. Isaiah 52.11 in 2 Corinthians 6.17 Paul moves on to cite from Isa. 52.11 without giving any clear indication he has moved from one Old Testament intertext to another. The conceptual background to the Isaiah text is similar to that of Ezekiel. As Balla summarizes, ‘Isaiah 52 concerns God’s promise to his people that they are to return from the Babylonian exile (see, e.g., 52:3)’.29 In the context we read the announcement of ‘good news’ (Isa. 52.7 LXX, εὐαγγελιζομένου/ εὐαγγελιζόμενος) and the call to praise the Lord since ‘they see the return of the Lord to Zion’ and ‘the Lord has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem’ (52.8-9, NRSV).30 The call for Israel to purify itself was addressed to those ‘who carry the vessels of the Lord’ (v. 11) and in light of the expectation that they would experience the presence of the Lord: ‘the Lord will go before you, and the God of Israel will be your rear guard’ (v. 12).31 This all leads to a discussion of the Lord’s servant in Isa. 52.13–53.12, which seems to be presented as part of God’s approach to dealing with the restoration of Israel from its exilic experience. Paul quotes from two parts of Isa. 52.11, in inverted order, introducing the quote with the inferential conjunction, διό, to provide a more local 28.  Webb, Returning Home, pp. 37–38. 29.  Balla, ‘2 Corinthians’, p. 770. 30.  Cf. Balla, ‘2 Corinthians’, p. 770. 31.  For a discussion of the importance of purity issues in 1 Corinthians, see R. E. Ciampa and B. S. Rosner, ‘The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians: A Biblical/ Jewish Approach’, NTS 52/2 (2006), pp. 205–18, and the fuller exposition in Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), pp. 21–22 and passim.

168

Composite Citations in Antiquity

transition between the promises and imperatives. It is not clear why Paul changes the order (on the assumption he did so intentionally rather than as a result of a faulty memory). Harris suggests Paul chose to ‘place the intervening phrase καὶ ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε that related to things ([τὸ] ἀκαθάρτου) after the two imperatives that related to people (αὐτῶν)’.32 By placing the imperative with αὐτῶν as the object of the preposition33 (the reference to people highlighted by Harris), Paul has two sequential occurrences of αὐτῶν (one towards the end of v. 16 and then the one near the beginning of v. 17) that clearly have very different referents: that in v. 16 refers to the Israelites with whom God affirms his covenant relationship while that in v. 17 refers to the Babylonian people (or perhaps to Paul’s opponents), rather than to the addressees of God’s promises. It seems Paul’s argument depends on the contrast between two different sets of ‘them’ (αὐτῶν): the unbelievers (ἀπίστοις) mentioned in v. 14 (and evoked again with the singular ἀπίστου in v. 15), and the believers (πίστοις) not named, but assumed by contrast in v. 14 and mentioned explicitly (πιστῷ) in v. 15, to whom God reaffirms the covenant formula. By changing the order of the clauses in Isa. 52.11 Paul emphasizes the importance of coming out from one community (referred to by the αὐτῶν in v. 17) in order to be God’s covenant community (referenced by the αὐτῶν of v. 16) to whom the words of the covenant formula apply. Stanley is essentially correct that Paul’s changes were ‘introduced to improve the rhetorical effectiveness of the entire citation unit 2 Cor 6.16-18’.34 This use of inverted order is consistent with observations made elsewhere about the same phenomenon.35 Paul was ‘able to construct out of the second clause of Isa 52.11 an Imperative that flows smoothly from the Indicative of v. 16, while preserving the basic sense of the clause that he thus replaces’.36 As Harris points out, ‘[b]y omitting the phrase οἱ φέροντες τὰ σκεύη κυρίου [at the end of Isa. 52.11] Paul makes the three imperatives applicable to

32.  Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 507. 33.  It remains unclear if Paul’s Vorlage read ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῆς or ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν. See the discussion in Stanley, Language of Scripture, pp. 223–24. 34.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 223. 35.  See Beentjes, ‘Inverted Quotations in the Bible’, p. 523; S. M. Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in Plutarch’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, GraecoRoman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 35–56 (44), and, in the same volume, C. D. Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, pp. 203–9 (206) (‘Transpositions of words or phrases and substitutions of one word for another are also used fairly often to improve the literary and/or rhetorical styling of the citation’). 36.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 223.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

169

Christians’.37 The text no longer refers to Levites or other temple workers who would carry the Lord’s vessels, but the associated concern for purity is applied to Corinthian and other believers. In the context, that purity is now construed in terms of moral purity and separation from idolatry and idolaters (6.14-16a; 7.1), rather than in terms of ritual purity. c. Ezekiel 20.34 in 2 Corinthians 6.17 Paul now includes a fragment from Ezek. 20.34 in his citation. In the Old Greek the fragment begins with καί. Paul (or his Vorlage) has changed that to κἀγώ. Otherwise it is the same (so that rather than καὶ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς, we read κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς). As Stanley suggests, ‘it requires little imagination to understand why this particular passage from Ezekiel came to Paul’s mind as a complement to the excerpt from Isa 52.11 that he has just cited in v. 17a-c. Both passages refer to a coming restoration of Yahweh’s people to the land of Israel, and both use the deliverance from Egypt as a paradigm to depict the events to come’.38 Furthermore, ‘it is in precisely these two verses (Isa 52.11 and Ezek 20.34) that the subject of the departure of Yahweh’s people from their place of captivity is first broached in each passage’.39 He suggests Paul might have ‘even heard the two verses used together in the synagogue to support the common Jewish expectation of the ultimate return of Yahweh’s people to their ancestral home’.40 Paul had mentioned the radical incompatibility between idols and believers. Ezekiel 20 recounts Israel’s involvement with idols despite God’s repeated warnings and leads up to a charge either to listen to God or go serve idols after all (see 20.7-8, 16, 18, 24, 31, 39).41 In the midst of the complaints about Israel’s involvement with idols and guarantees of judgment (esp. in vv. 35-36), Ezekiel 20 also reports promises that resonate with those found in the other intertexts in this composite citation. God promises, ‘I will be king over you’ (Ezek. 20.33), and says I ‘will bring you within the bond of the covenant’. So God would reestablish his people in covenant relation with him as their king. In this way his promise to receive them again (κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς) assumed the prerequisite of their being extricated from their exilic and idolatrous context and condition. It is worth noting that the precise form of the verb used by Paul, εἰσδέξομαι, is used consistently in the Old Greek to reference the nation’s 37.  Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 508. 38.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 225. 39.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 226. 40.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 226. 41.  Interestingly, Ezekiel 20 also cites Lev. 18.5, the text that Paul cites in Gal. 3.12, three times (see ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς in LXX Ezek. 20.11, 13, 21).

170

Composite Citations in Antiquity

eschatological (post-exilic) restoration (see Hos. 8.10; Mic. 4.6; Zeph. 3.19; Zech. 10.8, 10; Jer. 23.3; Ezek. 11.17; 20.34; 22.20). In Ezek. 20.34 the new exodus tradition is developed to emphasize the wide range of (pagan) contexts from which Israel would be retrieved: ‘As the first exodus concerned the deliverance of the people, groaning under forced labor in the one land of Egypt, so the second exodus will go further, when it will bring about the gathering of the people who are scattered in many lands’.42 In Paul’s composite text, God’s welcome for his new covenant people demands and depends upon their separation from the moral uncleanness that surrounds them (reading this snippet of Ezek. 20.34 as part of the commands from Isa. 52.11). d. 2 Kingdoms 7.8, 14 (and parallels) in 2 Corinthians 6.18 As Paul approaches the end of his composite citation(s) he cites a modi­ fied form of the covenant formula found in 2 Kgdms 7.14 (cf. 1 Chron. 17.13; 28.6). Since he has been dealing with new covenant and restoration from exile expectations and promises, it must have seemed appropriate to conclude the main body of the citation by invoking the text on which much of the theology of the others is predicated: the text where God promises to establish an unending dynasty in covenant relationship with him. In 2 Kgdms 7.14 the father–son language evokes the language of the ancient suzerain–vassal treaty by which the suzerain (or ‘great king’) established the treaty with the vassal king and referred to his vassal kings as his ‘sons’.43 The biblical text adopts the second-millennium treaty form as a theological instrument for understanding God’s relationship with the king of Israel (and then with the people of Israel). Paul adapts the text by changing the third-person singular pronouns (αὐτῷ/αὐτός) to second-person plurals (ὑμῖν/ὑμεῖς), and then modifying the verb to match (ἔσται/ἔσεσθε) and then adds καὶ θυγατέρας after υἱούς.44 42.  W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (2 vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), p. 1:415. 43.  M. Weinfeld, ‘Covenant, Davidic’, IDBSup, pp. 188–192 (190–92); M. L. Barré, ‘Treaties in the ANE’, ABD 6:653–56 (655), citing F. C. Fensham, ‘Father and Son as Terminology for Treaty and Covenant’, in H. Goedicke (ed.), Near Eastern Studies in honor of W. F. Albright (London: Johns Hopkins, 1971), p. 125. See also P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982). 44.  Stanley points out that the extent of Paul’s adaptations leads some scholars to conclude it is not a citation (Language of Scripture, p. 228 n. 154). He argues that ‘the fact that Paul closes the verse with the same λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ that introduces the divine promise in 2 Kgdms 7.8-16 is enough to prove that Paul was aware of the broader context of the verse that he quotes here’ (p. 228). That assumes Paul did not already find the combination witnessed here in some prior interpretation.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

171

This seems to reflect a ‘democratizing’ tendency. Some see this as a reflection of Paul’s desire to emphasize the place of women and men equally in God’s plan.45 Although the near context and 2 Corinthians as a whole does not suggest this was a pressing issue for Paul, we know from several parts of 1 Corinthians that the place of women in the new covenant community had been an issue in Corinth (see the commentaries on 1 Cor. 7, 11, 14). Harris suggests ‘[t]his addition must have special significance since the word θυγάτηρ occurs nowhere else in the Pauline letters where the term υἱοί regularly embraces both male and female believers’.46 Thrall suggests the addition of καὶ θυγατέρας ‘may be occasioned by the Old Testament promises of the restoration of Israel in which “daughters” are often mentioned with “sons” (Isa 43.6; 49.22; 60.4)’.47 Harris, like most scholars, sees the influence of Isa. 43.6 here: καὶ θυγατέρας probably stems from Isa. 43:6 (LXX), which reads, ‘Bring my sons from a distant land and my daughters from the ends of the earth’. This verse and the previous one refer to the second exodus, so that this addition to the quotation from 2 Sam. 7:14 has the effect of linking the Davidic promise with the ‘restoration’ theology of Ezek. 20:34.48

That Paul would include texts from 2 Kingdoms 7 in his composite citation is remarkable inasmuch as the chapter is about David’s intention to build a temple for God and indicates that his son would actually complete the task. Paul’s understanding is that in the new covenant context the only temple to be built is the church, since it now constitutes God’s temple, God’s dwelling place. Paul completes his composite citation with the citation formula found in 2 Kgdms 7.8, λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ. That expression is also found in numerous other places in the Old Greek,49 but the fact that it is used to introduce the passage that Paul had just incorporated into the final part Stanley points out we have ‘no evidence’ of such a prior combination, but given the amount of evidence that will forever remain lost we cannot speak with great certainty on the issue. 45.  See Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 510, and references in Webb, Returning Home, p. 56 n. 1. 46.  Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 510 n. 86. 47.  Thrall, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 479. She cites G. K. Beale, ‘Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5–7’, NTS 35/4 (1989), pp. 550–81 (572). 48.  Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 510. 49.  Cf. 1 Chron. 17.7; Nah. 2.14; Hag. 1.2, 5, 7, 9; 2.4, 6-9, 11, 23; Zech. 1.3-4, 14, 16-17; 2.12; 3.7, 9-10; 4.6; 5.4; 6.12; 7.9, 13; 8.2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 14, 17, 19-20, 23;

172

Composite Citations in Antiquity

of his citation strongly suggests he used it because he found it there (and appropriate to this context). One notes that outside of its appearance in 2 Kgdms 7.8 and 1 Chron. 17.7 the expression (an interesting translation of ‫ )יהוה צבאות‬appears exclusively in prophetic texts (the books of Nahum, Zechariah, Malachi and Jeremiah), usually (although not exclusively) in contexts expressing God’s determination to reestablish Israel and judge their enemies. The term παντοκράτωρ suggests the one who controls or rules over all things (an idea that is doubly reinforced by the term κύριος in the expression κύριος παντοκράτωρ) and thus in these contexts (and Paul’s) suggests God is fully in control of history and that his people can trust in his promises regarding their future in his care. e. Putting the Pieces Together Greg Beale emphasizes the importance of being able to account ‘for the presence of the Old Testament citations in 6.16c-18 and the positive summary of these texts in 7.1 as inherited “promises” upon which the readership is commanded to act, if indeed, they really possess them (cf. 2 Cor 13.5)’.50 He points out that ‘the six generally agreed upon Old Testament references refer in their respective contexts to God’s promise to restore exiled Israel to their land’ and argues that this observation should lead us ‘to view vv. 16-18 as a continuation of the restoration promises to Israel quoted by Paul in 6.2 and even earlier in 5.17, which were utilized as prooftexts to support Paul’s appeal for the Corinthians to be reconciled’.51 In general this analysis fits well with Albl’s discussion of testimonia collections, the role of proof-texts within them,52 and their tendency to ignore or suppress the original scriptural context ‘to create a new theological context in which scripture is portrayed as speaking harmoniously in order to “prove” ’ the point of the collection.53 In fact, this composite citation shares a striking similarity with a key theme Albl finds in composite quotations in the Epistle of Barnabas, Clement, and Irenaeus. In those texts, the thesis around which the testimonia collections are gathered ‘posited that God does not require literal sacrifices or fasts, but rather “spiritual” or metaphorical sacrifices’.54 11.4; 12.4; 13.7; Mal. 1.4, 6, 8-11, 13-14; 2.2, 4, 8, 16; 3.1, 5, 7, 10-12, 17, 19, 21; Jer. 5.14; 23.16. 50.  Beale, ‘Reconciliation’, p. 569. 51.  Beale, ‘Reconciliation’, p. 569. See there his further analysis of how this passage fits into the larger structure of 2 Corinthians. 52.  Albl, ‘The Testimonia Hypothesis and Composite Citations’, pp. 182–84. 53.  Albl, ‘The Testimonia Hypothesis and Composite Citations’, p. 201. 54.  Albl, ‘The Testimonia Hypothesis and Composite Citations’, p. 201.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

173

In this earlier Pauline collection the main thesis has to do with Christian believers serving as a spiritual temple (and not requiring the literal temple or sanctuaries to which the original texts referred). The Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel 37 texts were not about God living ‘among’ the Israelites via his sanctuary, but about God living ‘in’ Christians wherever they are (including Corinth). Isaiah 52.11 is not a warning to those carrying literal temple utensils to avoid cultic impurity, but about all Christians being separate from unclean idols. Ezekiel 20.34 is not about God receiving the Israelites back into the literal land of Israel, but about God welcoming Christians, his new metaphorical temple, as they separate themselves from unclean influences. 2 Kingdoms 7.14 is not a promise related to the establishment of the literal temple discussed in 2 Samuel 7, but is fulfilled in the lives of Corinthian and other Christians as they live out their identity as God’s temple. Webb points out that the passage’s literary structure ‘seems to override the exact boundaries of the quotations (that is, source structure), making the movement between quotations hardly noticeable’.55 He proposes the following chiastic structure, which I find persuasive: as God said, Presence: ‘I will live in them and walk among them’ A Promise of Relationship (covenant formula): ‘I will be their God, and they shall be my people’ (Lev. 26.11-12 / Ezek. 37.27) B Imperative of Separation: ‘Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them’ …says the Lord, B’ Imperative of Separation: ‘and touch nothing unclean’ (Isa. 52.11) Presence: ‘then I will welcome you’ (Ezek. 20.34) A’ Promise of Relationship (covenant formula): ‘and I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters’ (2 Kgdms 7.14) says the Lord Almighty (2 Kgdms 7.8).56

{

{

While Beale emphasizes the associations with the postexilic restoration of Israel and the need to separate from idolatry to be reconciled to God, Webb emphasizes the related and inseparable concepts of a new covenant and second exodus/return traditions which he sees as threads running through the whole passage: 55.  Webb, Returning Home, p. 32. Here Webb refers to ‘quotations’ where we would describe the text as an extended composite quotation. 56.  Webb, Returning Home, p. 32.

174

Composite Citations in Antiquity New covenant and second exodus/return traditions were found most clearly in the Old Testament catena, composed of four quotations. Quotation 1 (Ezek. 37.27) explicitly recounts the new covenant formula, which in its Old Testament context is tied to the theme of exilic/eschatological return. Quotation 2 (Isa. 52.11) expresses new exodus and exilic return ideas (the ἐξέλθατε imperative reiterates 6.14a and so dominates the entire fragment), but with no explicit discussion of the new covenant. The third quotation (Ezek. 20.34, et al.) extends the picture of the returning exiles and in its Old Testament context(s) is found in succession with other new covenant promises. The fourth quotation, while from the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7.14), has been democratized through new covenant axioms and molded with material from Isa. 43.6 to complete the return imagery.57

The evidence certainly supports Stanley’s affirmation that this passage manifests ‘the consummate artistry with which Paul molds the wording of the biblical text to reflect his own understanding and use of Scripture’58 and suggests this is the type of passage where ‘the revisions are so intertwined and the results so artistic that a significant amount of time and thought must have gone into their production’.59 3. 1 Corinthians 15.54-55: Isaiah 25.8 and Hosea 13.14 In 1 Cor. 15.54-55 Paul ties together parts of Isa. 25.8 and Hos. 13.14 to form one combined quotation. Table 7.2. Comparison of 1 Cor. 15.45-55, Isa. 25.8, and Hos. 13.14 Isa. 25.8 LXX κατέπιεν ὁ θάνατος ἰσχύσας [καὶ πάλιν ἀφεῖλεν ὁ θεὸς πᾶν δάκρυον ἀπὸ παντὸς προσώπου]

1 Cor. 15.54-55 τότε γενήσεται ὁ λόγος ὁ γεγραμμένος· κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος εἰς νῖκος. ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ νῖκος; ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον;

Hos. 13.14 LXX [ἐκ χειρὸς ᾅδου ῥύσομαι αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐκ θανάτου λυτρώσομαι αὐτούς] ποῦ ἡ δίκη σου θάνατε; ποῦ τὸ κέντρον σου ᾅδη

57.  Webb, Returning Home, p. 176. See also p. 177 for another summary interpretation. Similarly, Balla, ‘2 Corinthians’, p. 770. As has been made clear above, Webb refers to the various intertexts as ‘citations’ while we see them as various parts of an extended composite citation. 58.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 219. Webb, Returning Home, p. 32, also recognizes the ‘striking degree of skill and design’ reflected in the passage. 59.  Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 206.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

175

As Stanley points out, ‘there is no evidence to suggest that anyone had combined these two passages from Isaiah and Hosea into a single citation prior to Paul’.60 Furthermore, ‘Paul gives his reader no indication that vv. 54b-55 might represent anything other than a continuous quotation from a single biblical passage’.61 Here, as is ‘typical of Paul’ the verses ‘have been knit together through a series of thoughtful adaptations to form a coherent, well-rounded rhetorical unit with a single, transparent theme’.62 The following two verses provide Paul’s commentary on the combined quotation. In v. 56 Paul comments on ‘Death’s sting/goad’ mentioned in v. 55 (from Hos. 13.14), asserting that it is sin, whose power is the law, and in v. 57 he comments on ‘the victory’ that had been mentioned in v. 54 (from Isa. 25.8) and reprised in v. 55 (in his adaptation of Hos. 13.14), asserting that the victory that had been taken from Death when it was swallowed up has been ‘given to us through our Lord Jesus Christ’. Verse 54 explains (metaphorically) how the earthly body becomes fit for heavenly existence at the Parousia and how it relates to God’s final victory over death: ‘When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory” ’. Death is vanquished by the resurrection. Paul supports this assertion with a quotation from Isa. 25.8. The verse from which Paul quotes is part of an oracle of salvation (Isa. 25.6-10a), which envisions God’s universal salvation of ‘all peoples’ (25.6, 7; cf. ‘all nations’ in 25.7) and the ultimate destruction of the power of death. The verse is frequently cited in rabbinic literature, where it is taken to be a divine promise that death would be no more in the age to come (Mo’ed Qaṭ. 3.9; Exod. Rab. 15.21; 30.3; Deut. Rab. 2.30; Lam. Rab. 1.41; Eccl. Rab. 1.7; b. Pesaḥ. 68a; b. Ketub. 30b). Paul’s ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory’ differs markedly from the LXX, which reads literally, ‘death, being strong [or having prevailed63], swallowed (them) up’ (the context suggests that the nations have been swallowed up by death). However, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus have variants, some of which are quite close to Paul’s citation,64 60.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 209. 61.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 209. 62.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 209. 63.  Following the NETS translation. 64.  According to the Göttingen LXX, Aquila reads, καταποντισει τον θανατον εις νικος; Symmachus reads, καταποθηναι ποιησει τον θανατον εις τελος; Theodotion reads κατεποθη ο θανατος εις νικος (J. Ziegler [ed.], Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vol. XIV, Isaias [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967], p. 208). Cf. Stanley, Language of Scripture, pp. 210–11.

176

Composite Citations in Antiquity

with Aquila and Theodotion both translating ‫ לנצח‬as εἰς νῖκος.65 Paul was probably following a pre-existing Greek text (Rev. 21.4 cites the same tradition).66 Alternatively, as Hays indicates, Paul may have altered δίκη (‘punishment/penalty’) in Hos. 13.14 LXX to νῖκος (‘victory’) and inserted the same word into his quotation of Isa. 25.8 to create a word link with the next verse.67 It is also possible that the Isaiah citation supplies the word νῖκος (‘victory’) to the Hosea text (see below). It is remarkable that the one term (victory/νῖκος) found in both parts of Paul’s citation is not actually found in our previously known text forms for either text. If a reader recognized that he was quoting from Isa. 25.8 in the first part and Hos. 13.14 in the second part, but did not realize Paul had altered the text, they might have been forgiven for thinking that Paul had brought the two texts together on the basis of gezerah shawa and their mutual use of the term ‘victory’. Of course both texts not only speak of death, but personify death (as swallowing up enemies or being swallowed up in Isa. 25.8 and as being subjected to a taunt in Hos. 13.14), and that commonality played a role in bringing them together, and perhaps in leading Paul to strengthen the ties between the two texts so that now each speaks of both death and victory. Paul takes two poetic texts addressing death’s role in God’s redemptive plans and creates a new three-line piece of poetry which celebrates death’s defeat in light of the resurrection. In the new piece of poetry we perceive that death has been caught up in a narrative of conflict in which it has finally lost its battle and victory has gone to its opponent. In Paul’s mind, the final destruction of death requires the resurrection of the dead. In citing Isaiah’s eschatological vision Paul ties God’s triumph over death (and universal salvation) to the resurrection of the body. For Paul, resurrection is the necessary outcome of what God has done in Christ and what he intends to do for his people. Paul’s personification of death, following the lead of both Isa. 25.8 and Hos. 13.14, depicts it not as the inevitable and benign fate of all humans but as ‘an alien, inimical 65.  Probably thanks to the influence of Jewish Aramaic. See ‘͗‫’נעח‬, HALOT 2:716 and Koch, Die Schrift, p. 62 n. 21, but also his further discussion on p. 63 n. 26. 66.  Koch, Die Schrift, p. 63: ‘Wiederum ist deutlich, dass Paulus bei der Anführung dieses Jes-Zitats weder sprachlich noch inhaltlich an die LXX-Übersetzung anknüpft, sondern eine Textfassung voraussetzt, die dem HT wesentlich naher steht. Die Nähe zu ’A (εἰς νῖκος) und auch zu Σ (καταποθῆναι), besonders aber die völlige Übereinstimmung mit Θ sind kaum als Zufall zu bewerten, sondern zeigen, dass Paulus hier weder frei variiert noch eigenständig ad hoc übersetzt. Vielmehr folgt er einer vorgegebenen, die LXX korrigierenden Vorlage, die auch auf die späteren Übersetzungen eingewirkt hat’. 67.  R. B. Hays, First Corinthians (Louisville: John Knox, 1997), p. 276.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

177

power’,68 nothing less than a tragedy. In the words of Isa. 25.7, death is ‘the shroud that is cast over all peoples, the sheet that is spread over all nations’. Death for Paul is a power that casts its ominous shadow over us all and must be defeated, not just removed. A key emphasis of the whole of 1 Corinthians 15 is that complete victory over God’s enemies requires the total defeat of death, ‘not a compromise in which death is allowed to have the body while some other aspect of the human being (the soul? the spirit?) goes marching on’.69 Paul’s quotation from Isa. 25.8 leads him to another Old Testament text about victory being taken from death as he celebrates God’s final victory over death, both in the resurrection of Christ and in its implications for all his people. He quotes from Hos. 13.14 and then comments on that verse to show the relationship between victory over death and victory over sin (and its use of the law). Like the first four lines in vv. 53-54, the two lines of v. 55 reflect a tight parallelism: ‘Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?’ 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. (NRSV) 55

Hosea 13.14 is part of a prophecy of judgment upon Ephraim: ‘The guilt of Ephraim is stored up, his sins are kept on record’ (Hos. 13.12). Verse 14 contains four rhetorical questions. The first two expect a negative answer: ‘Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from death?’ Paul quotes the last two, which act as a summons to personified Death and Sheol: ‘O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your destruction?’ (NRSV).70 In the LXX the lines read, ‘Where is your punishment/penalty, O death? Where is your sting, O Hades?’ 68.  M. C. de Boer, The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 (JSNTSup, 22; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), p. 184. 69.  N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), p. 358. 70.  The MT, LXX, and Paul’s citation exhibit various differences. Hebrew: ‘Where, O Death, are your plagues? Where, O Sheol, is your destruction?’ LXX: ‘Where, O Death, is your judgment? Where, O Hades, is your sting?’ 1 Cor. 15.55: ‘Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?’ Leaving aside minor word order differences which may be explained on stylistic or rhetorical grounds, compared to the LXX, Paul has ‘victory’ (νῖκος) instead of ‘judgment’ (δίκη) and ‘Death’ instead of ‘Hades’. It is difficult to imagine why the LXX translated Heb. ‫‘( דבר‬plague’) as ‘judgment’ in the first place. We are left to conjecture. Stanley, Language of Scripture, pp. 211–15, suggests that the LXX translators had a different non-Masoretic Vorlage (the LXX translation may reflect a reading of ‫‘[ דברך‬your

178

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Paul’s quotation of Hos. 13.14 raises the question of death’s ‘sting’. In Hosea the sting seems to be in synonymous parallelism with ‘plagues’ in the Hebrew text and ‘punishment/penalty’ in the LXX. In Paul’s citation ‘plagues/punishment’ is transformed into ‘victory’ so that there appears to be a synonymous parallelism between death’s ‘victory’ and its ‘sting’. Paul goes on to say that the sting of death is sin. If this is correct, it means that we should understand sin to be both death’s victory and death’s sting. Commenting on κέντρον (‘sting’), BDAG points out that Paul’s use of the imagery is ‘transcultural: a friend of a teacher named Theodoros records in an epitaph that he felt a κέντρον ἄπαυστον, “unceasing sting” because of his death’.71 This suggests that death’s sting was thought of as the shadow of its lingering effects. Isaiah 25.8, quoted by Paul in v. 54, fits with this in that there the swallowing up of death is tied to the promise that the Lord ‘will wipe away the tears from all faces’ and ‘remove his people’s disgrace from all the earth’. God will destroy death as well as even the shadow of its effects on us and creation. Paul’s argument in this chapter starts with Christ paying the penalty for sin and moves to the destruction of all of God’s enemies, including the presence and power of sin in our lives and death itself, the ‘last enemy’, which is both a result of sin and the great promoter of sin. On the last day believers will find themselves both innocent of the guilt of sin and free of the power and presence of sin. Paul is ultimately talking about the execution of God’s plan, secured by Christ’s death and resurrection and guaranteed by his continuing reign and ultimate destruction of his enemies, to bring about the complete renewal of humanity and creation. Not only will the ultimate enemy, death, be destroyed, but every trace of its causes and consequences, every one of its allies and partners will be removed. Paul employs an eschatological hermeneutic in his use of Hos. 13.14, turning a text about judgment into one declaring salvation for those who are not under the law, and the resurrection of Christ signals the beginning of the new age of redemption. ‘Paul projects an eschatological vision of a stingless death precisely because Jesus Christ has himself absorbed the sting on the basis of how his death and resurrection addresses the problem of human sin and the law’.72 Interpreting the passage from the perspective of the resurrection of Christ, Paul turns the summons to death into a taunt. cause’] for MT’s ‫‘[ דבריך‬your plagues’]) and/or that Paul’s Greek Vorlage itself had ‘victory’. We should not rule out Paul’s making the change to ‘victory’ in order to link the present citation to the one in 1 Cor. 15.54. 71.  BDAG, ‘κέντρον’, p. 539. 72.  A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 1300.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

179

The rhetorical questions now sneer defiantly at death’s impotence in the face of God’s powerful act of mercy and forgiveness in Christ. In Hosea death is called on to punish sin, but thanks to Christ such a role is no longer needed (1 Cor. 15.3, 17). Death’s dominion over the whole earth has been ended, its κέντρον, ‘sting’ (15.55, 56), drained of potency. Paul provides an extremely concise commentary on his quotation of Hos. 13.14 in v. 56. He suggests that the sting of death mentioned in Hos. 13.14b LXX has to do with sin and points out that the law ended up reinforcing the power of sin and death over human lives. Paul’s epigrammatic statements in v. 56 consist of two maxims, the second being built upon the first. The nexus between sin and death is prepared for by the allusions to the fall in 15.21-22. Vlachos argues convincingly that rather than originating from an issue in the Corinthian church, Paul’s assertion that ‘the power of sin is the law’ may also arise out of an edenic context. There is evidence that Paul found the triad of law, sin, and death present in the Garden of Eden. That law plays a catalytic role in Eden is implicit in the story depicted in Rom. 7.7-11. There, as in Rom. 5.12-14, the fall is the prototype for sin under the Mosaic Law.73 4. 1 Corinthians 14.21: Isaiah 28.11-12 and Jeremiah 13.1174 Table 7.3. Comparison of 1 Cor. 14.21, Isa. 28.11-12, and Jer. 13.11 Isa. 28.11-12 LXX διὰ φαυλισμὸν χειλέων διὰ γλώσσης ἑτέρας ὅτι λαλήσουσιν τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ … καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησαν ἀκούειν [‫]ולא אבוא שמוע‬

1 Cor. 14.21 Jer. 13.11 LXX ἐν τῷ νόμῳ γέγραπται ὅτι ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις καὶ ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέρων λαλήσω τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ καὶ οὐδ᾽ οὕτως καὶ οὐκ εἰσήκουσάν μου εἰσακούσονταί μου, λέγει κύριος.75

In 1 Cor. 14.21 we find a text that some perceive to be a conflated citation.76 In vv. 20-25 Paul emphasizes the need for maturity (v. 20) and 73.  See C. A. Vlachos, ‘Law, Sin, and Death, An Edenic Nexus? An Examination with Reference to 1 Corinthians 15:56’, JETS 47/2 (2003), pp. 277–98. See also Vlachos, The Law and the Knowledge of Good and Evil: The Edenic Background of the Catalytic Operation of the Law in Paul (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009), pp. 116–23. For key Pauline texts on the relationship between sin and the law see Rom. 3.20; 5.13, 20; 7.5, 7-9; 8.2. 74.  This section and the next are adapted from Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians. 75.  For this citation formula, see Isa. 28.16 LXX. 76.  See, e.g., Stanley, Language of Scripture, pp. 203–5.

180

Composite Citations in Antiquity

follows that up with some extended biblical interpretation (vv. 21-25) in which he focuses on ministries that do and do not elicit the desired response to God’s appeal for repentance. In v. 21 the main text is cited from Isa. 28.11-12, where the tongues of outsiders are used by God to appeal, futilely, to his disobedient people for repentance. In the Isaian context the religious leaders complain that the prophet’s message is too simple and naïve. Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians to reason as adults rather than children may echo Isaiah’s encounter with childish people who thought they were too wise to hear his message. Paul writes, ‘In the law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people; yet even then they will not listen to me”, says the Lord’ (1 Cor. 14.21, NRSV). The different textual traditions (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) disagree about who spoke through the strange lips and tongues. Christopher Stanley suggests ‘[d]etermining the precise relationship between the wording of 1 Cor 14.21 and the text of the LXX is one of the greatest challenges in the entire corpus of Pauline citations’ due to ‘the distance of the Pauline wording from both the LXX and the Masoretic Hebrew textual traditions’.77 Paul leaves out most of v. 12, evidently because he does not think that those clauses are relevant to his argument.78 His text appears to be an interpretive rendering, perhaps dependent upon an earlier Greek version that sought to conform more closely to a (different) Hebrew Vorlage than the LXX.79 The Hebrew texts (MT and 1QIsaa) indicate that God would speak to his people ‘by stammering (or mocking) lips and by another tongue’ (Isa. 28.11-12) because he had spoken to them before ‘but they were unwilling to hear’ (Jer. 13.11). The LXX says that ‘because of the contempt of lips and through another tongue they will speak (λαλήσουσιν) to this people (Isa. 28.11-12), …but they did not want to hear’ (Jer. 13.11). The relationship between the future and the aorist tenses in the LXX (‘they will speak…they refused to hear’) is awkward, and does not fit the Corinthians’ context or Paul’s rhetorical needs in this passage.

77.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 198. 78.  Previous research has demonstrated that abbreviating texts by excising irrelevant portions was a normal feature. See Stanley, Language of Scripture, pp. 290, 337, 343, as well as S. A. Adams, ‘Greek Education and the Composite Citations of Homer’, ‘Greek Education and Composite Citations of Homer’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 17–34 (19–21, 33); as well as Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in Plutarch’, p. 50. 79.  See Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 198.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

181

Paul agrees with the Hebrew texts in understanding the speaker to be the Lord, but his text uses the first (λαλήσω) rather than the third person. It is not clear whether Paul’s reading is based on an ambiguous form in v. 12b or is Paul’s adaptation.80 While both the Hebrew and LXX texts represent the final clause as a historical observation, ‘they were not willing to listen’, Paul’s text transforms it into a shocking prediction (οὐδʼ οὕτως εἰσακούσονταί, ‘even then they will not listen’). This seems to be Paul’s own modification, reflecting his interpretation of the significance of the strange language (in both Isaiah and the history of the nation). Paul’s greatest interpretive move related to the text form has to do with his perspective on the significance of foreign languages in the history of God’s relationship with his people. Isaiah 28.11-12 indicates that God would speak to his people in judgment through a strange language because they did not listen to him earlier when he spoke in clear and simple terms. Paul surely knows that Israel’s experience was due to its rejection of prior revelation in the common language of the people, but he understands (and he wants his readers to understand) that Israel’s experience of hearing God speak in that unusual way (i.e., through the foreign languages of the invaders) did not have a spiritually transforming effect on them. This is most likely related to Paul’s understanding that Israel (for the most part) continued to stand in need of conversion and redemption until his day (see Rom. 3.9-20; 9.2-8, 27-33; 10.1-3; Gal. 3.10-13; 4.4-5, 25; 1 Thess. 2.14-16). Thus not even exile brought the nation of Israel back to God. God not only spoke to his people through foreign invaders in the day or year of their fall, but he continued to speak to them through their experience of foreign domination over a period of decades and centuries. This is also the point at which some would suggest Paul turns his quotation from Isaiah 28 into a composite quotation. While Isa. 28.12 reads ‫] שמוע‬or ‫ ולא אבוא [אבו‬in Hebrew and καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησαν [or ἠθέλαν / ἠθέλον] ἀκούειν in Greek, Paul has καὶ οὐδ᾽ οὕτως εἰσακούσονταί μου. Stanley suggests Paul was following a ‘Hebraizing’ Greek text that had taken ‘the Hebrew ‫ אבוא‬as a first person Imperfect form of ‫ ’בוא‬so that the last clause of Isa. 28.12b in his Vorlage ‘would have been totally useless in the present context’.81 On this view, Paul chose to replace whatever was found for v. 12b in his Vorlage with an adaptation of a recognized prophetic tradition.82 Perhaps Paul had one of the texts with that prophetic 80.  Cf. Stanley, Language of Scripture, pp. 201–2. 81.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 205. 82.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 205. Stanley points out that similar expressions are frequently used in the Deuteronomic and prophetic literature ‘to summarize Yahweh’s case against wayward Israel’ (p. 204).

182

Composite Citations in Antiquity

refrain in mind and cited the refrain, substituting οὐκ with οὐδ᾽ οὕτως and changing the verb to the future tense to fit his context. But if Paul felt the need to adapt the verb to the future tense and the freedom to substitute οὐκ with οὐδ᾽ οὕτως for more dramatic effect, it becomes hard to think he could not have made similar adjustments to a text similar to (or the same as) that found in the LXX MSS reading οὐκ ἠθέλησαν ἀκούειν, as is argued by Koch.83 So while it is possible that Paul has introduced a conflated citation here, it is far from certain that he has done so. If so, Stanley proposes it may have been ‘to raise echoes of this well-known prophetic refrain in the minds of his readers’.84 One may wonder whether the refrain would have been as well known or recognizable to any of the Corinthians as it might have been to Paul and other Jews steeped in prophetic texts and traditions. It seems unlikely that they would have recognized that Paul had fused the refrain onto the Isaian text. If they were familiar with the refrain, perhaps Paul’s slight rewording may have created the echo Stanley proposes. 5. Galatians 3.10: Deuteronomy 27.26 and 30.1085 Table 7.4. Comparison of Gal. 3.10, Deut. 27.26, and Deut. 30.10 Deut. 27.26 ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ὃς οὐκ ἐμμενεῖ ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόμου τούτου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτούς

Gal. 3.10 Ὅσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν, ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν· γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά.

Deut. 30.10 ἐὰν εἰσακούσῃς τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου φυλάσσεσθαι καὶ ποιεῖν πάσας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ δικαιώματα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰς κρίσεις αὐτοῦ τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τούτου ἐὰν ἐπιστραφῇς ἐπὶ κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου (cf. Deut. 28.61; 29.19-20, 26; Josh. 23.6)

83.  See Koch, Die Schrift, p. 65 (cf. pp. 123, 151). 84.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, p. 205. 85.  This section is adapted from R. E. Ciampa, ‘Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans’, in S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (eds.), Deuteronomy in the New Testament (LNTS, 358; London: T&T Clark International, 2007), pp. 99–117.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

183

The twin motifs of blessing and curse occupy Paul’s argument in Gal. 3.1-14. The texts from Deuteronomy are engaged in dialogue with Gen. 15.6; 12.3 (18.18; 22.18), Hab. 2.4 and Lev. 18.5, which provide the background on the blessing of Abraham and two alternative approaches to finding life. In Gal. 3.13 Paul writes, ‘For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law” ’ (NRSV).86 The opening γάρ indicates that the passage beginning in v. 10 serves to confirm the point of the previous passage, especially v. 9, that those with faith are the ones who receive the blessing of Abraham. That point is established by the introduction of the contrasting motif of the curse, which is understood to be upon those who take the alternative approach to membership in God’s people—the Mosaic Law. As Hays indicates, the reference to Deuteronomy clarifies which curse Paul has in mind: ‘When Paul’s allusion to Deuteronomy is taken fully into account, one time-worn issue of Pauline exegesis solves itself: “the curse of the Law” from which Christ redeems us (Gal. 3:13) is not the Law itself regarded as a curse, but the curse that the Law pronounces in Deuteronomy 27’.87 Christopher Stanley thinks that ‘the informed audience would have found ample reason to question the legitimacy of Paul’s biblical argumentation’ in vv. 10-14: ‘Whereas the quotation pronounces a curse on the person who fails to abide by the requirements of Torah, Paul applies the curse to those who seek to comply with the laws of Torah’.88 Francis Watson admits that ‘Paul here appears to universalize a scriptural statement which refers prima facie to only one of the two main categories 86.  In Gal. 3.13 Paul alters the wording of Deut. 21.23 so that rather than following the LXX of that verse (which reads κεκατηραμένος for ‘cursed’), it conforms to the opening of his citation of Deut. 27.26 here (ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς). The verbal substitution not only assimilates the wording of the two passages but it also helps to more closely associate 3.13 with a predominant theme in chapters 27–28. As F. Watson stresses (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith [London: T&T Clark International, 2004], p. 422), Paul’s assimilation of one text to the other promotes the recognition of a connection between the two texts which is of fundamental importance for his argument. See, Ciampa, ‘Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans’, p. 104. The incorporation/substitution of the two words from Deut. 27.26 (ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς), which were basically synonymous with the word they replace, is probably not sufficient to count 3.13 as a conflated citation. 87.  R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 203–4 n. 24. 88.  C. D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), pp. 123–24.

184

Composite Citations in Antiquity

of those addressed by the law: those who transgress it, as opposed to those who observe it’.89 He suggests Paul has adopted ‘a consecutive reading of his texts from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, in which the latter effectively cancels out the former’. This brings to surface ‘a severe internal tension within the crucial closing chapters of Deuteronomy: the tension between conditional statements, which imply the choice between blessing and curse, life and death is genuinely open, and statements of prophetic denunciation, in which the realization of the curse has become a certainty’.90 Admitting that in the local context of this verse ‘it is certainly not those who practice works of the law who are under this curse’, Watson argues that ‘in the wider context of the concluding chapters of Deuteronomy, things are not so straightforward. In these chapters, the curse that is initially directed against law-breakers is extended so as to encompass all Israel’.91 Perhaps it would be more precise to suggest that while both Leviticus and Deuteronomy ‘imply the choice between blessing and curse, life and death is genuinely open’ the latter indicates that the choice and application of the curse would eventually be universal, and Paul understands himself and his readers to be living in the period since the curse of the law has fallen definitively on his people.92 Paul’s wording does not match the LXX form of this text exactly,93 and Watson thinks it is ‘evident from the form of Paul’s citation of Deut. 27.26 that he has in mind more than an isolated proof-text’.94 The differences in wording between Paul’s quotation of the verse and that which is found in the LXX may reflect the influence of some texts from later on in Deuteronomy that refer not simply to the law or commandment, but to ‘this book’ or ‘the book of the law’ (esp. 28.58, 61; 29.20; 30.10).95 The expression ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου appears in Deut. 28.61; 29.19-20, 26; 30.10; Josh. 23.6, but the texts in Deuteronomy 28 and 29 refer to all 89.  Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 427. 90.  Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 429. 91.  Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 430. 92.  Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 429. 93.  For a careful comparison of Paul’s text with the LXX of this verse, see Stanley, Language of Scripture, pp. 238–43. Justin Martyr cites Deut. 27.26 in the same form as Paul, but it seems that is because he has ‘directly copied from him’; O. Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile (NovTSup, 56; Leiden: Brill, 1987), p. 99. 94.  Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 431. 95.  The precise wording, ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου, is found in Deut. 28.61; 29.19, 20, 26; 30.10; and Josh. 23.6.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

185

the ‘curses’ written in the law (which is certainly also relevant to Deut. 27.26), while the contexts in Deut. 30.10 and Josh. 23.6 seem to provide close parallels. Deuteronomy 30.10 refers to keeping ‘his commandments, and his ordinances, and his judgments written in the book of this law’ (NRSV) and Josh. 23.6 refers to ‘his commandments, and his ordinances, and his judgments written in the book of this law’. It seems a ‘shift occurs here from law as oral proclamation (“the words of this law”, 27.26) to an identification between law and the Book of Deuteronomy itself’.96 Furthermore, in these other texts ‘ “the book of the law” is associated with the threat—and indeed the certainty—that the law’s curse represents the destiny of the entire people, and not just of individual law-breakers’.97 This is in keeping with a common (although not universal) understanding in Paul’s day that the curse of the law had fallen on Israel and Judah, and, as has been pointed out by others, a number of early Jewish texts also reflect the understanding that the curse of the law had fallen on Israel in its later history and had yet to be fully lifted.98 Paul’s citation of this verse makes much better sense if it is not merely understood as a reference to the meaning of the cited words in the nearest context. Rather, it is probably a reference to the curse of the law understood to have fallen on Jews as a whole, the curse from which some Jews continued to await redemption and consolation. Such an interpretation is suggested by the incorporation of language from later texts dealing with the curse as well as by other ancient Jewish texts about the curse of the law. 96.  Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 431. 97.  Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 432. 98.  E.g., O. H. Steck, ‘Das Problem theologischer Strömungen in nachexilischer Zeit’, EvT 28 (1968), pp. 445–58; M. A. Knibb, ‘Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period’, HeyJ 17 (1976), pp. 253–72; N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK, 1992), pp. 139–43, 268–72; C. M. Pate, J. S. Duvall, J. D. Hayes, E. R. Richards, W. D. Tucker Jr. and P. Vang, The Story of Israel: A Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), pp. 105–18; C. A. Evans, ‘Jesus & the Continuing Exile of Israel’, in C. C. Newman (ed.), Jesus & the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), pp. 77–100; S. G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible (NSBT, 15; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), p. 219 n. 7; R. E. Ciampa, ‘The History of Redemption’, in S. Hafemann and P. House (eds.), Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), pp. 254–308 (285–89).

186

Composite Citations in Antiquity

6. 1 Corinthians 2.9: Isaiah 64.3 and 65.16 LXX Even though it is introduced by καθὼς γέγραπται (‘it stands written’), no known passage from Scripture resembles Paul’s quotation in 1 Cor. 2.9.99 Gordon Fee notes that the closest scriptural parallels are Isa. 64.3 and 65.16 LXX. Table 7.5. Comparison of 1 Cor. 2.9, Isa. 64.3, and Isa. 65.16 Isa. 64.3 LXX ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν οὐδὲ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν εἶδον θεὸν πλὴν σοῦ καὶ τὰ ἔργα σου, ἃ ποιήσεις τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν ἔλεον.

1 Cor. 2.9 ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν.

Isa. 65.16 LXX καὶ οὐκ ἀναβήσεται αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν.

Following Fee’s discussion of 1 Cor. 2.9, lines 1-2 resemble Isa. 64.4a-b, line 3 resembles Isa. 65.16, and line 4 appears to be a free adaptation of Isa. 64.3c.100 If accepted, this would make 1 Cor. 2.9 a conflated citation according to the taxonomies adopted in this volume. But additional factors must be considered. Some scholars posit that the quotation derives from another source, including a pre-formed collection of Scripture passages (i.e., testimonia), a non-extant apocalyptic writing (i.e., Apocalypse of Elijah),101 or may even have been a saying of Jesus (cf. Gos. Thom. 17).102 This opinion is also ancient, dating back as far as Jerome (Com. Isa. 64.4), who commented that the same quotation appears in a Latin and Slavonic version of Apoc. Isa. 11.34.103 Assuming this to be the case, it is possible that here we have a conflated citation that Paul inherited. Whether he knew its derivation in multiple sources is not known with certainty. However, given Paul’s extensive knowledge of Isaiah, especially so-called Deutero-Isaiah, it seems plausible that he knew the citation ultimately derived from multiple Isaianic contexts. 99.  Stanley, Language of Scripture, pp. 188–89, discusses the citation briefly but concludes that it would be presumptuous to offer analysis about Paul’s citation technique given uncertainty about his Vorlage. 100.  G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 108. 101.  See M. Stone and J. Strugnell, The Books of Elijah, Parts 1–2 (SBLTT, 18; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), pp. 42–73. 102.  Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 127. 103.  Noted by M. A. Knibb, ‘Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah’, OTP 2:176; pace Koch, Die Schrift, p. 37, who rejects an apocryphal source for Paul’s citation.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

187

Following Fee, then, Paul’s citation is probably ‘an amalgamation of Old Testament texts that had already been joined and reflected on in apocalyptic Judaism’.104 Alternatively, others are less certain about the textual parallels with 1 Cor. 2.9. Brian Rosner and I tentatively concluded that it is a loose quotation of Isa. 64.3 LXX, noting that both texts affirm that ‘no human being is able to understand the divine revelation without God’s enabling’.105 We suggested the alteration of line 3 of 1 Cor. 2.9 (cf. Isa. 65.16) is too imprecise for certainty.106 The diversity of opinion represented in the previous discussion demonstrates that judgment in favor of a conflated citation or a loosely modified quotation is vexed. Fee’s assertion that the citation is mediated to Paul in its current form presents a strong possibility. But, without more data this can only be a tentative judgment. 7. Conclusion The texts examined here provide a variety of different types of composite citations (or possible composite citations), ranging from doubtful or possible conflations to less debated and/or more extensive examples of combined texts. We did not consider seriously Gal. 3.13,107 but it would seem to be the most doubtful or subtle example in these letters, with its replacement of one word from Deut. 21.23 with two words from Deut. 27.26 without significantly altering the meaning of the main Old Testament intertext. With 1 Cor. 2.9 we have a case where it is difficult to discern if we are dealing with a conflated citation or a loosely modified quotation. In 1 Cor. 14.21 and Gal. 3.10 we have cases where a primary Old Testament intertext has had an Old Testament expression from elsewhere incorporated into it, examples of what Stanley calls ‘conflated’ citations.108 In both cases the text that has been incorporated into the primary Old Testament intertext passage (Isa. 28.11-12 in 1 Cor. 14.21 and Deut. 27.26 in 104.  Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 109. 105.  Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 127. 106.  Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 127, following A. C. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 251. 107.  See footnote 86, above. 108.  ‘ “Conflated citations” are characterized by the insertion of a word or phrase from one passage into a quotation from another passage with no signal to the audience that such a commingling of texts has taken place’ (Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 204).

188

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Gal. 3.10) may come from a particular Old Testament passage (Jer. 13.11 in 1 Cor. 14.21 and Deut. 30.10 in Gal. 3.10), but similar (that is, other) forms of the expressions are also found elsewhere in the Old Testament and the expression incorporated by Paul may have pointed to the particular Old Testament intertext and/or may have evoked a motif associated with the range of texts where similar expressions are found. In 1 Cor. 15.54-55 we have a clearer case of a composite citation. Here versions of Isa. 25.8 and Hos. 13.14 are joined together to exploit and amplify their differing ways of referring to eschatological victory over death as Paul expounded on the theme of the resurrection of the dead in Christ. This is an example of what Stanley calls a ‘combined citation’.109 The extended composite citation (or possibly set of composite citations) in 2 Cor. 6.16-18 provides a distinctively complex case, with its interweaving together of Lev. 26.11-12 and/or Ezek. 37.27, Isa. 52.11, Ezek. 20.34, 2 Kgdms 7.14, and 2 Kgdms 7.8. Here we have seen an exceptional and extended example of a ‘striking degree of skill and design’110 in the way Paul combines Old Testament texts together into one elegant, chiastic text with matching promises and imperatives illuminating the eschatological, new-covenant context of his Corinthian readers. Jacob Neusner describes a way of ‘engag[ing] in dialogue with the Scriptures of ancient Israel’ reflected in a relationship in which authors and authorships wrote with scripture, shaping a distinctive idiom of discourse in so doing. They turned to scripture not for proof texts, let alone for pretexts, to say whatever they wanted, anyhow, to say. They used scripture as an artist uses the colors on the palette, expressing ideas through and with scripture as the artist paints with those colors and no others.111

The diversity of ways in which Paul wove biblical texts together to express his understanding of their meaning and significance for his readers suggests Paul was quite adept at writing with Scripture, as a skilled musician might put together just a few simple notes to write a baby’s lullaby or create a much more elaborate piece of music for a 109.  ‘ “Combined citations” occur when two or more excerpts are joined backto-back under a single citation formula or other explicit marker to form a verbal unit that an uninformed audience would take as coming from a single source’ (Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 204). 110.  Webb, Returning Home, p. 32. 111.  J. Neusner with W. S. Green, Writing with Scripture: The Authority and Uses of the Hebrew Bible in the Torah of Formative Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), p. 4.

7. Ciampa  Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians

189

more demanding kind of audience.112 When Paul wrote with Scripture in these letters he did not usually do so through composite citations. According to Richard Longenecker’s analysis, there are 32 quotations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians.113 If we count all of the candidates for composite citations discussed here, they would make a total of five out of thirty-two or 15.6 percent of the scriptural citations in these letters. Where he does present combined (e.g., 1 Cor. 15.54-55; 2 Cor. 6.16-18) or conflated citations (e.g., 1 Cor. 14.21; Gal. 3.10) it seems he does so for rhetorical effect, sensing that the impact of the specially formed citation will be more appropriate than if he had to present the distinct elements separately and reveal his understanding of their relationships in some other way.

112.  For more on Paul’s sensitivity to the needs of his audiences in his use of Scripture (informed by functionalist and activist translation theories) see R. E. Ciampa, ‘Approaching Paul’s Use of Scripture in Light of Translation Studies’, in C. D. Stanley (ed.), Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation (ECL, 9; Atlanta: SBL, 2012), pp. 305–16. 113.  R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1999), pp. 94–95.

Chapter 8 C omp osi t e C i tat i on s a n d C onflati on of S c r i pt ur a l N a rr at i ves i n H e br e ws Susan Docherty 1. Introduction: Scriptural Citation and Exegetical Method in Hebrews The centrality of the Scriptures to the argument and structure of Hebrews is one of the epistle’s most outstanding features. Apart from lengthy major citations (as in 3.7-11; 5.5-6; 8.8-12; 10.5-7; 12.5-6), every chapter is peppered with allusions, and there are frequent appeals to the example of scriptural figures in order to reinforce both doctrinal and ethical exhortations (e.g., 11.4-38; 12.16-17; 13.2). This text has long been of particular interest, therefore, to those seeking to explain the early Christian understanding of the relationship between the historical revelation of God in Scripture and the more recent teaching and actions of Jesus.1 The author draws most heavily on the Psalms and the Pentateuch, and he is distinctive among New Testament writers in his preference for introducing his citations with a form of the verb ‘to say’ rather than ‘to write’. This accentuates their enduring relevance for his community, to whom God is presented as speaking directly in the words of these scriptural texts. Considerable attention has been paid by commentators to describing the author’s exegetical techniques, and especially to identifying any parallels with Jewish hermeneutical methods and axioms.2 The way in which he 1.  See especially G. B. Caird, ‘The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, CJT 5 (1959), pp. 44–51; M. Barth, ‘The Old Testament in Hebrews: An Essay in Biblical Hermeneutics’, in W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder (eds.), Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Otto A. Piper (London: SCM Press, 1963), pp. 53–78; G. Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New Testament Example of Biblical Interpretation (SNTSMS, 36; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979). 2.  See, e.g., F. Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebrӓerbriefes als Schriftausleger (BU, 4; Regensburg: Pustet, 1968); S. E. Docherty, The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews (WUNT, 2/260; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009).

8. Docherty  Composite Citations and Conflation in Hebrews

191

often brings scriptural passages together and reads them as mutually interpretative, or uses them to build up a ‘chain’ of evidence in support of an argument, for example, reflects the principle of gezera shawa and its underlying assumptions about the unity and coherence of scripture (see, e.g., 1.5-14; 2.12-13; 4.3-9; 11.4-38). He can also focus very narrowly on individual key words within a cited text (e.g., ‘son’ in 1.5-6; ‘rest’ in 4.3-9; ‘pattern’ in 8.5; or ‘new’ in 8.7-13), in a manner similar to rabbinic interpretation.3 There has been very little specific consideration to date, however, of the place of composite citation within his exegetical armoury, or of what the relative absence of this feature in his work might reveal about his textual sources and the background of his audience. This chapter will therefore engage with these questions. 2. Hebrews and the Testimonia Hypothesis Revisited Discussion of composite citations necessarily involves consideration of testimonia sources, which were collections of excerpts made from authoritative texts across the ancient world. This subject was addressed throughout the first volume in this series, particularly in Albl’s exploration of the relationship between the so-called testimonia hypothesis and composite citations.4 Albl has made a very valuable contribution to this debate in recent years, not least through the clarity of definition he has introduced in distinguishing carefully between (a) testimonia compilations created for the purpose of ‘proving’ early Christian claims about Jesus, such as his messiahship; and (b) more general scriptural extract collections, which would have served a variety of practical functions in an age of travelling missionaries and limited access to scrolls.5 This issue is especially germane to the study of Hebrews, since it has often been suggested that such anthologies underlie sections of the letter, most notably the catena of citations in 1.5-14.6 Albl himself regards 3.  See especially recent studies of rabbinic interpretation, such as A. Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 4.  M. C. Albl, ‘The Testimonia Hypothesis and Composite Citations’, in S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, vol. 1 of Composite Citations in Antiquity (LNTS, 525; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), pp. 182–202. 5.  M. C. Albl, ‘And Scripture Cannot be Broken’: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections (NovTSup, 96; Leiden: Brill, 1999), see especially pp. 4, 11, 65. 6.  See, e.g., the discussion of this issue in H. W. Attridge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), p. 50; or

192

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Heb. 1.5–2.8 as one of the clearest examples in the whole New Testament of the use of a pre-existing testimonia collection, pointing to such characteristic features as: vague citation formulae; brief quotations connected only with καί or καὶ πάλιν; texts linked on the basis of a common ‘catchword’ (like ‘son’ or ‘angels’); and the inclusion of passages frequently appealed to in early Christian literature, such as Pss. 2.7; 110(109).1; and 2 Sam. 7.14.7 These indicators are persuasive to a degree, but it is also important to recognize that modern commentators are increasingly acknowledging both the author’s awareness of the wider context of the scriptural texts he employs, and his creativity in selecting and shaping them for his own particular purposes.8 Steyn, for example, sounds a cautionary note, stressing the lack of concrete evidence for the existence of such extract collections in the New Testament period, and also the fact that quotations occur in different combinations in the letter: Ps. 2.7 is linked with both 2 Sam. 7.14 (Heb. 1.5) and Ps. 110(109).4 (Heb. 5.6), for instance.9 Factors such as the textual form of a citation and the extent of its divergence from known Septuagint witnesses, and whether it is presented as self-evidently true or has to be exegetically defended, are also relevant in reaching judgments about its possible origins in a testimonia collection. In the analysis of individual passages that follows, then, the likelihood of the author’s use of an intermediate source will be considered on a caseby-case basis.10 P. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 109. In Hebrews and the Scriptures (London: SPCK, 1959) F. C. Synge even went so far as to claim that the author had no access at all to the Scriptures as a whole, and composed his text by interweaving hortatory sections into a pre-existing testimony book, a theory that has won very little support. 7.  Albl, Early Christian Testimonia, pp. 201–7. 8.  Enns, for instance, has drawn attention to the fact that the themes of creation and exodus underlie both Ps. 95(94) and Heb. 4; see P. Enns, ‘Creation and Re-Creation: Psalm 95 and its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1–4:13’, WTJ 55 (1993), pp. 255–80. See also G. Guthrie, ‘Hebrews’, in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), pp. 919–95 (920). 9.  G. J. Steyn, A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews (FRLANT, 235; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 14, 48–54. 10.  Useful principles for reaching such judgments were first put forward by scholars such as Hatch and Harris, and have since been helpfully refined by Albl; see E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889), pp. 131–214; J. R. Harris, Testimonies (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916, 1920), p. 1:8; Albl, Early Christian Testimonia, pp. 65–69.

8. Docherty  Composite Citations and Conflation in Hebrews

193

3. Conflated Citations The combination of scriptural texts is clearly an essential element of the exegetical method of Hebrews. Whether in pairs (e.g., Ps. 95[94].7-11 and Gen. 2.2 in Heb. 3.7–4.10; Exod. 25.40 and Jer. 31[38].31-34 in Heb. 8.5-13; Deut. 31.6 and Ps. 118[117].6 in Heb. 13.5-6) or longer lists or groups (e.g., Heb. 1.5-13; 2.5-13; 11.1-38),11 passages from different parts of scripture are carefully brought together to illuminate one another and to support the author’s argument. They are always clearly presented as separate quotations, however, and neither composite nor conflated citations occur frequently in the letter. This section will examine the one text that is widely regarded as an example of this form, and two further possible instances of it. a. Hebrews 10.37-38: Habakkuk 2.3-4 and Isaiah 26.20 The only scriptural citation within Hebrews that is frequently classed as composite comes in 10.37-38. This passage is not introduced as a scriptural quotation as explicitly as is normally the case elsewhere in Hebrews, but it does clearly fall within the category of a formal citation: there is an introductory particle γάρ; it is cited in illustration of the author’s preceding claim that promises have been made by God which his audience can expect to see kept (10.36); and it is followed by an interpretation in the author’s own words (10.39). According to the more refined terminology developed by Stanley,12 this is most accurately described as a conflated citation, since Hab. 2.3-4 is the dominant text, but three words found in Isa. 26.20 (μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον) are also included. Some commentators do classify it as such,13 but the allusion to Isaiah is so fleeting that several others prefer to take this as an independent echo, prefacing the citation proper from Hab. 2.3-4.14 This is a distinct 11.  Steyn in particular emphasizes the pairing of quotations in Hebrews, especially the frequent technique of linking a text from the Pentateuch with one from either the Psalms or the prophets: see his Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage, pp. 25–28. 12.  C. D. Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 203–9 (204–5); cf. C. D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 258–59. 13.  See, e.g., Guthrie, ‘Hebrews’, pp. 981–82; Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 553; W. L. Lane, Hebrews (WBC, 47; 2 vols.; Dallas: Word, 1991), p. 2:303; Steyn, Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage, p. 320. 14.  See, e.g., G. L. Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), p. 508; P. E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews

194

Composite Citations in Antiquity

possibility, since the Isaianic words occur right at the beginning of the quotation, and so may be regarded as separate from it, added to specify the timescale for its fulfilment. Even on this reading, however, the texts from Habakkuk and Isaiah are being juxtaposed by the author and used to interpret one another, so the question of what he intended to achieve by this association which he could not accomplish by citing only Hab. 2.3-4 remains pertinent and will be discussed further below.15 It is perhaps significant that the form of this citation differs from known witnesses to the Septuagint to a greater extent than is the case with other scriptural quotations in Hebrews, which may indicate the use of an alternative source. The two texts are set out here in full for ease of comparison: ἔτι γὰρ μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον, ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ χρονίσει· 38 ὁ δὲ δίκαιός μου ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, καὶ ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ. (Heb. 10.37-38) διότι ἔτι ὅρασις εἰς καιρὸν καὶ ἀνατελεῖ εἰς πέρας καὶ οὐκ εἰς κενόν· ἐὰν ὑστερήσῃ, ὑπόµεινον αὐτόν, ὅτι ἐρχόµενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ µὴ χρονίσῃ. 4 ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή µου ἐν αὐτῷ· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς µου ζήσεται. (Hab. 2.3-4)

The first part of Hab. 2.3 is not cited in Hebrews, and the Greek article is placed before ἐρχόμενος, which turns ‘the coming one’, and not the vision, into the subject of the verb ‘to come’ (ἥξει). This addition certainly strengthens the messianic overtones of the verse, suggesting that it may well have been an authorial modification, or at least a deliberate choice of this form of the text to emphasize its application to Jesus, who is referred to in Christian tradition as ‘the one who is to come’ (Mt. 3.11; 11.3; Lk. 7.19; Jn 6.14; 11.27).16 Hebrews then has the future indicative οὐ χρονίσει instead of the aorist subjunctive οὐ µὴ χρονίσῃ. This does not affect the meaning of the phrase, so is probably a variant reading found in the author’s Vorlage, or a purely stylistic change, although Thomas, for (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 434; K. J. Thomas, ‘The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews’, NTS 11/4 (1965), pp. 303–25 (316); B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays (London: MacMillan & Co, 1889), p. 347. 15.  For this question, see Stanley’s suggestions to the contributors of this project: Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, pp. 208–9. 16.  This point is highlighted in J. C. McCullough, ‘The Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews’, NTS 26/3 (1980), pp. 363–79, see p. 376; cf. Lane, Hebrews, p. 2:304.

8. Docherty  Composite Citations and Conflation in Hebrews

195

instance, regards it as an intentional theologically motivated alteration, made to emphasize the certainty of Christ’s ‘coming’ or parousia.17 The differences between Hebrews and its scriptural source are even more noticeable in the case of the second verse cited, Hab. 2.4. First, the order of the clauses is reversed, and a καί has been added between them. This makes the verb ὑποστείληται (‘withdraw’ or ‘shrink back’) refer not to the vision but to the righteous person. The interpretation provided by the author to frame the citation makes explicit that it is the followers of Jesus who are to be identified with the ‘righteous’ of this text, and who therefore have the potential either to ‘shrink back’ in this time of waiting for what has been promised, or to endure in ‘faith’ (10.36, 39). This rearrangement is likely to derive from the author’s own hand, therefore, as it shapes the citation effectively to support his argument.18 The additional καί is necessary to separate the two clauses and provide a smoother reading. In the majority of New Testament manuscripts, μου is placed after ὁ δίκαιός rather than after ἐκ πίστεως, although in some the whole phrase μου ἐκ πίστεως is missing. The pronoun is not present in the two citations of this verse in Paul’s letters, at Rom. 1.17 and Gal. 3.11, and the Septuagint textual tradition also exhibits some variety in its placing of μου, so the word order in Hebrews may well reflect the author’s Vorlage accurately.19 Since it is quoted by another New Testament writer, and was read in an eschatological sense at Qumran (e.g., 1QpHab 7.10-16), there is the possibility that it formed part of a pre-existing testimonia collection on an eschatological theme. However, Paul cites only part of the text, in another form, and to make a very different point, so its use in Hebrews is distinctive and thus likely to be a product of the author’s own theological reflection. The connection between these two texts may also be an original interpretative move on his part, since it is not previously attested. This is the view of, for example, Ellingworth and Steyn, but Attridge and Karrer are open to the possibility that they were already combined in his source, especially given the differences in form between Hebrews and the Septuagint version of Habakkuk.20 Early Christian literature beyond the 17.  Thomas, ‘Old Testament Citations’, p. 316; see also Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 302; and Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 554; contra, e.g., McCullough, ‘Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews’, p. 376. 18.  This is the view of, e.g., Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 554. 19.  See especially the full discussion of the extant textual evidence in Steyn, Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage, pp. 317–21. 20.  Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 301; M. Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebrӓer (ÖTK, 20; 2 vols.; Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 2002, 2008), p. 2:247; Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 555; Steyn, Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage, p. 320.

196

Composite Citations in Antiquity

New Testament offers no further conclusive evidence: Isa. 26.20 and Hab. 2.3 are both quoted in 1 Clement (23.5; 50.4), but they are not combined there, and their occurrence may be due to the influence of Hebrews. These verses could conceivably have been brought together on the basis that both could be read as pertaining to the future day of judgement.21 Lewis, however, argues that the author has a particular purpose in conflating them and in modifying the citation from Habakkuk. He points to the wider context of the phrase taken from Isaiah, which comes from a verse advising the people to withstand difficult times by hiding until God’s anger has passed: βάδιζε, λαός µου, εἴσελθε εἰς τὰ ταµιεῖά σου, ἀπόκλεισον τὴν θύραν σου, ἀποκρύβηθι µικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον, ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ἡ ὀργὴ κυρίου. (Isa. 26.20)

He therefore suggests that there is a group within the community addressed by Hebrews who wish to deal with the opposition that they are currently facing by withdrawing from society, appealing to scriptural passages like this one to validate such a passive stance. The letter’s author, however, disapproves of that attitude, and so deliberately contrasts it with the more active, faithful endurance advocated by Habakkuk. This is why he reminds them of their courage and joyful action in a previous period of persecution (Heb. 10.32-36).22 Lewis is absolutely right to ask questions about how these two texts function together in combination, and to try to relate their use to the wider themes of the letter, but his proposal has not won widespread acceptance. It is a theory built on only the briefest of scriptural references, and there is no indication elsewhere in Hebrews of a perceived problem with members of the community attempting to go into hiding. It does not seem very likely to me that the audience could have unpacked the wider context of the two separate quotations and reached such a subtle understanding of the author’s meaning. On balance, then, it is more probable that the words from Isaiah are added in order to emphasize the fact that the time until the realization of Habakkuk’s prophecy is only very short. b. Hebrews 8.5: Exodus 25.9, 40 As part of his exposition of the superiority of Jesus’ high priestly ministry over the Levitical priesthood, the author of Hebrews recalls the Pentateuchal instructions for the building of the tabernacle. He claims that 21.  This is discussed by, e.g., Guthrie, ‘Hebrews’, p. 982. 22.  T. W. Lewis, ‘And if he Shrinks Back (Heb X.38b)’, NTS 22/1 (1976), pp. 88–94.

8. Docherty  Composite Citations and Conflation in Hebrews

197

this earthly ‘tent’ is ‘a copy and shadow’ (ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ) of the true heavenly sanctuary, in which Christ now serves, citing Exod. 25.40 in support of his position: καθὼς κεχρημάτισται Μωϋσῆς μέλλων ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν σκηνήν, Ὅρα γάρ, φησίν, ποιήσεις πάντα κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δειχθέντα σοι ἐν τῷ ὄρει. (Heb. 8.5) ὅρα ποιήσεις κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δεδειγµένον σοι ἐν τῷ ὄρει. (Exod. 25.40)

There are two differences between the form of this citation in Hebrews and the text of Exodus. First, the aorist passive participle of the verb ‘to show’ (δειχθέντα) is used instead of the perfect (δεδειγµένον). Some commentators argue that this represents a deliberate authorial modification, subtly implying that the Mosaic tabernacle has no continuing significance in the present, and was never intended to be a permanent model of the heavenly sanctuary.23 However, this reading perhaps attaches undue weight to the nuances of Greek verbal aspect, and the aorist may simply reflect either the author’s stylistic preferences or his Vorlage.24 The second variation is more significant for this investigation, as it may signal the presence of a conflated citation: the word πάντα is not present in the majority of Septuagint witnesses to Exod. 25.40. There are three options for explaining its inclusion in Hebrews. First, there is a strong possibility that the author has reproduced his Vorlage accurately, since πάντα is found here in one Septuagint manuscript (F19 minn), and in a reference to this verse in Philo (Leg. All. 3.102; but cf. Q.E. 2.82, 90 where πάντα is not included). It could easily have entered into the Greek translation under the influence of the previous verse (Exod. 25.39), where it does occur, or through a transcription error. Second, it may be an intentional addition by the author of Hebrews, made in order to emphasize that everything about the Mosaic tabernacle is merely a copy of the heavenly blueprint. D’Angelo, for example, argues that through this slight but deliberate change of wording he signals that not only the tabernacle but the whole cult and ministry associated with it—and described in the wider context of this citation (Exod. 25–31)—was only a foreshadowing of the better things which were to come through Christ.25 23.  See, e.g., Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 220; Thomas, ‘Old Testament Citations’, p. 309; Steyn, Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage, p. 246. 24.  See, e.g., Guthrie, ‘Hebrews’, p. 969. 25.  M. R. D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews (SBLDS, 42; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), pp. 205–22; see also Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 220.

198

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Finally, πάντα may be drawn from another verse in this section of Exodus, 25.9, which reads: καὶ ποιήσεις µοι κατὰ πάντα ὅσα ἐγώ σοι δεικνύω ἐν τῷ ὄρει, τὸ παράδειγµα τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ τὸ παράδειγµα πάντων τῶν σκευῶν αὐτῆς· οὕτω ποιήσεις. (Exod. 25.9)

Here the emphasis is on making everything about the tabernacle and all its furnishings according to the divinely revealed ‘pattern’ (παράδειγµα). If this is the case, then the citation in Heb. 8.5 can be seen as a conflation of a dominant text (Exod. 25.40) with a subordinate one (Exod. 25.9).26 This combined citation has a greater rhetorical effect than would have been achieved by quoting Exod. 25.40 alone, and better fits the wider argument of the epistle in demonstrating the superiority of Christ’s ministry over all that has gone before (see Heb. 8.6-13). However, the presence of a single word from another verse seems an insufficient basis for attaching the label of conflated citation to this text, especially as the version found in Hebrews is also attested in Philo, so it is likely he is reproducing his Vorlage accurately.27 Furthermore, as D’Angelo’s interpretation of this section demonstrates, the same result is obtained even if the author has simply made his own addition of the term πάντα to his source. Nevertheless, this form does suggest that the author intended to draw in the wider context of the citation, and thus encourage his audience to understand that everything Moses was instructed to build or to place in the sanctuary was only a ‘copy and shadow’ of its real and heavenly counterpart. This implies a familiarity on the part of both the author and his community with the whole narrative of Exodus, and not simply with isolated quotations or extract collections. c. Hebrews 13.5: Deuteronomy 31.6 and Genesis 28.15 A scriptural text is cited in Heb. 13.5 in support of the author’s ethical exhortations to avoid attachment to possessions and ‘love of money’ (ἀφιλάργυρος). It is introduced as a citation, but with the lack of specificity characteristic of Hebrews: ‘for he has said’. Its source is difficult to identify, because a similar phrase occurs several times in Scripture, including Gen. 28.15; Deut. 31.6, 8; and 1 Chron. 28.20. An otherwise unattested Septuagintal variant of Josh. 1.5 may also be reflected here, as 26.  Thomas (‘Old Testament Citations’, p. 309) suggests that the text used by Philo was likewise a conflation of Exod. 25.8, 40. 27.  For this conclusion, see also, e.g., Steyn, Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage, p. 245.

8. Docherty  Composite Citations and Conflation in Hebrews

199

the MT of this verse could be translated into a Greek form close to that found in Heb. 13.5.28 The various possibilities are outlined below: Heb. 13.5 Gen. 28.15 1 Chron. 28.20 Josh. 1.5 Deut. 31.6 Deut. 31.8

οὐ μή σε ἀνῶ οὐδ᾽ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μετὰ σοῦ … ὅτι οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω κύριος ὁ θεός μου μετὰ σοῦ οὐκ ἀνήσει σε καὶ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπῃ ἔσομαι καὶ μετὰ σοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψω σε οὐδὲ ὑπερόψομαί σε κύριος ὁ θεός σου ὁ προπορευόμενος μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν οὐ μή σε ἀνῇ οὔτε μή σε ἐγκαταλίπῃ καὶ κύριος ὁ συμπορευόμενος μετὰ σοῦ οὐκ ἀνήσει σε οὐδὲ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃ σε

The closest parallel to Hebrews appears to be provided by Deut. 31.6 or 31.8, and it is perhaps also significant that the author draws heavily on Deuteronomic material throughout the epistle.29 However, extant versions of the Septuagint all have the verbs in the third person rather than the first here. A very similar quotation occurs in the writings of Philo (Conf. 166), also employing the first person, so given the diversity of forms in which the Scriptures are known to have circulated in both Hebrew and Greek in the late Second Temple period, most commentators regard Heb. 13.5 as a citation of Deut. 31.6, following a variant reading such as that attested in Philo.30 However, there is another possibility: the citation in Hebrews may be a composite, conflating Deut. 31.6 (the main text) with Gen. 28.15, which closely reflects the second clause quoted in Hebrews, and which is spoken by God in the first person. This solution was proposed by Katz in a detailed study of this verse, and has since been taken up by other commentators.31 In either case, it seems most probable that the author was citing his Vorlage accurately, and not making alterations to it himself. His exhortation to trust in divine providence is not really enhanced if the supporting citation draws on two scriptural locations rather than just one, although he may well be seeking to subtly bring to the mind of his hearers the several occasions when God is recorded as promising never to abandon 28.  This has been proposed by, e.g., D. M. Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Re-presentation (WUNT 2/238; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), pp. 69–70; Cockerill, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 686. 29.  This is demonstrated most comprehensively in Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation. 30.  See e.g., Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 388–89; Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 699–70; Steyn, Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage, pp. 363–64. 31.  P. Katz, ‘οὐ μή ἀνῶ, οὐδ᾽ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω Hebr. xiii.5. The Biblical Source of the Quotation’, Bib 33 (1952), pp. 523–25. He has been followed by, e.g., Guthrie, ‘Hebrews’, p. 992.

200

Composite Citations in Antiquity

the people. If so, this citation fits well with his characteristic interpretative technique of providing multiple pieces of scriptural evidence to demonstrate his claims (see especially the chain of citations in Heb. 1.5-13 and the list of exemplars of faith in 11.4-38; cf. e.g., 2.12-13; 4.7). Although it is difficult to establish with absolute certainty, then, whether its origins lie in a textual variant of Deut. 31.6, or in a source in which Deut. 31.6 and Gen. 28.15 have been combined, there is a stronger claim for classing this text as a conflated citation than was the case with Heb. 8.5. 4. Conflation of Scriptural Narratives Although composite citation is rare in Hebrews, a different form of conflation of biblical passages is occasionally employed. In an interesting exegetical move, the author twice cites one text but attributes it to another scriptural context. The ‘recontextualization’ of quotations is, of course, very common throughout the New Testament, as they are regularly applied to Jesus and his followers. This kind of exegesis occurs in Hebrews, too, but in the cases examined below, scriptural words are presented as having been spoken at a specific point in the Pentateuchal narrative when they are in fact taken from within a different episode. This technique might be termed conflation of scriptural narratives, or conflation of citational contexts. a. Hebrews 11.21: Genesis 47.31 The first example of this feature comes in Heb. 11.21, where Jacob’s ‘faith’ is said to have been manifested in his actions on his death-bed: ‘By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff’. The final clause in this sentence follows exactly the Septuagint form of Gen. 47.31, except that Hebrews does not include the name Israel:32 καὶ προσεκύνησεν Ισραηλ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ. Despite the lack of an explicit quotation marker, and the fact that only part of the Genesis verse is reproduced, the majority of commentators do regard this as a citation rather than a strong allusion.33 The distinction between the two categories is especially fluid in this chapter, which 32.  This may be an insignificant grammatical adjustment, but Ellingworth floats the idea that the author deliberately minimizes his use of the word ‘Israel’ throughout ‘to avoid any possible contrast or division between Israel and the Christian community’ (Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 606). 33.  See, e.g., Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 336; Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 605; L. T. Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), p. 24; McCullough, ‘Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews’,

8. Docherty  Composite Citations and Conflation in Hebrews

201

contains noticeably fewer formal citations than other sections of the letter, and instead makes extensive use of narrative summaries and scriptural allusions interwoven with the author’s own words. The classification of Gen. 5.24 at Heb. 11.5 is similarly problematic, for instance. In this case, the correspondence between the wording of Gen. 47.31 and Heb. 11.21 seems to me to be sufficiently strong and intentional to warrant its inclusion within this investigation as a citation. There is no doubt, however, that this text is being conflated here with another scriptural passage. Hebrews sets Jacob’s ‘bowing down in worship over the head of his staff’ in the context of his death-bed blessing of the sons of Joseph (11.21). Yet in Genesis this action is located before the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh (recounted in Gen. 48.8-22), at the point when Jacob asks Joseph to swear that he will bury him not in Egypt but in Canaan (Gen. 47.29-31). Two separate scriptural ‘moments’ are thus deliberately brought together in a new way by the author, events which involve the same two main characters (Jacob and Joseph), include a common verb προσκυνέω (at Gen. 48.12 LXX Joseph’s sons bow down in obeisance to him), and share the setting of the end of Jacob’s life. This move enables him to recount Jacob’s dying words and actions in an abbreviated and selective manner which fits the literary form of the review of Israel’s ancestors in ch. 11. Furthermore, the deliberate telescoping of these events effectively advances the letter’s larger theological and rhetorical purposes. The blessing which Jacob invokes on his grandchildren is now seen to have been grounded in his faith in the God to whom he turns in worship at the very moment of benediction. His act of homage can be recalled while throwing all the attention not onto his death and burial, but onto the blessings promised to his descendants, an inheritance which members of the audience are exhorted to believe they will share if they only remain faithful (Heb. 11.39-40). b. Hebrews 12.21: Deuteronomy 9.19 In this section of the epistle, the author contrasts the terror and awe which characterized the divine encounter experienced by the ancient Israelites on Mount Sinai with the open and joyful access to God in heaven which he maintains is now on offer to the followers of Jesus (12.18-24). He illustrates this claim with a citation that he presents as the words of Moses: Μωϋσῆς εἶπεν· Ἔκφοβός εἰμι καὶ ἔντρομος (Heb. 12.21)

pp. 374–75; but contra Guthrie, ‘Hebrews’, p. 985; Steyn, Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage, pp. 52, 382.

202

Composite Citations in Antiquity

There are several different accounts of the Sinai theophany in the Pentateuch, all of which may be fused in the author’s description in these verses of the fire, darkness and trumpet blasts which accompanied it, and in the reminder that even to touch the holy mountain resulted in death (Heb. 12.18-20; cf. Exod. 19.9-24; 20.18-21; Deut. 4.11-12). In none of these passages, however, does Moses declare that he is afraid. The source of this citation is most likely to be Deut. 9.19, where Moses expresses his fear of God’s anger toward the Israelites because they had made the golden calf.34 Some commentators also point to the incident of the burning bush, when Moses is said to have been afraid to look at God (Exod. 3.6), but since the Septuagint has the verb εὐλαβεῖτο on that occasion, not the adjective ἔκφοβός, the verbal parallel is not as close. ‘Fear’ and ‘trembling’ are sometimes linked in Scripture and later Jewish writings (e.g., Pss. 18.7[17.8]; 77.18[76.19]; 1 Macc. 13.2), so may have become a stock phrase which influenced the author’s wording here.35 I would argue, however, that the depth of Moses’ fear is being subtly underscored in Hebrews by the addition of the word ἔντρομος (‘trembling’), which, although not present in the Septuagint of Deut. 9.19, does reflect the sense (if not the exact vocabulary) of the Sinai narratives in the book of Exodus: there we read, for instance, that ‘all the people who were in the camp trembled’ (καὶ ἐπτοήθη πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ὁ ἐν τῇ παρεµβολῇ, Exod. 19.16). The Israelites’ terror at the relative nearness of God at Sinai is crystallized, then, in this assertion that, before it, even Moses, that faithful servant of God (Heb. 3.1-6) and the representative par excellence of the former covenant (Heb. 8.5-7; 9.18-22; 10.28), was reduced to fear and trembling. It thus seems probable that the author is deliberately conflating the words spoken by Moses at the time of the making of the golden calf with the Exodus account of the Sinai theophany. This interpretative move both enhances the power of his rhetoric and strengthens his theological argument about the superiority of the new covenant mediated by Jesus (12.24). The association of the citation with a different scriptural episode means, then, that it functions more effectively to serve the author’s purpose.

34.  This is the view of, e.g., Attridge (Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 374) and Ellingworth (Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 676). Katz, however, is less persuaded: P. Katz, ‘The Quotations from Deuteronomy in Hebrews’, ZNW 49 (1958), pp. 213–33. 35.  This is emphasized especially by Steyn, Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage, pp. 345–48; see also Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 374.

8. Docherty  Composite Citations and Conflation in Hebrews

203

5. Summarizing Citations In the first volume in this series on composite citations in antiquity, a number of contributors helpfully address the way such quotations are used to provide abridged versions of authoritative texts like Homer as well as the Jewish Scriptures.36 This practice enables the later authors to exclude material which is irrelevant for their argument, or which does not fit well in the new context which they create for it. There is one example in Hebrews of a passage which might be illuminated by the application of this terminology of ‘selective summarizing citation’: the account of the meeting between Melchizedek and Abraham at 7.1-2. For a very minor scriptural character, Melchizedek has generated a remarkable amount of subsequent exegetical interest, as attested in, for example, the works of Philo and Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, rabbinic texts, and early Christian literature, although he does not feature within the New Testament outside of Hebrews.37 He seems to have been an early Canaanite king-priest, and appears in just four verses in the Pentateuch (Gen. 14.17-20). This passage is partially reproduced in Heb. 7.1-2, using a combination of the author’s own words, phrases taken directly from the scriptural text, and allusions to it. Hebrews follows Genesis in describing Melchizedek as king of Salem and priest of God most high, for example, and includes the information that he encountered Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him. It is also stated that Abraham gave Melchizedek one-tenth of everything, although here the choice of verb in Hebrews (ἐμέρισεν, ‘he apportioned’) differs from the Septuagint (ἔδωκεν, ‘he gave’), which better suits the author’s interpretation of this act as a precursor of the formal system of priestly tithing. Thus he remains very close to the wording and sequence of the scriptural source, but omits certain parts of it: there is no reference either to Melchizedek’s bringing out bread and wine (Gen. 14.18) or to the content

36.  For example, Adams discusses summarizing composite citations of Homeric narratives and speeches by Greek writers, and Royse considers this technique as it occurs in Philo’s re-telling of Scripture; see S. A. Adams, ‘Greek Education and Composite Citations of Homer’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, GraecoRoman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 17–34 (esp. 18–21); and, in the same volume, J. R. Royse, ‘Composite Quotations in Philo of Alexandria’, pp. 74–91 (78–81); cf. Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 207. 37.  For a full survey of these sources, see F. L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SNTSMS, 30; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).

204

Composite Citations in Antiquity

of his blessing of Abraham (Gen. 14.19-20).38 In this sense, he is certainly presenting a selective summary, but since he is working with only four consecutive verses of the Genesis narrative, not the longer sections of Scripture or of Homer discussed by the contributors to volume 1, it is debatable whether this can be classed as a real example of a condensed citation. Due to the differences between Hebrews and the account in Genesis, these verses are often classified as a paraphrase rather than a direct citation.39 It is certainly not a clear-cut case, but, rather, illustrates well the fluidity of the categories ‘citation’ and ‘allusion’. The introductory particle γάρ (Heb. 7.1), though, does seem to signal a break between the author’s own words in the preceding verses and the authoritative supporting text which follows, and he has taken care to repeat selected parts of his scriptural source verbatim. Whether this should properly be regarded as a direct—but partial—citation, or as a looser paraphrase, this way of reproducing the source text enables the author to include only those elements of it that are directly relevant for his argument, while still retaining scriptural authority for it. Furthermore, this selective summary has a significant bearing on the ensuing interpretation, as it throws all the emphasis on the person of Melchizedek, so that he, and not Abraham, becomes the main character. In Hebrews, for example, it is as if Melchizedek alone made a purposeful decision to go and meet Abraham after the battle with the kings. In the Genesis account, on the other hand, it is the King of Sodom, accompanied by Melchizedek, who comes out to offer hospitality to the conquering hero Abraham. The sections of the narrative that are omitted, such as the words of Melchizedek’s blessing exalting Abraham, and the offering to him of bread and wine, are precisely those details which could be taken as evidence of Abraham’s pre-eminence over Melchizedek.40 This all suits the argument developed in this chapter, in which Christ is explicitly presented as superior to Abraham (7.7), and his eternal Melchizedekian priesthood is contrasted

38.  For a more detailed treatment of this passage, see S. E. Docherty, ‘Genesis in Hebrews’, in S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (eds.), Genesis in the New Testament (LNTS, 466; London: T&T Clark International, 2012), pp. 124–48 (127–29). 39.  Most commentators e.g., Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 188; C. R. Koester, Hebrews (AB, 36; New York: Doubleday, 2001), p. 339; Steyn, Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage, pp. 219–33, regard this section as an allusion or paraphrase, but others do classify it as a citation, e.g., C. Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux (2 vols.; Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, 1952–1953), p. 1:331. 40.  As noted by, e.g., Lane, Hebrews, p. 1:163.

8. Docherty  Composite Citations and Conflation in Hebrews

205

with the ineffective Levitical ministry (7.18-28). Although it has been suggested that a traditional hymn may underlie all or part of Heb. 7.1-3, it seems just as probable that these verses are derived directly from the author’s own close reading of Gen. 14.17-20 and Ps. 110(109).4, or from traditional exegesis of these texts (such as the etymologies in Heb. 7.2 or the argument from silence in 7.3).41 There is no convincing reason to suppose, then, that the author knew this section of Genesis only through an extract collection or other source. 6. Composite Allusions and the Question of Sources The editors of the two volumes in this series decided from the outset to exclude composite allusions from this investigation, judging quite properly that this technique merits study in its own right, and that to focus on it could detract from their main aim of illuminating ancient citation practices.42 Nevertheless, in the case of Hebrews, it does seem appropriate to highlight the far greater use made by the author of composite allusion than of composite citation, especially as this relates to the wider question of his access to sources such as extract collections. Echoes of several scriptural texts are frequently woven together in transitional sections of the letter, for instance, such as the preface (1.1-4; cf. 2 Sam. 7.23; Pss. 2.7, 8; 110[109].1; cf. Wis. 7.26) and the closing chapter (see esp. 13.10-20; cf. Exod. 33.7-11; Lev. 16.27; 17.3; Ezek. 34).43 At least two definite allusions are also combined in 13.15, where the audience is exhorted to offer to God ‘a sacrifice of praise’ (ἀναφέρωμεν θυσίαν αἰνέσεως; see Pss. 50[49].14, 23; 107[106].22; 116.17[115.8]; cf. 2 Chron. 29.31), an act which is equated with ‘the fruit of lips which acknowledge his name’ (καρπὸν χειλέων; Hos. 14.3 LXX). In the introduction to the extended exposition of Ps. 95(94).7-11 in Heb. 3.1-6 too, various scriptural passages are key to the

41.  Ellingworth (Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 352–54) offers a particularly full summary and evaluation of the main scholarly proposals regarding hymnic and other possible sources for Heb. 7.1-3. 42.  S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation? An Introduction’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 1–16 (esp. p. 2). 43.  A full discussion of the scriptural texts evoked in Heb. 1.1-4 can be found in Guthrie, ‘Hebrews’, pp. 923–25, although he has little to say about Heb. 13. Ellingworth’s commentary also demonstrates a particularly developed awareness of the possible scriptural allusions in these and other passages; see, e.g., Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 92–106, 708–29.

206

Composite Citations in Antiquity

argument. The main verse underlying that discussion appears to be Num. 12.7 (see Heb. 3.2, 5-6), but further allusions to Nathan’s oracle to David (1 Chron. 17.14), and perhaps also to God’s promise to Eli (1 Sam. 2.35), serve to highlight Jesus’ messianic status and to relate this section to one of the author’s central themes: Christ’s priesthood.44 These paragraphs clearly demonstrate, then, his creativity in fashioning a christological or ethical message out of words and phrases from widely scattered scriptural locations. It is often suggested that pre-existing sources such as hymns or testimonia compilations underlie those sections of Hebrews that are particularly replete with allusions.45 Certainly many of the texts alluded to in 1.1-4 and 3.1-6 do occur frequently throughout early Christian literature (e.g., the Nathan oracle; Pss. 2; 110; Wis. 7.22-27) and appear to have lent themselves particularly easily to messianic speculation. The influence of anthologies on these passages cannot be ruled out, therefore, and it is very probable that the Scriptures were available to the author in forms other than Septuagint scrolls. However, his ability to select and combine references to all parts of Scripture to create his own new text indicates a breadth of knowledge of them and a level of exegetical training which goes beyond acquaintance with extract collections alone. 7. Conclusions This investigation confirms that composite citation is not an exegetical practice widespread in Hebrews. This author much more frequently brings scriptural texts together in a mutually interpretative way by linking separate citations in a pair or a chain, or by the creation of composite allusions. Only one probable (10.37-38) and two possible (8.5; 13.5) examples of conflated citation have been identified here, and no combined quotations are present. This represents only a very small fraction of the overall number of citations in the letter, which I count at thirty-six. The precise figure is notoriously difficult to determine, given the repetition (in full or partially) of some quotations (e.g., Pss. 2.7; 95[94].7-11; 44.  This is the view of most commentators, but D’Angelo (Moses, p. 69) argues that 1 Chron. 17.14 is the author’s primary referent here. 45.  See, e.g., O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebrӓer (KEK, 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6th edn, 1966), p. 94; and E. Grässer, ‘Hebrӓer 1, 1-4. Ein exegetischer Versuch’, in EKK Vorarbeiten 3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1971), pp. 55–91 (63); on the possible use of a liturgical tradition in Heb. 13.15, see also Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 719–20.

8. Docherty  Composite Citations and Conflation in Hebrews

207

110[109].4; Jer. 31[38].31-34), and the fluidity of the boundary between citations and allusions (see, e.g., 7.1-2; 11.21; 12.29), so that commentators set it variously between twenty-nine and forty-one.46 If all three possible cases considered in this study are accepted as conflated citations, they would constitute approximately 8 percent of the total, but I would rule out Heb. 8.5, giving an overall percentage of 5.5 percent. The form of the texts cited in Heb. 8.5 and 13.5 are closely paralleled in quotations in Philo, so may well have been present in the author’s Vorlage, although that does not preclude a deliberate selection on his part of the version which best suited his purpose. The evidence is less clear cut in the case of 10.37-38, where he is most probably responsible himself for creating the link between Hab. 2.3-4 and Isa. 26.20. Significantly, however, in all of the passages examined here, the blending of two scriptural texts functions extremely effectively to support the author’s argument, and so achieves more than could have been accomplished by employing the dominant text alone. It enables him, for example, to emphasize to his audience that the time of waiting for ‘the coming one’ is short (10.37-38); to reinforce the starkness of the contrast between the Sinai theophany and the experience awaiting the faithful followers of Jesus in the heavenly Jerusalem (12.21); and to imply that everything about the Mosaic tabernacle is impermanent. His selective summary, combining parts of Gen. 14.17-20, serves a similar purpose, in highlighting more forcefully than the source-text the superiority of Melchizedek over Abraham. Equally important is the finding that the author twice conflates scriptural episodes by attributing a citation to an occasion other than its original one (11.21; 12.21). This distinctive technique of deliberate recontextualization also advances his rhetorical and theological goals, and is a clear indication of his deep familiarity with the totality of Scripture. The entire letter is firmly rooted in his reflection on all parts of the Scriptures, and both his citations and his allusions indicate a more detailed knowledge of them as a whole than could be gained from exposure to extract collections alone. This suggests an ability to access actual Septuagint scrolls on the part of this author and/or his audience, which may have wider implications for locating them: religiously (a Jewish rather than a Gentile background seems more probable); socially (perhaps a group which included some wealthy or influential members); and intellectually (with some at least being able to read and having a solid education in the Scriptures and their interpretation). This does not necessarily mean that he never made use of

46.  See the discussion in, e.g., Cockerill, Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 42–43.

208

Composite Citations in Antiquity

extract collections or other sources, as it is very likely that various kinds of scriptural texts were available to him. However, the extent of his own role in selecting, combining, and framing his citations with new co-text to shape their interpretation and make them relevant to his main themes should not be underestimated.

Chapter 9 C om p os i t e C i tat i on s i n A nti qui ty : A C on c l u s i on Sean A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn

This chapter brings together the major contributions and discussions of the first two volumes of Composite Citations in Antiquity. In the first section, we will unpack the key findings of the present volume. Because there is significant overlap in discussions, particularly with regard to the Synoptic Gospels, we will evaluate the different perspectives and positions held by the contributors in this volume. Following this, we will turn our attention back to refining our definition of composite citations in light of this investigation, highlighting points of consensus and noting areas in need of further investigation and refinement. The final portion of this chapter will be dedicated to looking forward to future avenues of research that have significant conceptual overlap with these volumes. This includes the presentation of composite citations in critical editions and translations, composite citations in non-literary texts, composite allusions, composite constructions, the question of the scriptural status of composite citations, and implications for comparative studies. 1. Findings from Volume 2 The foundational argument of these two volumes is that the creation of composite citations was a literary practice in antiquity common enough to be recognized.1 The common assertion that a New Testament author is engaging in a typical Jewish practice when producing composite citations may well be true, but it is not uniquely true.2 Composite citations are 1.  So C. D. Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, in S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, vol. 1 of Composite Citations in Antiquity (LNTS, 525; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), pp. 203–9 (204). 2.  In addition to commentaries on key New Testament passages, see S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation? An Introduction’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 1–16 (9–10).

210

Composite Citations in Antiquity

a wider literary phenomenon and they are often the result of intricate reading and compositional strategies. In this section, we will explore the quantitative and qualitative results of this volume. a. Quantitative Findings The quantitative findings from each chapter of this volume are summarized in Table 9.1. The total number of citations calculated for each book (column 2) is taken from each of the chapters and may vary depending upon the criteria employed by each scholar to determine what constitutes a citation. Such evaluation in turn impacts what percentage of the total citations are composite (column 4). For the purposes of Table 9.1 we have allowed the conclusions of each contributor to stand.3 Furthermore, we have not eliminated any possible overlap between parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels, but have allowed each work to be classified as a discrete, individual text. This table highlights the fact that composite citations comprise a significant portion of the citations found in the New Testament. Table 9.1. Percentages of Composite Citations Mark4 Matthew5 Luke–Acts6 Luke Acts John7 Paul Romans8 1 Corinthians9 2 Corinthians9 Galatians9 Ephesians – Philemon Hebrews10 TOTAL

Citations 23 65 66 25 41 15 83 45 15 7 10 6 36 288

Composite 4 13 11 7 4 8 16 11 3 1 1 0 2 54

Percent 17.4 20.0 16.7 28.0 9.7 53.3 19.3 24.4 20.0 14.3 10 0 5.5 18.75

3.  In the introduction chapter of this volume, we also discussed Acts 15.16-18; Eph. 5.14; 1 Tim. 5.18; 1 Pet. 2.24. 4.  Moyise, pp. 32–33, identifies two combined citations (Mk 1.2-3; 14.62) and two conflated (Mk 12.19; 13.24-25). 5.  Menken, pp. 60–61, identifies nine combined citations (Mt. 2.6; 5.21, 33, 43; 11.5, 10; 21.5; 24.29; 26.64) and four conflated (Mt. 2.23; 13.35; 22.24; 27.9-10). 6.  According to Porter, pp. 92–93, three are combined citations (Lk. 10.7; 20.28; Acts 13.22), five are conflated (Lk. 4.18-19; 7.27; Acts 3.22-23; 7.5, 6-7), and three are condensed (Lk. 18.20; 20.37; Acts 3.13).

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

211

Further, as detailed in Table 9.2 below, the overall number of combined citations (21) versus conflated citations (29) is quite balanced overall. This balance between both types of composite citations is mirrored generally in each of the individual authors as well, with the notable exceptions of the Gospel of John, which shows a preference for conflated citations, and the Gospel of Matthew, which favours combined citations. Noteworthy is that condensed citations have considerably fewer occurrences than combined and conflated citations in the New Testament.11 The exception to this is Luke–Acts, which uses condensed citations in almost equal amounts with the other types. Table 9.2. Types of Composite Citations in the New Testament12

Mark

Matthew Luke–Acts John Paul Hebrews TOTAL

Combined

2 9

3 1 6 0

21

Conflated

2 4 5 7 9 2 29

Condensed

0 0 3 0 1 0 4

In addition to these quantitative findings, we highlight some other issues that are particular to volume 2, reserving fuller discussion of findings from both volumes to the following sections. 7.  According to Williams, pp. 124–27, seven are conflated citations (Jn 6.31; 7.38; 12.15, 40; 13.18; 19.36, 37) and one is combined (Jn 12.13). Additionally, there are three are scriptural paraphrases (Jn 7.42; 8.17; 12.34). 8.  According to Reasoner, pp. 155–58, four are combined citations (Rom. 3.10-18; 9.25-26; 11.34-35; 14.11), six are conflated (Rom. 9.20, 27-28, 33; 10.6; 11.8, 26-27), and one is condensed (Rom. 13.9). 9.  According to Ciampa, pp. 187–89, two are combined citations (1 Cor. 15.5455; 2 Cor. 6.16-18) and three are conflated citations (1 Cor. 2.9; 14.21; Gal. 3.10). Ciampa also states that Gal. 3.13 may be a conflated citation, but he judges that the substitution of two words from Deut. 27.26 into a citation of Deut. 21.23 is not sufficient to make this determination. 10.  According to Docherty, pp. 206–7, there are two conflated citations (Heb. 10.37-38; 13.5). Additionally, there are two conflations of scriptural narrative (Heb. 11.21; 12.21) and one summarizing quotation (Heb. 7.1-2). 11.  ‘Combined’, ‘conflated’, and ‘condensed’ citations are defined on pp. 1–5 of this volume. 12.  The numbers in Table 9.2 are derived from footnotes that accompany Table 9.1.

212

Composite Citations in Antiquity

b. Qualitative Findings (1) Authorial and Inherited Composite Citations. As several contributors observe throughout the studies in this volume, there is strong evidence that sometimes an author borrows a composite citation from a source. Matthew and Luke adopt citations from Mark’s Gospel. Indeed, each of Mark’s composite citations has been taken up in one form or another within Matthew and Luke’s Gospels. For example, Maarten Menken argued that part of the composite citation that opens Mark’s Gospel (1.2-3) is found in a shorter form also in Mt. 11.10 and Lk. 7.27 (= Q?).13 Likewise, Porter and Menken each discussed the parallel passages with Mk 12.19 (i.e., Lk. 20.28; Mt. 22.24), arguing for an earlier and perhaps even a pre-Christian construction.14 Steve Moyise observed that the wide-spread popularity of Ps. 110.1 in the early church suggests that the combined citation with Dan. 7.13 in Mk 14.62 is earlier than Mark.15 In certain cases for Matthew and Luke (e.g., their possible use of Mk 1.2-3 and/or Q), it is very likely that the authors recognized that the construction was a composite citation and were content to retain portions of them in their own narrative. At the same time, they also felt free to disentangle received combinations. For example, when Matthew and Luke follow Mark in describing John the Baptist’s ministry with a quote from Isa. 40.3 (Mk 1.2-3; Mt. 3.3; Lk. 3.4), they omit the combination with Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1. This may suggest that the formation and decoupling of composite citations was an ongoing literary activity and that subsequent authors were cognizant of different ways of handling them. Indeed, New Testament authors often, even if not always, showed intentionality in choosing and combining texts. It is not only a matter of using sources with pre-combined texts. Catrin Williams’ study on the Gospel of John also contributed to the question of inherited versus authorial citations. She concluded that while a significant number of John’s citations are derived from early Christian tradition, the composite features of these citations are ‘the result of the redactional activity undertaken by John, and this primarily for christological purposes’.16 This suggests that core texts in the early Christian tradition were being brought into exegetical conversation with one another. For John’s Gospel, this happened to understand and explain the identity of Jesus. 13.  Menken, p. 47. 14.  Porter, p. 77; Menken, p. 57; Moyise, p. 27. 15.  Moyise, p. 31. 16.  Williams, p. 125.

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

213

Mark Reasoner’s chapter on Romans also considered Paul’s original combinations versus composite citations he inherited. Five composite citations probably pre-date Paul (Rom. 3.10-18; 9.20, 27-28, 33; 11.3435) and the remaining six are his own constructions (Rom. 9.25-26; 10.6; 11.8, 26-27; 13.9; 14.11).17 Paul’s own composite citations are adduced mainly to bolster his law-free mission to Gentiles. Further, Reasoner suggests, Paul’s scriptural interpretations may have been influential for the author of Luke–Acts.18 This possibility is suggested because Luke’s Gospel underscores the significance of Jesus fulfilling ‘all the Scriptures concerning himself’ (Lk. 24.27; cf. 24.44), an idea that agrees with Paul’s claim that the gospel was ‘promised beforehand through [God’s] prophets in the Holy Scriptures’ (Rom. 1.2). The determination that an author inherits rather than creates a composite citation is made with at least one of the following factors in mind. First, some scholars posit an author inherited a composite text because the quoting author, apparently, did not know and/or have access to the quoted source(s).19 Second, attestation to similar composite citations by multiple authors certainly provides strong evidence of an inherited citation (e.g., Synoptic Gospels and Acts). As noted earlier, sometimes these citations may suggest that such textual combinations occurred even earlier than our extant sources themselves. Certainty, of course, is not possible on this. Third, even without multiple sources attesting similar composite text forms, an assessment of the continuity (or lack thereof) a citation has with its literary co-text can also help when determining if a composite citation was created for its new linguistic context or if it has been inherited and redeployed (e.g., see discussions of Mt. 27.9-10; Jn 7.38; Rom. 3.10-18).20 While the Synoptic Gospels provide more certain grounds for discussion of inherited citations, in other instances the nature of the source is not always known. One possibility is that certain composite citations were adopted from an author’s use of testimonia. This practice was outlined in detail in the first volume by Martin Albl and was thought to provide a possible rationale for some of the composite citations found in the New Testament documents, particularly some uses of Scripture in John, Acts, 2 Corinthians, and Hebrews.21 Yet, as Garrick Allen showed, even if an 17.  Reasoner, p. 157. 18.  See Reasoner, pp. 156–57, following R. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2006). 19.  Docherty, pp. 191–92. 20.  Menken, pp. 58–60; Williams, pp. 100–3; Reasoner, pp. 129–36. 21.  E.g., Jn 19.37 (Williams, pp. 119–24); 2 Cor. 6.16-18 (Ciampa, pp. 160–74); Heb. 10.37-38 (Docherty, pp. 193–96). Previous testimonia proposals were challenged by Porter, pp. 92–93.

214

Composite Citations in Antiquity

author utilized sources with pre-formed texts in thematic arrangement, the mechanics of citation and conflation are virtually identical.22 It is also possible that composite texts are pre-formed constructions created by the quoting author at the time he/she was extracting texts or preparing notes for composition.23 All of these examples indicate that Jewish and Christian readers were actively associating and combining scriptural texts early in the interpretive process and that this practice pre-dates any of the New Testament works. (2) Characters and Composite Citations. Another important topic that was mentioned, but not discussed in depth, in the individual chapters is the relationship between a composite citation and its speaker within the text. Within the narratives examined (i.e., the Gospels and Acts), who creates composite citations? Are they limited to the narrator or are they placed on the lips of individuals within the text? Beginning with Mark’s Gospel, we find that only one composite citation is given by the narrator (Mk 1.2-3), with the four possible other composites spoken by characters within the narrative (Jesus: 11.17; 13.24-25; 14.62; Sadducees: 12.19). Composite citations are also provided by the Matthean narrator (Mt. 13.35; 21.5; 27.9-10) and select characters in the text (Jesus: 11.5, 10; 24.29; 26.64; high priests and scribes: 2.6; Sadducees: 22.24). Conversely, the author of Luke–Acts only places composite citations in the mouths of characters and none are reserved for the narrator.24 Finally, in the Gospel of John, four composite citations are presented as fulfilment texts by the narrator (Jn 12.15, 40; 19.36, 37), two are offered by the crowd (6.31; 12.13), and two appear in the mouth of Jesus (7.38; 13.18). Of particular interest for this discussion is the composite quotation given by the narrator in Mk 1.2-3, which is subsequently refined and placed in the mouth of Jesus in Mt. 11.10 and Lk. 7.27. It is interesting that both authors made a similar decision with regard to this citation. This fits with the movement away from explicit use of Scripture, including composite citations, by the narrator in Luke–Acts. However, there is no clear rationale for the change in Matthew in this instance. It is possible 22.  G. V. Allen, ‘Composite Citations in Jewish Pseudepigraphic Works: Re-Presenting Legal Traditions in the Second Temple Period’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 140–57 (153, 156–57). 23.  See S. M. Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in Plutarch’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 35–56 (37–39); Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 205. 24.  Jesus: Lk. 4.18-19; 7.27; 18.20; 19.46; 22.69; Lawyer: Lk. 10.27; Sadducees: 20.28. For Acts: Peter: 3.22-23; Stephen: 7.5; Paul: 13.22; James: 15.16-18.

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

215

that these two authors thought that this composite was an actual saying of Jesus. In Luke’s Gospel, however, what we see in this move is a presentation of Jesus that is more literate (from Mark to Luke), not only through the attribution of composite citations previously attributed to the narrator, but also in the creation of a composite citation in the only instance where Jesus officially handles a text (i.e., Lk. 4.18-19).25 The question of Jesus’ education and literacy presents a fascinating problem. It is not our purpose to weigh in on that discussion here. But it is possible that because the Gospels present Jesus as employing composite citations, later Christians may have found warrant for the practice themselves. Note the suggestion by Davies and Allison: It is difficult to say whether the early church’s freedom to mix quotations was encouraged by a similar tendency on the part of Jesus (cf. Mk 10.6-8; 11.17; 14.62; Lk 10.27).26

Alternatively, because composite citations were a recognized literary practice in antiquity, it may not be necessary to posit Jesus as a catalyst for the abundance of composite citations in Christian literature when compared with wider literature. Nevertheless, it is possible that the actions and interpretation practices of Jesus, as presented in the gospels, influenced the way that early Christians subsequently handled texts. The findings in Table 9.1 (above) indicate that the New Testament authors (at least those who engage in this practice) made substantial use of composite citations. Although we have not provided statistics for non-New Testament texts, we have found in our investigations that composite citations appear much more frequently in the New Testament than for works outside the New Testament.27 This exaggerated use suggests that a historical impetus might be at work and that the way(s) that Jesus interpreted texts might have influenced the practices of his followers.28 This impression is reinforced 25.  For a deeper discussion on this point, see C. Keith, ‘The Oddity of the Reference to Jesus in Acts 4:13b’, JBL 134/4 (2015), pp. 791–811 (804). 26.  W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997), p. 1:242. 27.  See Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in Plutarch’, p. 55, who notes the relative infrequency of Plutarch’s composite citations when compared with his extensive citation practice. 28.  This idea has roots in the declaration by the narrator that Jesus opened the Scriptures and explained all that the Law of Moses, Prophets, and Psalms said about him (cf. Lk. 24.27, 32, 44).

216

Composite Citations in Antiquity

in Acts, in which prominent disciples of Jesus, who are presented as continuing Jesus’ ministry (Acts 1.1-2), engage in combining texts for exegetical purposes.29 2. Refined Definition of Composite Citation The studies in both volumes of Composite Citations in Antiquity provide us with the opportunity to reflect further upon a definition of ‘composite citation’. In volume 1 we provided the following working definition: ‘a text may be considered a composite citation when literary borrowing occurs in a manner that includes two or more passages (from the same or different authors) fused together and conveyed as though they are only one’.30 Building upon the taxonomies from the Introduction of this volume, composite citations occur in three different formats: combined, conflated, and condensed citations.31 Sometimes features of each are found in a single quotation. Beyond these distinctions, how does this project contribute to a refined definition and understanding of composite citations? We will discuss the significance of primary and subsidiary texts within composite citations, the distinction between textual clustering and composite citation, and the practice of textual condensing. After this we consider an extended example of a potential composite citation that is shared among the Synoptic Gospels. This will provide opportunity for further reflection on distinguishing and defining a composite citation.32 a. Primary and Subsidiary Texts Several studies in both volumes have raised the issue of how to interpret ‘subsidiary’ texts within a composite citation. As defined by Bruce Fisk, this label refers to ‘[c]itations drawn from beyond the central passage’.33

29.  S. A. Adams, The Genre of Acts and Collected Biography (SNTSMS, 156; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 174–79. 30.  Adams and Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation?’, p. 4. 31.  Adams and Ehorn, pp. 2–5. 32.  A useful inventory of literary features in Jewish texts is that by A. Samely, with P. Alexander, R. Bernasconi, and R. Hayward, Profiling Jewish Literature in Antiquity: An Inventory, from Second Temple Texts to the Talmuds (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 31–85. 33.  B. N. Fisk, Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo (JSPSup, 37; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), p. 14; cf. D. Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), pp. 28–29.

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

217

While noting that this feature is more prominent in conflated citations than combined citations, many times we can observe that one text made the primary linguistic contribution while other text(s) remain(s) subsidiary. Commenting on this phenomenon in Pseudo-Philo, Fisk notes that ‘allusion functions as exegesis’ and that fusion of multiple texts ‘is intriguing enough to require additional analytical categories that consider hermeneutical strategies as well as compositional techniques’.34 In other words, subsidiary texts may function to advance an author’s understanding of the primary text. We have identified three such features: temporal shifts, interpretive reframing, and marking subsidiary texts. (1) Temporal Shifts. One function of subsidiary texts is that sometimes they are evoked at the beginning or end of the citation in order to establish a temporal framework. For example, Heb. 10.37-38 is a citation of Hab. 2.3-4 with a possible conflation of the words μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον (‘in a little while’) from Isa. 26.20. Susan Docherty concludes that the words from Isaiah are added only to emphasize the shortness of time until the realization of Habakkuk’s prophecy.35 That is, the Isaianic wording serves as a temporal frame for the Habakkuk citation but does not bring with it wider resonances from Isaiah 26. Shifting the temporal framework with wording from another text might also explain the citation in Acts 2.17-21 as well.36 The words ἔσται ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις do not derive from Joel 3.1-5 but may be from Isa. 2.2. C. M. Blumhofer argues that the citation ‘draws in “co-texts” and “secondary citations” from across Israel’s Scripture and thus reshapes the meaning of Joel’s prophecy by freighting it with significant images of Israel’s restoration’.37 If this is the case, then it is the subsidiary citation that reorients the text eschatologically to refer to what ‘will be in the last days’ (ἔσται ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, Isa. 2.2) rather than what ‘will be after this’ (ἔσται μετὰ ταῦτα, Joel 3.1). It is difficult to say if the conflation of these texts caused the temporal shift or if it is the product of prior exegesis that had applied the main text to the eschaton. Nevertheless, in the form in which we encounter it in Acts 2.17-21, the subsidiary text shifts the temporal frame.

34.  Fisk, Do You Not Remember?, p. 21. 35.  Docherty, pp. 193–96. 36.  This text is not discussed by Porter. 37.  C. M. Blumhofer, ‘Luke’s Alteration of Joel 3.1-5 in Acts 2.17-21’, NTS 62/4 (2016), pp. 499–516 (501).

218

Composite Citations in Antiquity

A last example of temporal shift is the combined citation of Isa. 59.20-21 with Isa. 27.9 in Rom. 11.26-27. The primary text is clearly Isa. 59.20-21, which is a text about the sin and redemption of Israel. But the inclusion of a clause from Isa. 27.9, which begins with ὅταν, provides a temporal framework for understanding when ‘all Israel will be saved’ (πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται, Rom. 11.26).38 The subsidiary text, again, plays an important role in shaping the meaning of the quotation, especially as it relates to Paul’s argument about unbelieving Israel in Romans 9–11. (2) Interpretive Reframing. Another function of subsidiary texts is that sometimes they function to reorient or reframe the meaning of the primary text.39 The selection of a subsidiary text to combine or conflate with the primary text allows the quoting author to support the ideological position they seek. As an example of this, in volume 1 Seth Ehorn observed that a marked citation from Euripides (Phoen. 439-40) was conflated with wording from Sophocles (fr. 88) in Plutarch, Mor. 497b. τὸ δ᾿ ὑπὸ τοῦ Εὐριπίδου λεγόμενον, τὰ χρήματ᾿ ἀνθρώποισιν εὑρίσκειν φίλους (Sophocles, fr. 88) δύναμίν τε πλείστην τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἔχειν (Euripides, Phoen. 439-40)40 And the remark of Euripides, Money finds out friends for men And holds the greatest power of all things among mankind

The conflated words from Sophocles clearly overlap with Euripides’ wording and this probably contributed to their fusion. But Plutarch’s use of Sophocles as a subsidiary text drastically reshapes the meaning of this ‘remark of Euripides’. As Ehorn noted, this primary text from Euripides was considered to be a ‘common saying [τοῦ κοινοῦ λόγου]’ (Strabo, 38.  See N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), p. 2:1251, who discusses the meaning and timing of ὅταν ἀφέλωμαι in Rom. 11.27. 39.  See J. D. H. Norton, ‘Composite Quotations in the Damascus Document’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 92–118 (esp. 106), who refers to ‘the principal citation’ being ‘augmented by the integration of key phrases’ from another source. Stanley, pp. 207–8, also notes that ‘[s]ometimes…the meaning of the excerpt is radically altered by being placed into a new context’. It is interesting that Ciampa, p. 183, does not consider Gal. 3.13 to be a conflated citation because the substituted wording from Deut. 27.26 (cited in Gal. 3.10) is basically synonymous with the wording it replaces. 40.  Euripides’ wording is τὰ χρήματ᾿ ἀνθρώποισι τιμιώτατα.

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

219

Geogr. 9.2.40), which is attested also by citations in other authors (e.g., Menander, Mon. 500).41 Here the use of Sophocles as a subsidiary text in the quotation allows Plutarch to depart from the common interpretive tradition. In fact, Plutarch actually claims this very thing immediately following the quotation: ‘[the citation] is not a simple and general truth, but applies to the childless’ (Mor. 497c).42 Here the subsidiary text has aided Plutarch’s interpretation by exercising considerable hermeneutical control. Similar interpretive reframing occurs in Lk. 4.18-19, which is a marked quotation from βιβλίον τοῦ προφήτου Ἠσαΐου (‘the book of the prophet Isaiah’). The primary text is Isa. 61.1-2 and the subsidiary text is Isa. 58.6. As Stanley Porter argues, the reason for the insertion [of Isa. 58.6] is to shift the emphasis of the passage toward not only freedom (use of ἄφεσις) but towards a general orientation to positive and liberating proclamation that includes bodily, physically, and socially positive transformation (emphasis is hence upon not only ‘forgiveness/release’ but ‘proclaim’, ‘send’, ‘preach’, ‘recover’, and ‘set free’). In other words, in his first major public appearance Jesus sets the agenda for his entire ministry.43

Porter goes on to argue that this agenda includes physical liberation of the oppressed, as witnessed by the many healings and exorcisms in the gospel narrative that follows (e.g., Lk. 4.31-41; 5.12-26; 6.18-19; 7.1-10). The conflated citation in Rom. 9.33 has the text of Isa. 8.14 inserted into the middle of Isa. 28.16. Both Isaianic texts refer to a ‘stone’ (λίθος) and, along with thematic connections between the two contexts, this provides the basic principle for their conflation.44 Whereas in Isa. 28.16 the stone is described as ‘a precious, choice stone, a highly valued cornerstone for its foundations’ (λίθον πολυτελῆ ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἔντιμον εἰς τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς), the conflation with Isa. 8.14 alters this positive reference to ‘a stone of stumbling’ (λίθου προσκόμματι) and ‘a rock of offense’ (πέτρας πτώματι).45 The conflation of these two texts in Rom. 9.33 differs formally 41.  R. Cribiore, ‘The Grammarian’s Choice: The Popularity of Euripides’ Phoenissae in Hellenistic and Roman Education’, in Y. L. Too (ed.), Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 241–60 (242), notes that the popularity of Phoenissae in education matched its favor in the public. 42.  See fuller discussion in Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in Plutarch’, pp. 46–47. 43.  Porter, p. 68. 44.  J. R. Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “in Concert” in the Letter to the Romans (NovTSup, 101; Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 145–51. 45.  See Reasoner, pp. 144–45.

220

Composite Citations in Antiquity

from 1 Pet. 2.6-8, where both texts are also quoted in close sequence but where Ps. 117.22 LXX separates them.46 The different citation practices led to different readings of Isa. 28.16. Whereas 1 Pet. 2.6-8 retains the source text in a near original form by employing a chain-link citation, the composite citation in Rom. 9.33 has reframed the meaning of Isa. 28.16 by conflating it with a subsidiary text. In Jn 19.36, a conflated citation of Exod. 12.10, 12.46, Num. 9.12, and Ps. 34(33).20 is utilized to explain some of the circumstances of Jesus’ death. As Williams observes, John includes several references to Passover themes (e.g., 1.29, 36; 13.1; 18.28; 19.14, 29), including this citation which states that ‘not one of his bones shall be broken’. The primary text is apparently Ps. 34(33).20, but several features of the citation make better sense given the analogous features in the other source texts. Most notably, while Ps. 34(33).21 refers in the plural to ‘their bones’ (τὰ ὀστᾶ αὐτῶν), the texts from Exodus and Numbers refer to only one figure. The Pentateuchal text(s) make(s) the application to Jesus possible.47 In addition to conflated citations, some combined citations also include this feature of interpretive reframing. We saw this in 4 Macc. 18.19, where the meaning of Deut. 32.39 is significantly altered in light of its combination with Deut. 30.20. Ehorn noted that [b]y merging the wording from Deut. 32.39 and 30.20 together, a transformation of the meaning of Deut. 30.20 occurs…. According to 30.20, love, obedience, and holding fast to God is life and length of days…. However, fused to Deut. 32.39, the part of the citation from 30.20 takes on a different meaning.48

As Ehorn further noted, rather than reading these texts from Deuteronomy in light of living in the promised land, the author of 4 Maccabees combined these passages and read them in a temporal sequence: ‘I will kill and [then] I will make alive’. Thus, this combined citation provides scriptural support for the author’s sequence of death followed by life.

46.  Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, p. 133, observes that comparison with 1 Pet. 2.6-8 provides good evidence that Paul was the first to conflate these texts in Rom. 9.33. 47.  Williams, p. 117. 48.  S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in the Septuagint Apocrypha’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 119–39 (123–24).

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

221

(3) Marking Subsidiary Texts. Ancient authors do not always explicitly mark their citations with a source attribution. This holds true with composite citations. But, in some instances, we can observe the curious feature of attributing the quotation to the subsidiary text rather than the primary text of a composite citation. Many modern interpreters have labelled these ‘misattributions’ as mistakes due to faulty memory or use of testimonia-like sources.49 For example, Richard Longenecker suggests that attribution to one source (and not another) might happen when a composite citation is derived from a testimonia collection and ‘multiple passages were credited to the more prominent prophet in the listing’.50 While memory error or testimonia source both remain a possibility, several examples discussed in both volumes may suggest another explanation for source attributions to the subsidiary text. In Mt. 13.35 the author quotes extensively from Ps. 78(77).2 with a small conflation from Isa. 29.14. As Menken argues, Matthew attributed the quotation to Isaiah rather than the psalmist.51 By pointing readers/ listeners to ‘Isaiah’, the evangelist draws attention to the subsidiary text. Because Isa. 29.13-14 was understood by early Christians as a prophecy about the hardening of Israel,52 the conflation of a key term from Isa. 29.14 with Ps 78(77).2 underscores the idea that ‘God shall hide his revelation of true wisdom and discernment from those who seem to be wise and discerning’.53 Thus, as seen above, the subsidiary text functions to reorient the meaning of the citation if the reader makes connections with the Isaianic context. Likewise, Mt. 27.9-10 is primarily a citation of Zech. 11.12-13 but it is attributed to Jeremiah. Menken argues that this is because an analogous passage from Jer. 32(39).6-15 has been conflated with it, contributing the

49.  See M. C. Albl, ‘The Testimonia Hypothesis and Composite Citations’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 182–202 (184). For faulty memory, see most recently, E. P. Sanders, Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), p. 73. For intentional compositions, see R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), p. 186. 50.  R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1999), p. 122. 51.  See Menken, p. 55, for this text-critical judgment that follows the MS evidence and the principle of lectio difficilior. 52.  Cf. Mk 7.6-7 // Mt. 15.8-9; Mt. 12.25; 1 Cor. 1.19; Col. 2.22; 1 Clem. 15.2; 2 Clem. 3.5; Justin, Dial. 27.4; 32.5; 38.2; 39.5; 48.2; 78.11; 80.4; 123.4; 140.2. 53.  Menken, p. 56.

222

Composite Citations in Antiquity

important keyword ἀγρός. Significantly, purchasing the potter’s field is the main action in the quotation and the surrounding narrative of Matthew’s Gospel. As for Zechariah, Menken argues that [t]he reason to connect Zech 11,12-13 with the story was that this prophetic passage is both about money paid in connection with a shepherd authorized by God, and about a potter. These two elements were also present in the narrative: Jesus, the shepherd, was betrayed for money, and the money was used to buy the field of the potter.54

The conflation from Jer. 32(39).6-15 is quantitatively subsidiary but semantically primary, exercising a controlling influence on the quotation and, as Menken demonstrates, on the narrative context of Mt. 27.3-10 as well (e.g., τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια in Mt. 27.3, 9; cf. Zech. 11.12).55 By marking the quotation as words spoken διὰ Ἰερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου, the author of Matthew appears to be flagging the important subsidiary text for the audience.56 It is possible that a similar phenomenon explains the reference to ‘Isaiah the prophet’ in Mk 1.2-3, even though the author begins by quoting Mal. 3.1 (and possibly Exod. 23.20) prior to Isa. 40.3.57 A more complicated explanation is required for the extensive combined citation in Rom. 3.10-18. The citation is comprised of as many as seven texts and, following the quotation, Paul attributes it to ‘the Law’: οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὅσα ὁ νόμος λέγει τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λαλεῖ (‘now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those under the Law’, Rom. 3.19). It is true that νόμος can be used to reference a wider range of texts, including the Psalms (cf. Jn 10.34; 12.34; 15.25; 1 Cor. 14.21).58 But, it is suggestive that, following the combined citation demonstrating that ‘none are righteous’, 54.  M. J. J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (BETL, 173; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004), p. 198. 55.  Menken, Matthew’s Bible, pp. 191–99. Pace D. J. Moo, ‘Tradition and Old Testament in Matt 27:3-10’, in R. T. France and D. Wenham (eds.), Studies in Midrash and Historiography, vol. 3 of Gospel Perspectives (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), pp. 157–75 (165), who argues that Matthew’s departures from Zechariah suggest that Matthew adopts pre-formed tradition. 56.  Menken, p. 59. 57.  On this, see R. E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (WUNT, 2/88; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), pp. 88–90, who interprets the citation in light of the Markan ‘sandwich’ technique and argues that ‘the Isaiah ascription together with the Isaiah 40:3 text provides the framework into which the Exodus/Malachi conflation is inserted’ (p. 89). 58.  Observed by Reasoner, pp. 134–35; also see discussion in F. Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), pp. 57–58.

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

223

Paul goes on to argue that the Law is well-suited to make such a judgment (e.g., Rom. 3.20-21; 5.20; 7.7-12). In Rom. 3.10-18, then, the Writings (mainly the Psalms) are used as ‘[a] generic instrument…to refashion psalmic testimony to suit the voice of the Law’.59 As Matthew Scott argues, evocation of ‘the Law’ in Rom. 3.19 leads the reader away from making associations with the Psalm sources that comprise the quotation. This allows Paul to exercise discursive control over the meaning of the quoted words in their new literary context by showing that he understands the words within a wider theoretical context.60 Thus, the attribution to ‘the Law’ plays an important role in how the combined citation is interpreted.61 b. Composite Features vs. Textual Clusters Another issue worth addressing directly is the phenomenon of text clustering or chain-linking.62 Several authors in both volumes have noted the process of bringing texts into close relationship, but following our working definition they have distinguished composite citations from examples where multiples citations are separated by words like καί, καὶ πάλιν, etc.63 However, for our purposes we are also interested in how the presentation of the text in a distinct manner (i.e., with some sort of clear indication of demarcation between texts) differs from the phenomenon we are calling ‘composite’. In the past, scholars have not always been precise on this matter. For example, Joseph Fitzmyer states that ‘[t]he clearest examples of composite quotations are the citations that are strung together without comments or identification of their author(s)’.64 However, this definition does not rule out chain-linked or clustered citations and this is borne out in his discussion of texts like Rom. 15.9-12. To be sure, we are not arguing that chain-link citations are drastically different in the interpretive approach that brings together disparate texts. Rather, we are 59.  M. Scott, The Hermeneutics of Christological Psalmody in Paul: An Inter­ textual Enquiry (SNTSMS, 158; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 59 60.  Scott, Christological Psalmody, p. 60. 61.  G. Bray (ed.), Romans (ACCS; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 88, notes some diversity of opinion on the meaning of νόμος in Rom. 3.19. Some thought it referred to the Mosaic Law (Chrysostom; Ambrosiaster); others thought it referred to natural law (Origen). 62.  This section builds upon observations by Reasoner, pp. 157–58. 63.  Moyise, p. 16; J. R. Royse, ‘Composite Citations in Philo of Alexandria’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 74–91 (87–88). 64.  J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘ “4Q Testimonia” and the New Testament’, TS 18 (1957), pp. 513–37 (518).

224

Composite Citations in Antiquity

arguing that the label ‘composite citation’ (according to our definition) ought to be reserved for texts that are actually composite, fused texts, which are not broken up into distinct, even if closely linked, literary units.65 Accordingly, there are some formal as well as interpretive differences between composite citations and chain-link citations that warrant further discussion. In this regard, an ancient perspective on textual clustering is important. For example, in his essay on How to Study Poetry, Plutarch discusses various ways that readers can balance out negative elements in the poetry they are reading. Two methods are presented: ‘whenever anything said by such authors sounds preposterous, and no solution is found close at hand, we must nullify its effect by something said by them elsewhere to the opposite effect’ (Mor. 20e). Likewise, ‘in the case the authors themselves do not offer solutions of their unjustifiable sayings, it is not a bad idea to put on the other side declarations of other writers of repute, and, as in a balance, make the scales incline toward the better side’ (Mor. 21d). This concept of text pairing provides a fundamental understanding of how certain authors brought texts together to create an argument. This process is further highlighted by Nünlist in his comments on Greek Scholia: A very common, probably timeless, principle for a commentator is to compare similar passages and to back the argument with parallels. The ancient equivalent for “cf.” in a modern commentary is ὡς (τό), οἷον (τό), which is followed by a quotation of the (beginning of the) relevant passage…. On occasion, such notes provide clusters of parallels, which points to a systematic treatment of the relevant phenomenon.66

This scholarly practice of reading a passage in light of other passages or works identifies and forges connections among texts, linking them together in the mind of the reader.67 This approach also has methodological parallels with the creation of excerpt collections or testimonia, as both seek to associate texts that semantically or ideologically overlap. This association of texts is also the fundamental stage in the creation of composite citations as all of these literary phenomena require both the 65.  Menken, p. 36. 66.  R. Nünlist, Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 11. 67.  So S. A. Adams, ‘Greek Education and Composite Citations of Homer’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 17–34 (30–32).

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

225

close reading of texts and the active pairing of disparate sections. The difference between these practices and the creation of composite citations is their method of expression and the impact the fusing creates. Scholia and example lists have a recognized means by which the author marks new examples (e.g., ὡς [τό], οἷον [τό], or καί, καὶ πάλιν, respectively), but such markings are typically absent in composite citations. In addition, composite citations usually have an additional layer of textual processing by which the author adds, elides, or changes elements of the source texts in order to bring the texts into a more tightly knit union. This is not always the case, but it is sufficiently so that it warrants distinguishing between the practice of generating composite citations and clustering texts. (1) Disclosed vs. Undisclosed Combinations. Perhaps the most basic difference between textual clustering and composite citations is that textual clusters explicitly juxtapose different texts, guiding the audience to engage with successive, excised texts in an interpretive process. By contrast, composite citations present a pre-mixed combination that is typically not marked as such.68 In this sense, there is a rhetorical effect to this different presentation of scriptural combinations.69 Many examples could illustrate this basic difference, but it is instructive to compare the catena in Rom. 3.10-18 with various chain-link quotations in Romans.70 The catena is preceded by a single introductory formula, καθὼς γέγραπται, and seven texts are linked in the citation that follows (Eccl. 7.20; Pss. 13.1-3; 5.10; 139.4; 9.28; Isa. 59.7-8; Ps. 35.2). That some early readers believed this was a single citation is supported by the fact that some Septuagint MSS include the text of Rom. 3.13-18 after Ps. 13.3 (e.g., A).71 However, in other examples from Romans, a new introductory formula precedes each new source text (e.g., Rom. 10.18-19; 11.8-10) and καί (e.g., Rom 11.26-27) or καὶ πάλιν (e.g., Rom 15.9-12) are used to link multiple texts in close sequence. While linked citations may have functional similarities with composite citations, we are suggesting that they are formally different. 68.  See Reasoner, p. 157. 69.  Ciampa, p. 189. 70.  Another noteworthy example would be the catena of citations in 4 Macc. 18.14-19, which concludes with a composite citation. See Adams and Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in the Septuagint Apocrypha’, pp. 119–24. 71.  Despite this evidence, many commentators refer to Rom. 3.10-18 incorrectly as a ‘string of quotations’. E.g., J. D. G. Dunn, Romans (WBC, 38; 2 vols.; Dallas: Word, 1988), p. 1:157; cf. D. J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 204–5.

226

Composite Citations in Antiquity

There is also a related discussion of whether or not select conjunctions could be used to create a composite citation. Several contributors discuss this very issue, including Adams and Ehorn,72 Menken,73 Williams,74 and Porter. In his chapter, Porter examines the citation at Lk. 10.27, which brings together Deut. 6.5, Josh. 22.5, and Lev. 19.18 and argues that although conjunctions link the various co-texts, the verb ἀγαπήσεις governs a ‘tripartite composite citation’ where multiple texts are governed by the syntax of Deut. 6.5.75 Likewise, in Acts 3.22-23 Porter discusses the function of δέ within a composite citation of Deut. 18.15-16, 19 and Lev. 23.29. (2) Joining vs. Disjoining. As mentioned above, the most common way to link quotations is through the use of conjunctions. For example, in How to Study Poetry Plutarch often distinguishes juxtaposed quotations with καὶ τό among other linking words. After one such instance Plutarch refers to this method of ‘conjoining’ (συνάπτειν) statements (Mor. 36c). Here the Greek word συνάπτω is used to express the close relationship between two citations from Euripides (fr. 959 and fr. 960). This is a significant datum because one way Plutarch uses formulas like καὶ τό is to link contrasting texts together in order to correct a saying or opinion. A much less common trait is the use of conjunctions to disjoin texts that were actually linked in their original context. In Heb. 2.13 two quotations of continuous wording from Isaiah 8 are separated by καὶ πάλιν. Table 9.3. Comparison of Isa. 8.17-18 and Heb. 2.13 Isa. 8.17-18 καὶ ἐρεῖ Μενῶ τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἀποστρέψαντα τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου Ιακωβ καὶ πεποιθὼς ἔσομαι ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ. 18 ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ παιδία, ἅ μοι ἔδωκεν ὁ θεός, καὶ ἔσται εἰς σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ παρὰ κυρίου σαβαωθ, ὃς κατοικεῖ ἐν τῷ ὄρει Σιων.

Heb. 2.13 καὶ πάλιν· ἐγὼ ἔσομαι πεποιθὼς ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ, καὶ πάλιν· ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ παιδία ἅ μοι ἔδωκεν ὁ θεός.

72.  Adams and Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation?’, pp. 4–6. 73.  Menken, p. 36. 74.  Williams, p. 163. 75.  Porter, pp. 71–72. Cf. Porter, p. 84, where he discusses another example from Acts 3.22-23.

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

227

Although the author of Hebrews is not averse to detailed, verse-by-verse comments on Scripture, it is still perplexing why these words would be separated and quoted distinctly in close sequence. On this point Steyn comments that ‘[t]he author’s presentation of the text from Isa 8:17-18 in two separate quotations is an intentional division. He consciously distinguishes between two aspects or elements: (a) the Son’s trust in the Father (Isa 8:17 in Heb 2:13a) and (b) the Son’s presentation of his “children”… to God (Isa 8:18 in Heb 2:13b).’76 Similarly, Matthew Bates argues that the events described in Heb. 2.13a and 2.13b ‘represent two chronologically discontinuous events in the theodrama for the author of Hebrews as was indicated for the author by the tense shifts [in the source text]’.77 If this is the case, καὶ πάλιν is used to mark discontinuity rather than continuity in this instance. Another example occurs in Heb. 10.30, which links two citations from Deut. 32.35-36 with καὶ πάλιν. Table 9.4. Comparison of Deut. 32.35-36 and Heb. 10.30 Deut. 32.35-36 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐκδικήσεως ἀνταποδώσω, ἐν καιρῷ, ὅταν σφαλῇ ὁ ποὺς αὐτῶν· ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἡμέρα ἀπωλείας αὐτῶν, καὶ πάρεστιν ἕτοιμα ὑμῖν. 36 ὅτι κρινεῖ κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ παρακληθήσεται· εἶδεν γὰρ παραλελυμένους αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐκλελοιπότας ἐν ἐπαγωγῇ καὶ παρειμένους.

Heb. 10.30 οἴδαμεν γὰρ τὸν εἰπόντα· ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω. καὶ πάλιν· κρινεῖ κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ.

Some interpreters suggest that the phrase ‘may act as an ellipsis, indicating the omission of Dt. 32:35b-d’, but the omission of words from a citation would be more easily accomplished with a condensed citation.78 Here the linking of two citations that occur in the same source context is

76.  G. J. Steyn, A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews (FRLANT, 235; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), p. 159; cf. p. 166, where Steyn says that the introductory formula in Heb. 2.13 is used ‘to divide two consecutive sentences from the Isa 8 quotation’. 77.  M. W. Bates, The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament and Early Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), p. 144. 78.  See P. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 542.

228

Composite Citations in Antiquity

probably for rhetorical reasons.79 Breaking the near-continuous text into sections allows an author to emphasize the concluding portion.80 A similar example of this rhetorical practice can be found in Plutarch, Mor. 35e (cf. Mor. 88f), where a quotation from a tragic poet (TGF 358) is divided by ‘replied’ (ἀπεκρίνατο) in order to highlight the proper response to a challenge.81 The citations of Isa. 65.1-2 in Rom. 10.20-21 are linked rather than fused. By linking the citations with interpretive comments, Paul distinguishes between Gentiles (i.e., τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν) and Jews (i.e., λαὸν ἀπειθοῦντα καὶ ἀντιλέγοντα) in Isa. 65.1-2 and this interpretation is made clear to Paul’s audience.82 Table 9.5. Comparison of Isa. 65.1-2 and Rom. 10.20-21 Isa. 65.1-2 Ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν, εὑρέθην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν· εἶπα Ἰδού εἰμι, τῷ ἔθνει οἳ οὐκ ἐκάλεσάν μου τὸ ὄνομα. 2 ἐξεπέτασα τὰς χεῖράς μου ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν πρὸς λαὸν ἀπειθοῦντα καὶ ἀντιλέγοντα, οἳ οὐκ ἐπορεύθησαν ὁδῷ ἀληθινῇ, ἀλλ᾿ ὀπίσω τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.

Rom. 10.20-21 Ησαΐας δὲ ἀποτολμᾷ καὶ λέγει· εὑρέθην [ἐν] τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν, ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν. 21 πρὸς δὲ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ λέγει· ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν ἐξεπέτασα τὰς χεῖράς μου πρὸς λαὸν ἀπειθοῦντα καὶ ἀντιλέγοντα.

From the reader/listener’s perspective, the role of a conjunction may or may not play into whether or not a composite citation is mentally disambiguated. For example, Roy Ciampa rightly notes, If a reader/hearer happened to know the texts well enough to identify them by their contents they might have recognized the introduction of a new text with or without a conjunction. If they did not know the texts very well they would not be able to discern whether any of the conjunctions functioned to signal a transition or not.83 79.  Steyn, Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage, p. 306. 80.  A related example is found in Eph. 6.2, in which the second half of the quotation (Exod. 20.12; Deut. 5.16) is separated from the first, thus highlighting the component parts. 81.  For a similar example, see Plato, Gorg. 484b and the quotation of Pindar. Compare this practice with the technique in Barn. 16.2, discussed in the Introduction, where οὐκ ἐγώ, λέγει κύριος (‘is it not I, says the Lord’) fuses a composite citation of Isa. 40.12 and 66.1. 82.  Reasoner, p. 154. 83.  Ciampa, p. 163.

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

229

This insight places the focus on the reader(s) and our methods of constructing their knowledge pool, which relates to their ability (or inability) to make fine-grain distinctions between texts. A related example appears in Aristotle, Rhet. 3.14.6. In outlining what makes a good exordium, Aristotle provides specific examples from different genres. When discussing exordia in forensic speeches and openings in epic poetry, Aristotle places three passages together, side by side, without any marking conjunctions or other indication that multiple texts are being evoked. In Aristotle’s discussion leading up to this passage, he provided only one example for each point, and in this section he clearly signals that he is providing an example; however, he is vague as to how many examples he is offering. Textually, this collection looks like a single example. However, the texts that Aristotle uses (Homer, Il. 1.1; Od. 1.1; Choerilus of Samos, Fr. 4) would have been so well known to many readers that, we would argue, most would have kept them distinct, registering three examples and not one, despite the lack of formal, authorial markers.84 Because the opening lines of Homer were well known, this is a good example of what is structurally a composite citation in the text, but would have most likely been deconstructed in the mind of the hearers into three distinct citations. As a result, the possible occurrence or absence of a conjunction is not in itself sufficient to deny or confirm a composite citation; one must also consider the specific literary context and the author’s practice of handling texts as part of the determination process. (3) Audience Expectations. Reasoner proposes that composite citations may require less exegetical energy than linked citations for the implied audience. This judgment depends upon the presupposition of which kind of audience member is envisioned. Reasoner apparently draws upon Christopher Stanley’s taxonomies in assuming a less informed reader who would accept the composite citation as is without expending much, if any, energy to disambiguate the citation. From this perspective, less exegetical energy is expected from the audience because they would accept the pre-fabricated composite citation without necessarily being attuned to the exegetical manoeuvres behind the scenes. Given lower audience 84.  It is possible that the disruption in meter would signal to the reader that there was a break. Another possibility would be if the author made line breaks in his manuscript to divide the passages. Both of these would signal a break to the reader. Another possible example would be the four quotations of Epictetus compiled by Arrian at the end of the Encheridion (Enchr. 53.1-4).

230

Composite Citations in Antiquity

competency, Reasoner’s discussion is an accurate and helpful description of differing audience expectations with regard to composite citations and linked citations.85 However, again following Stanley’s taxonomies, if we envision a more-informed audience member this distinction may not hold as cleanly. Readers, namely those with requisite education and skill to handle texts for themselves, would possibly be able to disambiguate even a composite citation. This activity may even require more exegetical energy than a linked citation because the reader would have to consider further what the author (or source) was attempting to accomplish by presenting multiple texts in a single literary feature. In actuality, there is evidence that some readers did spend energy on composite citations, specifically in attempting to ‘correct’ the author’s attributions. For example, a number of manuscript readings of Mk 1.2-3 evidence scribal attempts to align better the attributed quote to ‘the prophets’ (τοῖς προφήταις, Α Κ P W Γ f 13, etc.) rather than to Isaiah. A similar practice is witnessed in Mt. 13.35, which reads, ‘thus was fulfilled the word through the prophet’ (διὰ τοῦ προφήτου), but has variant readings of διὰ ’Ησαΐου τοῦ προφήτου (cf. ‫ *א‬Θ f 1.13 33 pc). Menken argues for the originality of ‘Isaiah’ because it can be established early and it is more likely that scribes would improve Matthew’s text than that they would get the source wrong.86 Even more complex is the tradition of Mt. 27.9-10, which has multiple different attributions for the citation, ‘thus was fulfilled the word through Jeremiah the prophet’ (cf. Ζαχαρίου 22 symss; ’Ησαΐου 21 l; omit φ 33 a b sys.p boms). A related phenomenon is seen in the Latin (L) version of Barnabas, where sometimes a composite citation is re-divided by adding a new, distinguishing introductory formula (e.g., Barn. 5.12; 6.6, 16; 9.2). However, this practice was not carried out with consistency and sometimes L omits divisions that result in new composite citations that are not found in the Greek versions (e.g., Barn. 6.4; 9.3; 11.4). The sole witness for Barnabas L is codex Corbeiensis (ca. tenth century). However, its precursor likely dates back to the third century CE.87

85.  Taxonomies are provided in a chapter titled ‘Paul and His Audience(s)’ by C. D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), pp. 38–61. 86.  Menken, p. 55. 87.  J. M. Heer, Der Versio Latina des Barnabasbriefs und ihr verhältnis zur altalteinischer Bibel (Freiburg: Herder, 1908), pp. XL–LIX.

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

231

Particularly intriguing is that Joseph Heer argued that biblical quotations in Barnabas L do not always translate a Greek version of Barnabas, but sometimes substitute an available text from the Old Latin version.88 While Heer’s suggestion cannot explain all of the data, many citations do support this view, which suggests that the practice was not carried out consistently.89 If this is the case, there is probable evidence for why Barnabas L follows Latin versions and breaks apart composite citations that are found in Greek Barnabas. In the act of supplying an alreadyexisting Latin text for the biblical citations, the translator apparently divided some of these citations into their discrete sources and sometimes provided each with its own source attribution. c. Condensing Techniques When introducing our working definition of a composite citation we asked the question: ‘How remote must the second (or third; etc.) text be from the first to be sufficiently differentiated?’90 Several contributors to both volumes weighed in on this question with varying results. Ehorn noted that summarizing a text was learned in school (cf. Theon, Prog. 107; Quintilian, Inst. 1.9.2) and this may have been influential when authors condensed citations.91 Docherty considered a possible summarizing citation of Gen. 14.18-20 in Heb. 7.1-3.92 In his study of Philo’s composite citations, James Royse argued that ‘the only sure examples of composite quotations are when the different portions of the quotation (typically the beginning and the end) are from fairly distant portions of the biblical text’.93 Some of the examples Royse considers have small omissions (3 words) but others larger (12 words). When we combine Royse’s examples with a few others, the problem of distinguishing condensed citations from smaller textual omissions becomes apparent.

88.  Heer, Der Versio Latina, p. LXXIV. See also W. Cunningham, A Dissertation on the Epistle of S. Barnabas, Including a Discussion of Its Date and Authorship. Together with the Greek Text, the Latin Version, and a New English Translation and Commentary (London: MacMillan, 1877). 89.  R. A. Kraft, ‘The Epistle of Barnabas: Its Quotations and their Sources’ (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1961), p. 29, supports this view but points out that L does not carry out this translation practice consistently. 90.  Adams and Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation?’, p. 4. 91.  Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in Plutarch’, p. 43. 92.  Docherty, pp. 203–5. 93.  Royse, ‘Composite Quotations in Philo of Alexandria’, p. 81.

232

Composite Citations in Antiquity

3 words omitted in Philo, Mut. Nom. 207 4 or 5 words omitted in Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 19-20 8 words omitted in Rom. 13.9 12 words omitted in Philo, Leg. All. 2.48 18 words omitted in Plutarch, Mor. 543f 28 words omitted in Barn. 13.4 32 words omitted in Barn. 6.8 These texts do not exhaust the examples discussed in both volumes of this project, but they are representative of the range of textual omissions discussed with regard to conflation.94 If we take the extreme ends of the examples just provided, we are probably on firm ground in speaking of either a small textual omission (e.g., Philo, Mut. Nom. 207), or, in contrast, a condensing composite citation (e.g., Barn. 6.8). But, it is difficult to say with certainty at what point on the spectrum such a shift occurs. With regard to the findings of this volume, we see that textual condensing is much less common in New Testament texts than combined and conflated citations.95 Without a larger data set from which to work, it is difficult to know if this distribution is representative of the larger literary practice of textual condensing as a subset of composite citations. Nevertheless, as Sean Adams has argued, the condensing of passages has a summative function, allowing the author to draw upon material from one passage while excising irrelevant or potentially distracting material.96 This appears to be the primary function of the New Testament condensing citations (esp. Rom. 13.9; Heb. 7.1-3). The nature and function of textual condensing has a direct impact on the way that texts are critically edited and reproduced. For instance, Royse suggested that the use of ellipsis points might be a better modern convention to signal the omission of lesser or greater amounts of text within a citation.97 However, it is worth considering what such an editorial convention might convey to modern readers. In cases where textual omission occurs for the purpose of eliding extraneous wording that was not germane to the argument, the addition of ellipsis points would obscure this purpose and suggest that readers fill in a gap that the quoting author

94.  A marginal example is also discussed by Reasoner, pp. 150–52. 95.  For statistics of combined, conflated, and condensed citations, see Table 9.2 above. 96.  Adams, ‘Greek Education and Composite Citations of Homer’, p. 33. 97.  Royse, ‘Composite Quotations in Philo of Alexandria’, pp. 78–81.

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

233

did not wish them to fill.98 We will return to the question of modern editorial conventions below. d. A Marginal Example: The Clearing of the Temple One of the most challenging texts in this volume is the saying of Jesus when he disrupts the Temple at Passover (Mk 11.17; Mt. 21.13; Lk. 19.46). We encouraged each of our contributors to include this example because we thought that it would provide a great test-case regarding the blurry edge of what could be considered a composite citation. Moyise, Menken, and Porter each discuss the citation in their respective chapters, wrestling with the question of whether we actually have a composite citation or something else. Porter argues: If a direct quotation requires a minimum of three words, then this would qualify as an allusion and this passage would not be a composite citation. However, if it is a quotation of two words (and not just a coincident collocation), there is still the question of whether this passage is a composite citation or simply two distinct quotations.99

Porter raises the interpretive issue of how to define ‘quotation’ and this judgment frames his analysis. He likewise raises the important question of how to understand the intervening words ὑμεῖς δὲ αὐτὸν ἐποιήσατε in Lk. 19.46. Moyise suggests that the contexts of Isaiah 56 and Jeremiah 7 would be known fairly well, even to Gentile Christian readers. Thus, readers would be able to recognize the distinct sources of this text. Moyise concludes that [Jer. 7.11 in Mk 11.17] is best considered as an allusion rather than a quotation and combined with the fact that it is joined to Isa. 56.7 with a conjunction (δέ) that is absent from either source text, the case for considering it as a composite quotation is weak.100

Menken’s argument, in the same vein as Moyise, draws upon wider data from the Gospel of Matthew, Does the introductory formula ‘it is written’ refer to the words from Isa. 56.7 only, or also to the next clause with the words from Jer. 7.11? We meet in Matthew’s Gospel several times the construction of a marked citation 98.  See the examples in Adams, ‘Greek Education and Composite Citations of Homer’, pp. 18–21; Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in Plutarch’, pp. 43–45; see also discussion in Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 206. 99.  Porter, pp. 76–77. 100.  Moyise, p. 26.

234

Composite Citations in Antiquity followed by information that is in opposition (indicated by δέ) to what the citation says…. I conclude that in Mt. 21.13, we do not have a composite citation; there is one marked citation introduced by ‘it is written’, followed by an address of the audience that is in opposition to the quotation and that contains an expression from Jer. 7.11.101

This debate is an excellent example of some of the inherent difficulties of identifying and defining composite citations. All three scholars are in agreement that Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke, invoke passages from Isaiah and Jeremiah. However, the exact relationship between these two passages is contested. Does the introductory formula encompass both passages? How should one classify the intervening words (especially the conjunction δέ)? Is the final passage large enough to be classified as a citation in the first place? These are real questions and will result in different answers depending on how rigidly or loosely one defines a composite citation. In this case, the inclusion of intervening words poses a problem for assessing the nature of the citation because they are not derived from either cited source. Rather, they are the construct of the originator of this saying. This begs the question of how much additional material can be included before something is no longer considered a composite citation. In all three instances, four additional words are included and many scholars, including the editors of NA28 (see further below), find it difficult to recognize this as a unified, singular quotation.102 Although the opening of a citation is often easy to identify (e.g., γέγραπται in Mt. 21.13 marks that the following words are a citation), this is not always the case for the end-point of a citation. Emerson Powery states in reference to Mt. 21.13 that ‘[it] is not clear where Jesus (or Matthew) intended the citation to end. Apparently, there is an explicit citation combined with an allusion, but it is possible that the audience may have taken the entire sentence as deriving from the sacred text. So, we should treat it as such’.103 Powery’s judgment seems to be 101.  Menken, p. 37. 102.  However, it is interesting that both Mt. 21.13 (ποιεῖτε) and Lk. 19.46 (ἐποιήσατε) do not follow Mk 11.17 in using the perfect πεποιήκατε in this addition. Shifts in verbal aspect within Synoptic parallels are addressed in a preliminary way by S. E. Porter, Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Methods, and Practice (Grand Rapid: Baker, 2015), pp. 255–76. 103.  E. B. Powery, Jesus Reads Scripture: The Function of Jesus’ Use of Scripture in the Synoptic Gospels (BIS, 63; Leiden: Brill, 2003), p. 161; cf. R. E. Watts, ‘Mark’, in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), pp. 111–250 (208–12).

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

235

shared by at least some ancient readers. Codex Alexandrinus marks the text of the quotation in two ways: by using diplai to mark a quotation and with a large in-line space immediately following the wording from Jeremiah.104 Among the diverse uses of diplai in ancient manuscripts, the most common function was for marking a quotation.105 This suggests that the editor who added these marks in Alexandrinus, and perhaps his Vorlage as well, considered all of the wording to be part of the quotation (Mk 11.17; cf. Mt. 21.13; Lk. 19.46). It is important also to consider that studies in volume 1 demonstrated that additional wording, directly at the place of textual fusion, was an attested feature in some composite citations.106 Two further considerations warrant discussion. The terminology common to both Isa. 56.7 and Jer. 7.11, specifically ὁ οἶκός μου and (ἐπι-) καλέω (see Table 2.3 in Moyise’s chapter), may explain their pairing in the Synoptic tradition. As seen in multiple studies in both volumes, shared terminology was a common (though not exclusive) feature of composite citations. In addition to terminology, the sequence of ideas generated by pairing Isa. 56.7 and Jer. 7.11 shows that Jeremiah’s prophecy that a time of destruction is coming (e.g., Jer. 7.12, 20) will be followed by Isaiah’s prophesied ‘house for all nations’ (πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). Thus, Jer. 7.11 introduces the temporal framework for the citation(s). By way of conclusion, the determination of this putative composite citation is contingent upon four considerations: first, a definition of ‘citation’, particularly the number of words required to constitute a citation; second, the number of intervening words that are allowed to be included before the citation is disrupted; third, the way that the text has been read by early readers (i.e., reception history); and fourth, the citation practices of the quoting author.107 Several of these considerations

104.  See the comments on diplai in the Gospel texts of Alexandrinus in W. A. Smith, A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Paleography, and Scribal Habits (NTTSD, 48; Leiden, Brill, 2014), pp. 207–11. 105.  Cf. K. McNamee, Sigla and Select Marginalia in Greek Literary Papyri (Papyrologia Bruxellensia, 26; Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1992), p. 8. 106.  Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 206. We saw this feature in Barn. 16.2, a text discussed in the Introduction of this volume. 107.  Regarding the reception of composite citations by readers, see the study by S. A. Adams and S. M. Ehorn, ‘Composite Citations in Ancient Manuscripts’, in S. E. Porter, D. I. Yoon, and C. S. Stevens (eds.), Paratextual Features of New Testament Papyrology and Early Christian Manuscripts (TENT; Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).

236

Composite Citations in Antiquity

can be interpreted in different ways, as we have noted above.108 The most significant evidence is discussed by Menken, who notes that several times the author of Matthew sets a quotation from Scripture in opposition with another saying. However, the parallels elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel are not constructed in precisely the same way. The patterns are as follows: Mt. 5.21-22, 27-28, 33-34, 38-41, 43-45 uses ἠκούσατε … λέγει δέ Mt. 5.31-32 uses ἐρρέθη … ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω Mt. 15.4-5 (cf. Mk 7.10) uses εἶπεν … λέγει δέ

But this is different from Mt. 21.13, which sets a verb of speaking in contrast with a verb of doing: καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς … ὑμεῖς δὲ αὐτὸν ποιεῖτε. If the previous examples are judged to be determinative, then the quotation in Mt. 21.13 (cf. Mk 11.17; Lk. 19.46) would be a quotation of Isa. 56.7 set in contrast with Jer. 7.11. However, the imprecision of the examples weakens their use as parallels to explain the construction in Mt. 21.13. These considerations caution against claiming certainty. We believe that the judgment of whether Jesus’ temple saying (Mk 11.17; Mt. 21.13; Lk. 19.46) is a composite citation is still an open matter. The arguments against this judgment are not decisive; yet, the arguments in its favor are also inconclusive. Perhaps this is why both ancient and modern readers have evaluated the citation differently. It is clear that additional marginal examples should be examined in order to provide greater definitional clarity. 3. Future Avenues of Research In our study we have limited our investigation to composite citations as they appear within literary texts in order to have a focused discussion of this authorial practice. However, it is clear that such a division artificially limits the full range and scope of literary practice. We would propose that this study of composite citations could be broadened and its findings applied to a range of compositional features and works, including critical editions and translations, non-literary texts, composite allusions, and larger composite constructions. After discussing these possible areas of research, we consider the question of scriptural status of composite texts and we suggest that this study demonstrates the fruitfulness of comparative research in New Testament, Jewish, and Graeco-Roman authors. 108.  For example, Williams (p. 98) notes in her discussion of Jn 6.31, that ‘the issue at stake for identifying a composite citation is not necessarily the number of (unusual) words, but the distinctiveness of the addition/substitution and determination of its (redactional) intentionality and plausibility’.

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

237

a. Citations in Critical Editions and Translations Editorial decisions play a significant role in how texts are read and understood. Take for example the following presentation of Mt. 21.13 (cf. Mk 11.17; Lk. 19.46) in UBS5 and NA28: Table 9.6. Comparison of Mt. 21.13 in UBS5 and NA28 Mt. 21.13 (UBS5) Mt. 21.13 (NA28) καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· γέγραπται· καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· γέγραπται· ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται, ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται, ὑμεῖς δὲ αὐτὸν ποιεῖτε σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. ὑμεῖς δὲ αὐτὸν ποιεῖτε σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. And he said to them, it is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer, (Isa. 56.7) but you are making it a den of robbers’. (Jer. 7.11)

As indicated in the introduction of UBS5, bold type is used to identify direct quotations from the Old Testament. The problem is that, by this definition, the second clause (which is wording from Jer. 7.11) is not marked as (part of) a citation. Perhaps this is because additional wording has been inserted into the citation proper? Whatever the rationale for this decision, it is evident that editorial features in critical editions influence the way readers understand the text. Another example can illustrate a problem of presenting composite citations in translation, here the NRSV. Table 9.7. Comparison of Isa. 59.20-21, Isa. 27.9, and Rom. 11.26-27 Isa. 59.20-21 καὶ ἥξει ἕνεκεν Σιων ὁ ῥυόμενος καὶ ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ιακωβ. 21 καὶ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη …

Rom. 11.26-27 Isa. 27.9 Ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος, ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ διὰ τοῦτο ἀφαιρεθήσεται ἡ ἀνομία Ιακωβ, καὶ τοῦτό Ἰακώβ. 27 ἐστιν ἡ εὐλογία αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ παρ’ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη, ὅταν ὅταν ἀφέλωμαι αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀφέλωμαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἁμαρτίαν … αὐτῶν. Rom. 11.26-27 ‘Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob’. 27 ‘And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins’.

Here the Greek text of Rom. 11.26-27 is clearly a combined citation but the NRSV (and other translations) divide(s) it with inverted commas. What is especially odd about the division is that it begins at Rom. 11.27, which is still part of the citation from Isa. 59.20-21, and not at 11.27b where the quotation from Isa. 27.9 actually begins. Examples here could

238

Composite Citations in Antiquity

be multiplied, but noteworthy is that many translations use successive pairs of inverted commas in the combined citation in Rom. 3.10-18. The point we wish to emphasize is that the presentation of a composite citation with editorial features such as bold type-face, italics, indentation, or multiple sets of ‘inverted commas’ shape the way readers encounter the text.109 Even more problematic is the active inclusion of dividing words (e.g., ‘and’/καί) into the translation to actively divide composite quotations.110 A number of contributors, particularly in the first volume, highlighted the way that text editions often undermine the efficacy of the composite citation when it is divided by quotation or ellipsis markers.111 We suggest that future editions of the Greek New Testament or other ancient texts, as well as any derivative translations, should seek to preserve the composite structure of citations whenever possible. b. Composite Citations in Non-Literary Texts Composite citations are not limited to literary texts, but are found regularly in non-literary works. This includes magical inscriptions, amulets, and ecclesial inscriptions. In both magical inscriptions and amulets there is a strong tradition of bringing disparate textual elements together, especially texts that are thought to have religious significance. For example, in our first volume we identified four examples of amulets that combined passages from Jewish Scripture (IJO I Ach50, IJO III Syr4, IJO III Syr42, and another one from Tel Aviv).112 This practice is also adopted by Christians in Late Antiquity who often combine elements from both Jewish and Christian Scriptures.113 109.  Of course textual notes and cross-references in modern Bibles also inform the reader of sources. 110.  E.g., F. C. Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia I (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), p. 177 (Mor. 33e). 111.  Adams, ‘Greek Education and Composite Citations of Homer’, p. 19 n. 8; see, however, Royse, ‘Composite Citations in Philo of Alexandria’, pp. 78–81. 112.  The amulets IJO III Syr4, IJO III Syr42, and another one from Tel Aviv all pair Deut. 33.26 and Num. 10.35, with IJO III Syr42 also adding Exod. 15.3 and Deut. 6.4. Amulet IJO I Ach50 joins Exod. 15.3, 26; 38.8; Num. 14.14 into a combined veneration of God. Cf. R. Pummer, ‘Samaritan Amulets from the RomanByzantine Period and their Wearers’, RB 94 (1987), pp. 251–63, nos. 5, 7, 16; D. Noy and H. Bloedhorn (eds.), Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis: Vol. III, Syria und Cyprus (TSAJ, 102; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); D. Noy, A. Panayotov, and H. Bloedhorn (eds.), Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis: Vol. I, Eastern Europe (TSAJ, 101; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). 113.  Possible examples include, P.Vindob. G 2312; P.Vindob. G 26034 + 30453; P.Berl.inv. 11710; P.Schøyen 1.16; P.Princ. 2.107; O.Crum 514, 515. The stacking of

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

239

The nature of amulet citations, however, is far from being straightforward and scholars continue to try to identify motivating factors that might have influenced the authors to combine specific texts. The most basic challenge is to determine whether or not these examples are actual examples of composite citations as we have defined the phrase or if it is another practice altogether. First, there are hardly any explicit references to (a) source book(s) within the amulets (e.g., P.Oxy. 76.5073 l.1; P.Duke inv. 778 l.14; P.Iand. 1.6 col.3) and so the originating text, although is it quite likely known, is not signalled to the reader. This complicates the concept of citation. A second issue is that of composite. For example, P.Vindob. G 2312 combines Ps. 90.1-2, Rom. 12.1-2, and Jn 2.1a-2 without any breaks between the texts. And while there are no signifying elements (e.g., paragraphos, intra-linear breaks, etc.) each quotation starts at the beginning of a line.114 Might this indicate that the author knew a new source text is being invoked? A third potential issue is the small size of amulets. Were authors forced to combine texts due to space constraints, and, if so, does this result in a recognized convention? One additional challenge with this discussion is the use of potentially pejorative language when discussing the amulet compositions. Terms, such as ‘mishmash’, ‘jumble’, and ‘patchwork’, often indicate (either intentionally or not) a lack of precision or care on the part of the author. The findings from these two volumes suggest that the use of composite citations was an intentional practice in antiquity and that a view towards the intentionality of the amulet makers should be emphasized. To some extent this is already happening as some scholars highlight the fact that the biblical texts adopted relate in some way to the petition or function of the amulet.115 Far less common is the question asked of why these particular texts were selected.116

gospel incipits might also be considered (e.g., BKT 6.7.1); cf. J. E. Sanzo, Scriptural Incipits on Amulets from Late Antique Egypt: Text, Typology, and Theory (STAC, 84; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). 114.  Another possible example would be P.Duke inv. 778 in which the Matthean paternoster begins on the verso and so is physically separated from Ps. 90 despite the lack of explicit textual division. 115.  E.g., P.Oxy. VIII 1077; P.Turner 49; P.Iand. 1.6. 116.  Jones does raise this question when confronted with abnormal citations on an amulet; however, he does not do so for ‘normal’ text selections. Cf. B. C. Jones, New Testament Texts of Greek Amulets from Late Antiquity (LNTS, 554; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), pp. 164, 170.

240

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Even if we were to conclude that a similar literary practice is being adopted, this does not speak to the motivation of the authors. In the first volume, Adams identified three possible functions of composite citations (i.e., summative function, creation for argument, literary styling).117 Do the authors of non-literary texts think they are doing the same thing as authors who composed literary works? What other function, if any, might there be for composite citations in non-literary texts? There is some indication of source referencing that parallels literary texts (e.g., P.Iand. 1.6 col.3; P.Duke inv. 778 l.14); however, identifying source texts is not typical and so these examples might not be representational. At the very least, we witness a range of practices that indicate that further study is needed. Greek inscriptions from Asia Minor provide another set of data. For example, a catena of LXX Psalms (31.1; 33.9, 6; 26.1; 96.11) has been found on a church lintel in Afyonkarahisar.118 In his discussion of MAMA VI no. 385, Cilliers Breytenbach notes that the first two psalm texts may have been used in connection with the Eucharist (cf. Ambrose, Myst. 9.58; Gregory of Nyssa, Diem lum. 235). The latter texts from the catena are connected together by the catchword ‘light’ (φωτ-).119 Another inscription (Ramsay, Bishoprics 1/2, 740, no. 675), combines Isa. 61.1a, 61.10b-c, and 25.6-7a.120 Although some of the inscription requires reconstruction, it is clear that the Isaiah texts occur continuously, without beginning a new line when a new source text is introduced. Bold text is introduced below to help the reader distinguish sources. Isa. 61.1a Isa. 61.10b-c Isa. 25.6-7a

πν(εῦ)μα κυ(ρίο)υ ἐπ᾿ ἐμέ, οὗ εἵνεκεν [ἔχρ]ισέν με· [ἀγαλλιάσθω] ἡ [ψ]υχή μου ἐπὶ τῷ κ(υρί)ῳ· ἐνέδυσεν γάρ με εἱμ[άτιον σωτη] ρ[ί]ου καὶ χιτῶνα εὐφροσύνης· ὡς νυμφ[ίῳ περιέθη] [κέ μ]οι μίτραν καὶ ὡς νύμφην κατεκόσ[μησέν με κόσ] [μῳ]. καὶ ποιήσι ὁ θ(εὸ)ς κ(ύριο)ς Σαβαωθ πᾶσιν το[ῖς ἔθνεσιν] ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος τοῦτο, πείονται εὐφροσύ[νην, πείον] ται οἶνον, χρείσονται μύρον ἐν [τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ]

117.  Adams, ‘Greek Education and Composite Citations of Homer’, p. 33. 118.  W. H. Buckler, Monuments and Documents from Phrygia and Caria (MAMA VI) (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1939). 119.  C. Breytenbach, ‘The Early Christians and Their Greek Bible: Quotations from the Psalms and Isaiah in Inscriptions from Asia Minor’, in W. Kraus and S. Kreuzer (eds.), Die Septuaginta. Text, Wirkung, Rezeption: 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 19.-22. Juli 2012 (WUNT, 325; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), pp. 759–74. 120.  D. H. French, ‘Sinopean Notes 3’, Epigraphica Antolica 19 (1992), pp. 45–60.

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

241

The lines were likely read in connection with the sacrament of baptism, especially the lines that refer to being ‘clothed…with a garment’ (Isa. 61.10b), which probably refers to baptismal robes. Breytenbach observes that the final lines of the inscription (i.e., Isa. 25.6-7) ‘might have become new meaning [sic] in reference to the Eucharist, a feast for all nations’.121 In this and the previous example, the location of the inscription within a church context is closely connected with the combination of texts in reference to Christian sacraments. On the lid of a sarcophagus that was repurposed as a fountain’s reservoir, inscription SEG 42, no. 1157 combines Isa. 12.3 and Ps. 28.3.122 Both texts include the word ‘water’ (ὕδωρ) and the textual and archaeological elements both suggest a baptismal context. As Breytenbach notes, this combination was common and is found also in IK 39, Prusa ad Olympum, no. 212. Likewise, Ps. 28.3 was used on other Christian monuments and is quoted by Gregory of Nyssa (Diem lum. 237) at the conclusion of a list of biblical references to baptism.123 As attested above, the texts that were applied to the practices of baptism and Eucharist came to be inscribed in various locations within church infrastructure. The short, lapidary nature of some of these texts made them good candidates for this. But their prior life within the liturgy and teaching of the church probably contributed to their combination in these inscriptions.124 Additionally, these inscriptions share similarities with other composite text forms by linking texts together on the basis of key words.125 c. Composite Allusions This project has sought to treat the phenomenon of composite citation and not composite allusion. In fact, we stated the following in the introduction of the first volume, Although [composite allusion] is related to composite citations and substantially overlaps with our investigation into the creativity of the author, we believe that they require individual attention and investigation in their own right prior to being brought into discussion with citation practice.126 121.  Breytenbach, ‘Quotations’, p. 765. 122.  T. Corsten (ed.), Die Inschriften von Prusa ad Olympum. Teil I (IK, 39; Bonn: Habelt, 1991). 123.  Breytenbach, ‘Quotations’, pp. 766–68. 124.  Breytenbach, ‘Quotations’, p. 771. 125.  See Stanley, ‘Composite Citations: Retrospect and Prospect’, p. 206. 126.  Adams and Ehorn, ‘What Is a Composite Citation?’, p. 2.

242

Composite Citations in Antiquity

The rationale for this distinction was to attempt to isolate more certain examples prior to considering less certain examples of composite allusion.127 In this respect, our restriction mirrors wider methodological discussions in the field of literary studies. For example, Hugh Holman describes allusion as ‘[a] figure of speech that makes brief, often casual reference to a historical or literary figure, event, or object’.128 He goes on to describe allusion as ‘indirect’ and something that ‘attempts to tap the knowledge and memory of the reader’.129 The task of identifying possible and probable allusions in any given instance remains an active but debated enterprise.130 Timothy Lim further notes that allusion and indirect citation differ from verbatim citation ‘because [allusion] subsumes the source-text in its own interpretive paraphrase. There is no lemma, and the boundary between the source-text and interpretation is intentionally blurred.’131 Some contributors to volume 1 of this project made observations about the similar interpretive methods employed in composite citations and allusions. For example, in his study on the Damascus Document, Jonathan Norton argued that explicitly signalled citations would allow any audience to ‘appreciate the rhetorical effect of the overt announcement of citation from another source’.132 Yet, Norton went on to problematize the common continuum of citation–allusion–echo as well as the problems inherent in the label ‘allusion’.133 Likewise, both Garrick Allen and Philippe Bobichon observed that composite allusions comprise a significant extent 127.  On this point, see Fitzmyer, ‘ “4Q Testimonia” and the New Testament’, p. 518. 128.  H. Holman, A Handbook to Literature (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 4th edn, 1980), p. 12. 129.  S. E. Porter, ‘Allusions and Echoes’, in S. E. Porter and C. D. Stanley (eds.), As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (SBLSymS, 50; Atlanta: SBL, 2008), pp. 29–40 (30–31), helpfully summarizes the significance of Holman’s contribution. 130.  R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 29–32, remains a seminal model for testing the validity of echoes and allusions. 131.  T. H. Lim, The Formation of the Jewish Canon (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), p. 13; cf. the definitions of ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’ quotation in D. Dimant, ‘Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha’, in M. J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT, Section 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990), pp. 379–419. 132.  Norton, ‘Composite Quotations in the Damascus Document’, pp. 93, 115. 133.  Norton, ‘Composite Quotations in the Damascus Document’, p. 116.

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

243

of inner-biblical reflection in their studies of Jewish literature from Qumran and the writings of Justin Martyr, respectively.134 The methodological parameters of this project limited their work to citations primarily, but their combined observations about composite features beyond the level of marked quotations are suggestive. Several contributors to the present volume also made some basic observations about the presence and function of composite allusions. Docherty showed that composite citations are rare in Hebrews, but composite allusions comprise a more significant number of texts, especially in the transitional sections of the letter.135 Reasoner draws a similar conclusion, suggesting that citations are ‘only part of [Paul’s] Scripture-combining, interactive discourse’ in Romans.136 Reasoner’s discussion of the rhetorical effect and exegetical energy required by Paul’s composite citations and allusions is useful and hopefully future studies will keep these dynamics in mind. Completely absent from the present volume is any study on Scripture use in the book of Revelation. This is because it contains no explicitly marked quotations of Jewish Scripture. However, there are many allusive references throughout the book and many of these allusions are combined with one another.137 Sometimes four or five different texts are merged into a single allusion.138 Beale and McDonough introduce a discussion of this phenomenon with the heading ‘Problematic Use of Combined Allusions and the Problem of Literary Consciousness’. Although they provide many balanced comments on the issue of discerning literary intention behind any given combined allusion, the pejorative label ‘problematic’ used by

134.  Allen, ‘Composite Citations in Jewish Pseudepigraphic Works’, p. 141; P. Bobichon, ‘Composite Features and Citations in Justin Martyr’s Textual Composition’, in Adams and Ehorn (eds.), Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, pp. 158–81 (158). 135.  Docherty, p. 205. 136.  Reasoner, p. 152–53. 137.  See C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology (London, Nisbet, 1952), p. 31, who writes that Revelation ‘is deliberately moulded upon the model of earlier apocalyptic writings and so much of it is almost a cento of passages from parts of the Old Testament’. 138.  G. K. Beale and S. M. McDonough, ‘Revelation’, in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), pp. 1081–1161 (1083); they cite L. H. Vos, Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse (Kampen: Kok, 1965), pp. 39–40, for a more complete list of composite allusions.

244

Composite Citations in Antiquity

Beale and McDonough is not necessary. If composite citations were a recognized literary practice in antiquity, then we might well expect that composite allusions are similar in this regard. As we have seen, any study of composite allusions first encounters the problem of discerning more subtle forms of literary reference like allusion. Nevertheless, amalgamation of multiple texts into composite allusions seems to have been a common mode of Scripture use in many of the sources considered in both volumes of this project. The findings with regard to composite citations may well provide grounds for considering composite allusion in future studies. d. Composite Constructions Both composite citations and allusions function on the localized level in which the author at a specific moment brings two or more texts together. We would argue that one could look beyond individual instances to consider the composite construction of larger text units, such as an embedded narrative, and even the macro level of the text as a whole. In this regard, there are many instances of composite narratives from Jewish literature written in the Hellenistic era, especially in, but not limited to, so-called Rewritten Scripture texts.139 Indeed, our growing understanding of Scripture and texts drawing from Scripture is becoming increasingly nuanced, with a growing recognition that the previous division between these two groups is no longer tenable.140 At one end of the spectrum we have examples of textual conflation in which elements within a larger storyline are elided in a new text in order to create a different narrative. For example, in telling the story of the Jewish people, Eupolemus (Fr. 2.1) jumps from Joshua to Samuel, completely omitting the period of the Judges. Later, Eupolemus combines the narratives of 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 into a unified narrative on David’s attempt to build the Temple (Fr. 2.5). Similarly, Artapanus (Fr. 2.1-2), when recounting the life of Joseph, omits his time in jail, flowing smoothly from Joseph arranging his own transport to Egypt to his promotion by Pharaoh. This authorial practice parallels the examples of summarizing citations highlighted by Adams in the first volume.141 139.  On the terminological problems, see M. J. Bernstein, ‘ “Rewritten Bible”: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Usefulness?’, Text 22 (2005), pp. 169–96. 140.  E.g., T. M. Law, When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 27. 141.  Adams, ‘Greek Education and Composite Citations of Homer’, pp. 18–21; cf. M. Horster and C. Reitz (eds.), Condensing Texts—Condensed Texts (Palingenesia, 98; Stuttgart: Steiner, 2010).

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

245

A different type of composite construction would be the inclusion of elements from disparate texts into a narrative. For example, Ps.-Philo, LAB 56.6 places a modified version of Jer. 1.6 in the mouth of Saul that was not part of the original context (i.e., 1 Sam. 9.21).142 Additionally, although the author might have left this inclusion un-highlighted, he chose to identify its source and to direct the reader’s attention to this parallel. In doing so the author contrasts the characters of Saul and Jeremiah through the use of a now-common saying. Similarly, Pseudo-Philo introduces subsidiary texts into his biblical representation in order to fill gaps, exploit silences, and relieve theological tensions in a more complex use of this practice.143 For example, the retelling of the Golden Calf incident (Exod. 32) in LAB 12.1-10 introduces testimony from Genesis 11–12 against the actions of the Jewish people. These texts are similar in that they both challenge God’s authority with human-made constructions, but they also share similarities at the linguistic (‫ עם‬in Gen. 11.6 and Exod. 32.1; ‫ראה‬ in Gen. 11.5 and Exod. 32.9) and thematic levels (e.g., violation of God’s will, God’s intention to judge).144 Likewise, in 4Q158 frg. 14, elements of Exodus 15 are combined with Exod. 6.3-8 so that the promise and fulfillment of the liberation of Egypt are brought together.145 The addition of one sentence or a few citations can have an important impact on how one reads the text. However, even more intricate is the practice of textual conflation in which two passages are brought together and combined to form a new narrative. For instance, Ben Sira interweaves the two creation accounts from Genesis into one vibrant teaching (16.24–17.15).146 Similarly, Jeffrey Tigay has drawn attention to scribal practices where two source texts are conflated to form a new version of a story within Pentateuchal criticism, Sabbath traditions in Qumran (4QDeutn 5.12-159) and Greek Esther, the Samaritan Pentateuch (e.g., Exod. 18.19-24; 20.18-19), and postbiblical literature.147 142.  Cf. Williams, p. 118 on the use scripture for the ‘composite portrayal’ of a character. 143.  Fisk, Do You Not Remember?, pp. 316–17. 144.  See esp. H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation (AGJU, 31; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1996), p. 1:485; Fisk, Do You Not Remember?, p. 145. 145.  M. M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ, 95; Leiden: Brill, 2011), pp. 59–62. 146.  Another example would be Epictetus, Diatr. 3.1.20, and his composite paraphrase of Plato, Apol. 29c, e and 30a. 147.  J. H. Tigay, ‘Conflation as a Redactional Technique’, in J. H. Tigay (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), pp. 53–95.

246

Composite Citations in Antiquity

The composite features described in this section are not unique to narrative texts. Prayers in post-biblical texts have been shown to draw on and combine scriptural phrases. Judith Newman includes this phenomenon within her discussion of ‘scripturalization’, which she defines as ‘the reuse of biblical texts or interpretive traditions to shape the composition of new literature’.148 Likewise, the Aaronic blessing (Num. 6.24-26) in 1QS 2.2-4 appears with a number of conflations and expansions from Deut. 26.11, Ps. 121.7, and Prov. 16.21-22. George Brooke discusses how this altered blessing is set in contrast with the curse that follows in 1QS 2.4-5 and how the additional texts belong to a liturgical tradition that was adapting Num. 6.24-26.149 Ancient encyclopaediae also represent an additional type of composite work in that they represent the bringing together of elements from disparate works or traditions. The compositional process was so inherent to the genre form that König and Woolf claim, ‘The encyclopaedic text, almost by definition, contains many voices brought into close juxtaposition with each other’.150 The above examples illustrate the variety of ways that authors borrow and reuse previous material in the creation of a new work. What is important for this study are the strong parallels in literary practice that function at both the localized (i.e., citation) and macro (i.e., narrative/ discourse) levels of a work. These similarities suggest that findings in one field might be applied fruitfully to the other. e. Scriptural Status of Composite Citations In many instances composite citations are introduced with introductory formulae that may indicate scriptural status. This is signaled by the use of καθὼς γέγραπται (‘it stands written’) and similar formulas, the same way authors mark citations from continuous scriptural texts.151 Particularly 148.  J. H. Newman, Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (SBLEJL, 14; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1999), pp. 12–13. 149.  G. J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup, 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 296–98. 150.  J. König and G. Woolf, ‘Introduction’, in J. König and G. Woolf (eds.), Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 1–20 (13). 151.  Still useful is the study by J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament’, NTS 7 (1961), pp. 297–33; repr. in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1971), pp. 3–58.

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

247

striking is the composite citation in Lk. 4.18-19, which presents wording from Isa. 61.1-2 with a conflation from Isa. 58.6. Luke states that the passage comes from ‘the book of the prophet Isaiah’ and even refers to the ‘place where it was written’ (τὸν τόπον οὗ ἦν γεγραμμένον, Lk. 4.17). Whether or not the citation, as presented, goes back to Jesus himself, the author of Luke–Acts presents it on the lips of Jesus as a scriptural text.152 Given the author’s familiarity with Isaiah, it is plausible he knows this citation does not represent a continuous text of Scripture.153 As Albl noted in volume 1 of this project, this is a particularly striking example of where ‘an author is aware that a certain passage does not occur in a scriptural manuscript, but still regards it as scriptural’.154 It is also possible that the citation can be explained in other ways. For example, perhaps the ‘place where it was written’ refers to the general location in an Isaiah scroll rather than to the specific location of the quoted wording. Because Isa. 61.1-2 and 58.6 would not be too far apart in an ancient manuscript, it is possible that someone could find this ‘place where it was written’ and read from one or both passages. In any event, it is not certain that Luke’s presentation in Lk. 4.18-19 requires the view that Jesus was reading a continuous text of Scripture unlike any extant manuscript. Nevertheless, the newly formed quotation is presented as scriptural. Paul’s citations in Romans, including eleven composite citations, are framed as Scripture that was ‘promised beforehand’ (Rom. 1.2; 16.2527). Particularly striking is the combined citation in Rom. 3.10-18, which probably pre-dates Paul, and forms part of ‘an authoritative Scripture collection known to Paul and his readers that touches on human sinfulness’.155 As noted above, at some point this text became associated with Psalm 13 in part of the LXX manuscript tradition (e.g., A) but certainty it is difficult to know exactly when and how this happened.156 A similar explanation applies to 1 Cor. 2.9, which is a conflated citation of Isa. 64.3 and 65.16 LXX, which pre-dates Paul. In any event, the scriptural status of these texts is suggested not only by their reception but also by their

152.  See Porter, p. 68, who judges that Jesus created the citation. 153.  On Isaiah in Luke–Acts, see D. W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000). 154.  Albl, ‘The Testimonia Hypothesis and Composite Citations’, pp. 197–99. 155.  Reasoner, p. 136. 156.  See esp. R. A. Kraft, ‘Christian Transmission of Greek Jewish Scriptures: A Methodological Probe’, in A. Benoit, M. Philonenko, and C. Vogel (eds.), Paganisme, Judaïsme, Christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1978), pp. 207–26.

248

Composite Citations in Antiquity

present use in Paul’s letters. Romans 3.10-18 is followed by ‘whatever the law says’ (ὅσα ὁ νόμος λέγει) and 1 Cor. 2.9 is introduced by καθὼς γέγραπται. Assertions of textual accuracy are not limited to New Testament authors. For example, there is very little evidence that ancient authors, when creating composite citations of Homer, were overly concerned by the fact that the text quoted did not match identically with any passage found within the Homeric corpus.157 Rather, these composite citations were presented as genuine with no caveat provided for the reader. That this is a wider phenomenon might indicate that ancient readers had a different view of text and the authorial voice. Practices such as imitatio and prosopopoeia taught writers to get into the mind of other writers, channeling their ideas into a new composition for their own purposes. Might it be that ancient readers were not limited to the concept of lemma, but felt free to construct new statements they believed were in the spirit of the original author? Comparison with authorial practice, such as exercises found in the progymnasmata, may provide a fruitful path of enquiry here. Finally, important MS discoveries of the twentieth century (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls) have reminded scholars that the biblical text was still fluid within the early Christian centuries. Perhaps this fluidity also contributed to fluid boundaries over the wording of quotations, especially when it comes to understanding scriptural status of composite text forms. Without further investigation into these issues, it is difficult to be certain. Future studies on this question would do well to consider not only the question of how composite citations are presented but also how they were received and read by early readers. f. Citation Techniques in Jewish, Greek, and Roman Texts As indicated in the opening of this chapter, the foundational argument of this project is that composite citations were a recognized literary practice in antiquity. They are evidenced by Jewish, Greek, Roman, and early Christian writers. In this chapter we have noted that early Christians seemed to use composite citations in higher frequency than their Greek, Roman, and Jewish counterparts. Yet, despite differences in frequency, the interpretive process(es) that brought together wording from different sources share(s) much common ground across the authors studied here. These data underscore the observation that the New Testament authors are embedded in their Graeco-Roman literary environment.

157.  E.g. Plutarch, Mor. 15c; 29d; 35c.

9. Adams and Ehorn  Conclusion

249

This last observation is not original; yet, it is not always appreciated. Stanley’s study on Paul’s citation technique remains an important scholarly contribution that calls for attention to literary practices of contemporary authors.158 Likewise, this study on composite citations confirms the usefulness of comparative approaches and suggests that more work could be done to understand how and to what extent the New Testament authors engaged in literary practices like those found in Graeco-Roman sources.

158.  C. D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 267–91.

I n d ex of R ef er e nce s Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 1.10 151 1.14 151 1.16-17 29 2.2 193 5.24 201 6.4 11 6.5-6 136 9.6 42 11–12 245 11.5 245 11.6 245 12.3 159, 183 12.7 86 13.15 86 14.17-20 203, 205, 207 14.18-20 231 14.18 203 14.19-20 204 15.5 153, 159 15.6 135, 153, 159, 183 15.13-14 87–89 15.14 89 15.18 86 17.1-8 153 17.5 153, 159 17.8 86, 87 18.10 150, 159 18.14 150 18.18 183 21.10 159 21.12 159 22.2 16 22.12 16

22.18 63, 183 24.7 86 25.23 159 26.4 63 26.13-14 67 28.15 198-200 38.8 27, 32, 57, 77–79 47.29-31 201 47.31 200, 201 48.4 86, 87 48.8-22 201 48.12 201 49.10-11 106, 107 49.11 110 Exodus 1–4 39 2.22 87–89 3.6 80, 82, 202 3.12 10, 87–89 3.15 80, 82, 83 3.16 80, 82, 83 6.3-8 245 9.16 159 10.11 86 12 116 12.10 115, 116, 118, 220 12.22 117 12.46 115–18, 220 13.2 62 13.12 62 13.15 62 14.28 129 15 245 15.3 127, 238 15.24 98

15.26 238 16 99 16.2 98 16.4 97, 98 16.8 98 16.15 97, 98 17.3 98 17.6 102 18.19-24 245 19.9-24 202 19.16 202 20.7 43 20.102-16 74 20.11 86 20.12 16, 228 20.13-17 151 20.13-15 159 20.13 42 20.15 41 20.17 159 20.18-21 202 20.18-19 245 21.12 42 21.27 16 23.20 22, 24, 32, 45–47, 68–71, 212, 222 25–31 197 25.8 164, 198 25.9 196, 198 25.39 197 25.40 193, 196–98 32 245 32.1 63, 245 32.9 245 32.23 63 33.7-11 205

Exodus (cont.) 33.19 159 34.6-7 24 34.11 129 38.8 238 Leviticus 5.11 62 10.9 62 12.8 62 14.2 44 16.27 205 17.3 205 18.5 146, 159, 169, 183 19.12 43 19.18 41, 43, 71–74, 226 23.29 83-86, 226 24.17 42 24.21 42 26 173 26.11-12 160–67, 173, 188 26.11 165, 166 26.12 164 Numbers 6.3 62 6.24-26 246 9.12 115, 116, 118, 220 10.35 238 12.7 206 12.8 119 14.14 238 20.8 102 21.8 123 26.65 129 30.3 43 31.49 129 35.12 42 35.16-18 42 Deuteronomy 4.11-12 202 5.11 43

251

Index of References 5.16-20 74 5.16 228 5.17-21 151, 152 5.17-19 159 5.18 12, 41 5.21 159 6.4 16, 238 6.5 71-74, 226 7.1-5 43 8–9 146 8.17-18 145, 146 9.4 145, 146, 153, 159 9.19 201, 202 10.12 71 17.8-13 42 18 85, 86 18.15-19 86 18.15-16 83–85, 226 18.16 85 18.19 83–85, 226 20.16-18 43 21.23 159, 183, 187, 211 23.18-19 59 23.18 59 23.19 59 23.22-24 43 25.4 13 25.5-7 27 25.5 27, 32, 57, 77, 78 25.7 27, 78, 79 26.11 246 27–28 183 27 183 27.6 159 27.26 182–85, 187, 211, 218 28 184 28.8 67 28.11 67 28.58 184 28.61 182, 184 29 184 29.1-3 147 29.3 146, 147

29.4 159 29.19-20 182, 184 29.19 184 29.20 184 29.26 182, 184 30.10 182, 184, 185, 188 30.12-14 159 30.12 145, 153 30.20 220 31.6 193, 198– 200 31.8 198, 199 32.18-20 136 32.18 103 32.21 159 32.35-36 227 32.35 227 32.39 220 32.49 86 33.26 238 Joshua 1.5 198, 199 10.30 129 11.14 129 22.5 71–74, 226 23.6 182, 184, 185 Judges 13 53, 54 13.5 53, 54 13.7 53, 54 16.17 53 1 Samuel 2.35 206 9.21 245 12.22 lxx 152 13.14 89-91 2 Samuel 5.2 38-40 7 173 7 171

252 7.8 lxx

160, 162, 170–73 7.8-16 lxx 170 7.14 161, 174, 192 7.14 lxx 160, 162–64, 170, 171, 173 7.23 205 15 114 15.12 114 15.31 114 15.34 114 16.20-23 114 18.28 114, 115 20 115 20.21 lxx 115 24 244 1 Kings 1.13-46 110 1.38 110 1.44 110 19.10 159 19.10 lxx 154 19.14 lxx 154 19.18 159 19.18 lxx 154 2 Kings 19.15 86 1 Chronicles 11.2 38 16.36 11 17.7 171, 172 17.13 170 17.14 206 21 244 28.6 170 28.20 198, 199 29.10 11 2 Chronicles 1.12 67 29.31 205

Index of References Nehemiah 9.5 11 9.6 86 Job 6.19 119 5.13 159 9.4-11 24 14.4 129 38.2 140 41 140 41.3 138, 140 Psalms 2 206 2.7 16, 24, 192, 205, 206 2.8 205 5.10 129, 131, 225 5.11 131 9.28 129, 131, 225 10.7 131 13 247 13.1-3 129–31, 225 13.1 130 13.2-3 130 13.2 130 13.3 130, 132, 133, 149, 225 13.7 149, 150 14.1 131 14.2 131 14.3 131 14.6 86 17.4 25 17.8 lxx 202 18.7 202 19.4 159 19.36 116 21.19 96, 118 22.1 24 22.19 96, 118 24.6 11 26.1 240

28.3 241 31.1-2 135, 153 31.1 240 32.1-2 159 33.6 240 33.9 240 33.20 lxx 220 33.21 115–18 33.21 lxx 220 33.40 117 34 118 34.9 118 34.13-17 118 34.19 118 34.20 115, 116 34.20 220 34.21 220 35.1 132 35.2 129, 132, 133, 225 35.19 118 40.10 113, 114, 118 40.14 11 41.10 113–15, 118 49.14 lxx 205 49.23 lxx 205 50.5 136 50.14 43, 205 50.23 205 52 130 52.2-4 130 52.2 130 52.4 130 53.2 131 53.3 131 53.4 131 55.9 126 55.13-14 115 56.9 127 68.5 96 68.10 96, 118 68.23-24 155 69.1 96 69.5 96 69.10 118 69.22-23 159

76.19 lxx 202 77.2 lxx 221 77 102 77 99 77.1-2 56 77.2 55 77.16 lxx 102, 103, 125 77.16 100, 101, 125 77.18 202 77.20 102 77.20 lxx 125 77.20 100, 101 77.24 97, 98 77.35 103 78 99, 102 78.1-2 56 78.2 55, 56, 221 78.16 100–103, 125 78.20 100–102, 125 78.24 97, 98 78.35 103 81.6 96 82.6 96 88.20 89–91 88.21 90 89.20 89–91 89.21 90 90 239 90.1-2 239 93.14 152 94 lxx 192 94.7-11 lxx 193 94.7-11 lxx 205, 206 94.11 159 95 192 95.7-11 193, 205, 206 96.11 240 103.12 lxx 36 108.8 63 106.22 lxx 205 107.22 205

253

Index of References 109.1 lxx 30, 51, 52, 81, 82, 52, 192, 205 109.2 150 109.3 51 109.4 lxx 205, 207 109.7 51 110 206 110.1 23, 30–32, 51, 52, 81, 82, 192, 205, 212 110.4 205, 207 113.8 103 114.8 103 115.8 lxx 205 116.17 205 117.6 lxx 193 117.22 lxx 145, 220 117.25 lxx 104 117.25-26 95, 104, 105, 125 117.26 104 118.6 193 118.25-26 95, 104, 105, 125 118.25 104 118.26 104 119.26 63 139.4 129, 131, 133, 225 139.21-22 43 Proverbs 1.16 129, 132 16.21-22 246 Ecclesiastes 7.20 129, 130, 225 Isaiah 1.9 159 2.2 217 2.3-4 150 6.5 121

6.9-10

111, 121, 147, 148 6.9 112 6.10 111-13 6.20 193 7.14 54 8 144, 145, 226, 227 8.14 144, 145, 219 8.17-18 226, 227 8.17 227 8.18 227 8.23–9.1 35 10.22-23 143 10.22 143, 159 10.23 143, 159 11.1 138 11.9 138 11.10 138, 155 12.3 241 13.10 28, 29, 32, 50 25.6-10 175 25.6-7 240, 241 25.6 175 25.7 175, 177 25.8 174–78, 188 26 217 26.19 11, 12, 44 26.20 196, 207, 217 27.9 148, 149, 218, 237 28–29 142 28 144, 145 28.11-12 179–81, 187 28.12 180, 181 28.16 144, 145, 159, 179, 219, 220 28.22 143 29.10 146, 147, 159 29.13-14 56, 221 29.14 56, 221 29.16 141, 142

254 Isaiah (cont.) 29.18-19 44 29.18 44, 121 33.10-11 121 34.4 28, 29, 32, 50 35.4 109 35.5-6 24, 44 35.5 44 35.6 44 35.9 25 37.16 86 38.11 119 40–55 140 40 18, 24 40.1-11 23 40.2 19 40.3-5 18 40.3 20, 32, 33, 47, 69, 109, 212, 222 40.9-10 23, 107, 108, 121 40.9 106, 108, 109, 125 40.12 2, 228 40.13-14 140 40.13 138, 140 40.26 121 41.10 109 41.13 109 41.14 109 42.1-4 35, 36 42.1 16, 24 42.3-4 67 42.6-7 121 42.7 44 42.18-20 111, 121 42.18-19 112 42.18 44 43.1 109 43.5 109 43.6 161, 171, 174 43.8 113 43.20 101, 102

Index of References 43.21 103 44.2-6 108 44.2 103, 108, 109 44.3 101, 102 44.6 104, 108, 125 44.6 lxx 105 44.18 111, 113, 121 44.28 89-91 45.9-10 142 45.9 141, 142 45.21 9, 10, 16 45.23 140, 141 48.12 102 48.21 100–102, 125 49.18 140, 141 49.22 171 51.1 152 51.7 109 52–53 121 52 121, 167 52.3 167 52.5 149 52.7 66, 154, 159, 167 52.8-9 167 52.9-10 121 52.10 119, 121, 122 52.11 160-64, 167–70, 173, 174, 188 52.12 167 52.13–53.12 167 52.13-15 121, 122, 124 52.13 124 52.14 124 52.15 67, 119, 121, 122, 124, 149 53 lxx 5, 13, 14 53.1-3 67

53.1

96, 111, 121, 154, 159 53.4 13, 14 53.5-7 5 53.5 5, 13 53.6-7 67 53.6 5, 13 53.7 5 53.8 13 53.9 13 53.11-12 67 53.12 13, 14 54.1 159 54.4 109 54.13 96 56 26, 233 56.1-7 26 56.7 17, 25, 26, 36, 37, 76, 233, 235–37 56.10 26, 113 57.3 13 58.6 63–68, 92, 219, 247 58.7 67 59.7-8 129, 132, 133, 135, 225 59.7 132 59.8 132 59.11-12 136 59.20-21 148, 149, 218, 237 59.20 149 59.21 149 60.1-2 11, 12 60.4 171 61.1-2 63–66, 92, 219, 247 61.1 44, 65–68, 240 61.2 65 61.6 67 61.10 240, 241 62.11 48, 106

64.3

255

Index of References

186, 187, 247 64.4 186 65 154 65.1-2 159, 228 65.16 186, 187, 247 66.1 2, 3, 228 66.18-23 138 66.18-19 67

32.9 59 32.15 59 32.38 164 38.15 35 38.31-34 193, 207 38.33-34 96 38.34 149 39.6-15 59, 221, 222 39.8 59 51.43 129

Jeremiah 1.6 245 2.9 37 5.14 172 6.15 149 7 26, 233 7.9-10 26 7.11 17, 25, 32, 37, 76, 233, 235–37 7.12 235 7.16 149 7.20 235 7.29 149 8.13 24 11.14 149 11.16 149 12 11 12.14-15 11 12.15-16 9–11 13.11 179, 180, 188 14.11-12 149 15.10 129 18.22 25 22.24 141 23.3 170 23.16 172 24.7 96 31.15 35 31.31-34 193, 207 31.33-34 96 32.6-15 59, 221, 222 32.7 59 32.8 59

Ezekiel 5.11 141 7.22 25 11.17 170 14.16 141 14.18 141 14.20 141 17.23 36 18.3 141 18.10 25 20 169 20.7-8 169 20.11 169 20.16 169 20.18 169 20.21 169 20.24 169 20.31 141, 169 20.33 141, 169 20.34 160–64, 169–71, 173, 174, 188 20.35-36 169 20.39 169 22.9 25 22.20 170 31.6 36 34 205 34.11-15 24 37 173 37.26-27 167 37.26 166, 167 37.27 160–66, 173, 174, 188 47.1-12 102

47.1-2

101, 102

Daniel 4.9 36 4.18 36 7.13-14 52 7.13 16, 23, 29, 30, 51, 81, 82, 212 7.14 51 11.14 25 Hosea 1.10 159 2 137 2.1 136, 137, 142, 143 2.23 159 2.25 136, 137 3.5 9, 10 7.1 25 8.10 170 13.12 177 13.14 174–79, 188 14.3 205 Joel 2.10 28, 29, 32 2.27 96 2.31 159 3.1-5 8, 217 3.1 217 3.16 150 Amos 9.8 11 9.11-12 9–11 Obadiah 5 25 Micah 4.6 170 4.2-3 150 5.1-3 38 5.1 38, 39

256 Nahum 1.15 159 2.14 171 Habakkuk 1.5 8 2.3-4 193, 194, 207 2.3 194, 196 2.4 159, 183, 195 2.13-14 138 2.14 96 Zephaniah 2.9 141 3.14-17 108 3.14 108 3.15 104, 105, 108, 125 3.15-16 109 3.16 105–8, 125 3.17 108 3.19 170 Haggai 1.2 171 1.5 171 1.7 171 1.9 171 2.4 171 2.6-9 171 2.11 171 2.23 171 Zechariah 1.3-4 171 1.8 119 1.14 171 1.16-17 171 2.12 171 3.7 171 3.9-10 171 4.2 119 4.6 171 4.10 119 5.2 119

Index of References 5.4 171 6.12 171 7.9 171 7.13 171 8.2 171 8.4 171 8.6-7 171 8.9 171 8.11 171 8.14 171 8.17 43, 171 8.19-20 171 8.22-23 138 8.23 171 9.5 119 9.8 119 9.9 48, 49, 105– 8, 110, 121 9.10 49 10.7 119 10.8 170 10.10 129, 170 11.4 172 11.11-13 59 11.11 59 11.12-13 59, 221, 222 11.12 222 11.13 58, 59 12–13 121 12.4 172 12.9-13 121 12.10 118–21 13.7 172 14.8 100–102 14.16-19 102, 138 Malachi 1.2-3 159 1.4 172 1.6 172 1.8-11 172 1.13-14 172 2.2 172 2.4 172 2.8 172 2.16 172 3.1-3 20

3.1

20, 22, 32, 45–47, 63, 68–70, 76, 172, 212, 222 3.5 172 3.7 172 3.10-12 172 3.17 172 3.19 172 3.21 172 3.23 47, 63 3.24 63 4.4-6 22 4.5 20 New Testament Matthew 1.18-25 39, 54 1.21 40 1.23 54 2 39 2.1-12 39 2.3-4 49 2.4 40 2.5 38 2.6 37-39, 60, 210, 214 2.13-15 39 2.16 39 2.18 35 2.19-23 38 2.19-21 39 2.22-23 38 2.23 37, 52, 54, 60, 210 2.29 210 3.1-17 48 3.3 47, 212 3.11 194 3.15 42 3.17 36 4.12-16 39 4.15-16 35 4.16 40 4.23 40, 61 5.3-12 45

5.17-48 61 5.17-20 42 5.21-48 40 5.21-26 41 5.21-22 37, 236 5.21 37, 40–42, 60, 210 5.22 42 5.27-30 41 5.27-28 37, 236 5.27 40, 41 5.31-32 37, 41, 236 5.31 40 5.33-37 41 5.33-36 37 5.33-34 236 5.33 37, 40, 41, 43, 60, 210 5.38-42 41 5.38-41 37, 236 5.38 40, 41 5.43-48 41 5.43-45 37, 236 5.43 37, 40, 41, 60, 210 7.12 42 7.15 39 7.24 39 7.26 39 8–9 45 8.1-4 45 9.2-8 45 9.20-31 45 9.27-31 45 9.32-34 45 9.35 61 9.36 39 10.6 39 10.10 12 10.17 61 10.32 39 10.33 39 11.2-19 45, 46 11.2-6 43 11.2 44 11.3 194

Index of References 11.5

37, 43–45, 60, 210, 214 11.7-19 45, 47 11.8-11 21 11.9 47 11.10 20, 37, 45, 46, 60, 68, 210, 212, 214 11.11-13 47 11.14 47 11.18 47 11.25 56 12.9 61 12.18-21 35, 36 12.25 221 12.50 39 13.1-35 55 13.10-17 56 13.12 39 13.13-15 148 13.14-15 111 13.32 36 13.34-35 55, 56 13.35 33, 37, 55, 58, 60, 210, 214, 221, 230 13.51-52 56 13.52 39 13.54 61 14.6-12 47 14.12-13 48 15.1 37 15.4-6 37 15.4-5 236 15.4 36 15.8-9 56, 221 15.8 40 15.24 40 16.16 54 16.52 61 17.5 36 17.10-13 47 17.13 22 18.4 39 18.12-14 39

257 19.18-19 17, 36, 74 19.19 43 19.29 39 20.1 39 21.1-11 48 21.1-9 49 21.4 48 21.5 37, 48, 60, 106, 210, 214 21.9 49, 104 21.10-11 49 21.13 15, 36, 37, 233–37 21.15-16 49 21.23 40 21.33 39 21.41 39 22.2 39 22.23-33 57 22.24 37, 57, 60, 77, 210, 212, 214 22.37-39 73 22.37 71 22.39 43 22.40 42 23.3 42 23.12 39 23.23 42 23.27 39 24 50 24.20 42 24.29 29, 37, 49, 50, 60, 214 24.30 120 25.1 39 25.32-33 40 26.3 40 26.23 115 26.31-32 37 26.31 39 26.47 40 26.57-68 51 26.63-64 54 26.63 51

258 Matthew (cont.) 26.64 37, 51, 60, 81, 210, 214 27.1 40 27.3-10 58, 222 27.3 222 27.6 59 27.9-10 33, 37, 58–60, 210, 213, 214, 221, 230 27.9 56, 222 27.11-44 49 27.25 40 27.54 54 27.55 39 27.62 39 28.16-20 61 31.13 77 Mark 1.1-15 23 1.1-4 17 1.1 20, 24 1.2-3 16, 17, 32, 47, 69, 210, 212, 214, 222, 230 1.2 22, 47, 68 1.4 21 1.7-8 19 1.9-11 23 1.11 16 1.14 39 1.15 19, 32 3.35 39 4.1-34 55 4.10-12 56 4.11-12 148 4.12 111 4.25 39 4.33-34 56 6.14-29 18 7.6-7 56, 221 7.10 16, 236 8.27-33 33

Index of References 8.33 33 8.38 52 9.11-13 21, 47 10.6-8 215 10.18-19 74 10.18 24 10.19 16, 17 10.29 39 11.1-10 49, 106 11.9 104 11.14 25 11.15-18 20 11.15-16 26 11.17 15–17, 25, 32, 77, 214, 215, 233–37 11.20-22 26 11.29 49 12.1 39 12.9 39 12.18-27 57 12.18-20 27 12.19 16, 17, 27, 32, 57, 77, 210, 212, 214 12.25 27 12.30-31 73 12.30 71 12.32 16 12.35-37 31 13 50 13.2 20 13.23-25 28 13.24-26 16 13.24-25 16, 17, 32, 50, 210, 214 13.26 16, 29, 30, 52, 120 13.28 29 13.32 24, 31 14.18 114, 115 14.36 24 14.53-65 51 14.61-62 29

14.62

16, 17, 29– 32, 81, 210, 212, 214, 215 15.34 24 15.40 39 Luke 1.15 62 1.17 47, 63 2.23 62 2.24 62 3.4 47, 212 4.18-19 63–65, 67, 92, 210, 214, 215, 219, 247 4.18 65 4.31-41 68, 219 4.32 68 4.44 68 5.12-26 68, 219 5.27 10 6.18-19 68, 219 6.20-49 68 6.27-28 41 6.27 43 6.29-30 41 6.32-36 41 6.35 43 6.47-48 39 6.49 39 7.1-10 68, 219 7.18-35 45 7.19 194 7.22 45 7.25-28 21 7.27 20, 46, 68–70, 210, 212, 214 7.36-50 68 8.10 148 10.7 12, 210 10.21 56 10.27 71–74, 214, 215, 226

11.44 39 12.4 10 12.8 39 12.9 39 13.10-17 68 14.11 39 14.16 39 16.18 41 17.7-8 10 18.20 17, 74, 210, 214 19.38 104 19.46 15, 76, 214, 233–37 20.28 27, 77, 78, 210, 212, 214 20.37 80, 82, 83, 210 22.21-22 115 22.69 81, 214 24.25 157 24.27 9, 157, 213, 215 24.32 215 24.44 9, 157, 213, 215 John 1.9 106 1.12-13 103 1.15 105 1.19–12.36 94 1.21 47 1.23 95-97, 109, 117 1.25 47 1.29 117, 220 1.30 105 1.36 117, 220 1.45 94 1.49 105 2.1-2 239 2.11 111 2.17 95-97, 118 2.19-22 102

259

Index of References 2.23 111 3.4-5 103 3.5-6 103 3.8 103 3.13 98 3.14-15 123 3.14 123 3.15 123 3.19 106 3.31 98 4.14 101 4.25-26 105 4.48 111 5.39 94 6 98-100 6.4-14 97 6.14 106, 194 6.29 97 6.31 95–99, 102, 103, 105, 115, 125, 126, 211, 214, 236 6.32-34 99 6.32-33 98, 100 6.35-59 99 6.35 101 6.37 101 6.38 98 6.41-42 99 6.41 98 6.42 98 6.45 95, 96 6.50 98 6.51 98 6.54 114 6.56-58 114 6.58 98 6.64-65 112 6.64 114 6.70-71 114 6.70 113 7–8 101 7 100 7.27-28 105 7.37-38 96, 100, 103

7.37 7.38

100, 102 95, 96, 100–103, 105, 125, 126, 211, 213, 214 7.39 101 7.42 95, 211 8.17 95, 211 8.28-29 122 8.28 123 8.42 98 8.47 98 9.39 112 10.26 112 10.34 95, 96, 222 11.27 106, 194 11.55 104 12.1 104 12.12-19 104 12.13 95, 96, 104–6, 108, 109, 125, 211, 214 12.14 106, 110 12.15 95, 96, 106–10, 115, 125, 126, 211, 214 12.18 109 12.19 106 12.20-22 124 12.24 124 12.32-33 123 12.32 106, 124 12.34 95, 211, 222 12.37 111 12.38-41 121 12.38-40 116, 118 12.38 95, 96 12.39-40 95 12.40 96, 111–13, 115, 125, 126, 147, 211, 214 12.46 106

260 John (cont.) 13.1 220 13.3 98 13.12-20 113 13.18 95, 96, 113–15, 118, 125, 126, 211, 214 15.25 95, 96, 118, 222 16.30 98 17.11-12 105 17.12 95 18.28–19.22 110 18.28 117, 220 19.14 117, 220 19.24 95, 96, 118 19.28 95 19.29 117, 220 19.31-37 115 19.31 122 19.32-33 116 19.34-35 122 19.34 101, 103, 116, 119 19.35 122, 123 19.36-37 116 19.36 95, 96, 115, 117, 118, 125, 126, 211, 214, 220 19.37 95, 96, 118– 23, 125, 126, 211, 214 20.31 111 7.329 102 Acts 1.1-2 216 1.6 18 1.11 31 1.20 63 2.16 8 2.17-21 217 2.34 30, 52

Index of References 3.13 82, 210 3.18 157 3.22-23 83, 84, 210, 214, 226 3.22 84 3.25 63 4.24 86 5.25-27 8 7.5 86, 87, 210, 214 7.6-7 10, 88, 210 7.7 10, 89 7.32 83 7.40 63 7.42-43 8 7.56 52 8.32-33 5 10.37 18 10.43 157 13.20 10 13.22 89, 90, 210, 214 13.23 92 13.40 8 14.15 86 15.5 27 15.15-18 10 15.15 8 15.16-18 8, 9, 11, 210, 214 15.16 10 15.18 10 18.1 10 28.26-27 111, 148 Romans 1.2

128, 141, 155, 157, 158, 213, 247 1.4 18 1.8–3.9 134 1.16-17 140 1.17 195 2–4 133 2–3 136

2 135 2.1-24 140 2.17-23 26 2.17 136 2.22 152 2.24 149 3 135, 149 3.1-8 140 3.9-20 134 3.9-10 181 3.10-18 128, 129, 133–36, 142, 143, 157, 211, 213, 222, 223, 225, 238, 247, 248 3.10-11 149 3.10 129, 130 3.11-12 130 3.12-13 131 3.12 130 3.13-18 132, 225 3.13 131 3.14 131 3.15-17 132 3.15-16 135, 149 3.16 132 3.17 132 3.18 132 3.19 134-36, 222, 223 3.20-21 223 3.20 179 3.21-31 140 3.28 136 3.31–4.25 135 4.1-25 140, 156 4.3-8 159 4.3 153 4.6-9 129, 153 4.9-12 153 4.12-13 159 4.15-17 159 4.17-18 129, 153, 159

4.23-25 128, 139 4.25-29 159 5.12-14 179 5.13 179 5.20-21 139 5.20 179, 223 7.5 179 7.7-12 223 7.7-11 179 7.7-9 179 7.7-8 152 8.2 179 8.18-39 140 8.38-39 139 9–11 128, 133, 136, 140, 141, 148, 149, 156, 218 9 148 9.2-8 181 9.6–11.36 156 9.6-29 146 9.6 143 9.9 141, 150, 151 9.20 128, 141–43, 157, 211, 213 9.22-24 137 9.24 137 9.25-26 128, 136, 137, 142, 157, 211, 213 9.25 136 9.27-33 181 9.27-28 128, 142, 143, 157, 211, 213 9.27 143 9.30-31 146, 153 9.33 128, 144, 145, 157, 211, 213, 219, 220

Index of References 10 146 10.1-3 181 10.5-8 129, 153 10.5 146 10.6-21 159 10.6 128, 145, 146, 153, 157, 211, 213 10.15-16 129, 154 10.17 139 10.18-21 129, 136, 147, 153–55 10.18-19 225 10.19 154 10.20-21 158, 228 10.20 154 10.21 154 11 147 11.1-2 152 11.3-10 159 11.3-4 154 11.3 154 11.4 154 11.5 147 11.6 148 11.8-10 129, 136, 155, 225 11.8 128, 146, 148, 155, 157, 211, 213 11.9 155 11.10 148 11.13 147 11.25-26 147 11.26-27 128, 148, 157, 211, 213, 218, 225, 237 11.26 149, 218 11.27 237 11.30-31 147 11.34-35 129, 138, 157, 211, 213

261 11.34 128 11.35 138 12.1-2 239 13.9 75, 128, 150–52, 157, 159, 211, 213, 232 13.13 152 14.10 141 14.11-12 128 14.11 140, 157, 211, 213 14.12 141 15.1-12 156 15.3 24 15.4 128, 157 15.7-12 139 15.9-12 128, 129, 136, 155, 223, 225 15.12 138 15.21 149 15.27 150 16.25-27 155, 156, 247 16.26 156 1 Corinthians 1.19 56, 221 2.9 160, 186, 187, 211, 247, 248 3.16 166 3.19-20 159 4.21-31 159 7 171 8–10 148 10.4 103 10.7-10 159 11 171 14 171 14.20-25 179 14.20 179 14.21-25 180

262 1 Corinthians (cont.) 14.21 160, 179, 180, 187–89, 211, 222 15 177 15.3 179 15.17 179 15.21-22 179 15.25 30, 52 15.53-54 177 15.54-55 160, 174, 175, 188, 189, 211 15.54 175, 178 15.55 175, 177, 179 15.56 175, 179 15.57 175 16.22 18 2 Corinthians 3–6 161 4.6 161 5.17 172 6.2 172 6.13 160 6.14–7.1 160, 161, 166 6.14-16 169 6.14-15 167 6.14 168, 174 6.15 168 6.16-18 160–62, 168, 172, 188, 189, 211, 213 6.16 161-68 6.17-18 166 6.17 161, 163, 167–69 6.18 161-63 7.1 167, 169, 172 7.2 160 7.8 lxx 188

Index of References 7.14 lxx 188 13.5 172 Galatians 2.6-10 150 3.16-17 92 Ephesians 2.3 91 3.1-14 183 3.6-13 159 3.9 183 3.10-14 183 3.10-13 181 3.10 160, 182, 183, 187–89, 211, 218 3.11 195 3.12 169 3.13 160, 183, 187, 211, 218 4.4-5 181 4.25 181 5.14 8, 11, 12, 210 5.19 11 6.2 228 Philippians 2.10-11 141 Colossians 2.22 56, 221 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 181 4.16 31 1 Timothy 5.18

8, 12, 13, 210 1.3 30, 52 1.13 30, 52 10.5 24 12.14 120

Hebrews 1.1-4 205, 206 1.5–2.8 192 1.5-14 191 1.5-13 193, 200 1.5-6 191 2.3-4 217 2.5-13 193 2.12-13 191, 200 2.13 226, 227 3.1-6 202, 205, 206 3.2 206 3.5-6 206 3.7–4.10 193 3.7-11 190 4 192 4.3-9 191 4.7 200 5.5-6 190 7.1-3 205, 231, 232 7.1-2 203, 207, 211 7.1 204 7.2 205 7.3 205 7.7 204 7.18-28 205 8.5-13 193 8.5-7 202 8.5 191, 196, 198, 200, 206, 207 8.6-13 198 8.7-13 191 8.8-12 190 9.18-22 202 10.5-7 190 10.28 202 10.30 227 10.32-36 196 10.36-39 195 10.36 193

10.37-38

193, 194, 206, 207, 211, 213, 217 10.39 193 11 201 11.1-38 193 11.4-38 190, 191, 200 11.5 201 11.21 200, 201, 207, 211 11.39-40 201 12.5-6 190 12.16-17 190 12.18-24 201 12.18-20 202 12.21 201, 207, 211 12.24 202 12.29 207 13 205 13.2 190 13.5-6 193 13.5 198, 199, 206, 207, 211 13.10-20 205 13.15 206 James 2.11 75 1 Peter 2.3 118 2.6-8 145, 220 2.8 145 2.20 13 2.21-25 13 2.21 13 2.22 13 2.23 13 2.24 5, 8, 13, 14, 210 2.25 13 3.10-12 118

263

Index of References 1 John 3.2 120

Apocalypse of Isaiah 11.34 186

Revelation 1.7 52, 120 14.14 52 21.4 176 22.1 31

Assumption of Moses 5.2-6 133

Apocrypha Epistle of Jeremiah 13 25 17 25 57 25

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 12.1-10 245 56.6 245

Wisdom of Solomon 7.22-27 206 7.26 205 16.20 100 Ecclesiasticus 4.1 17 16.24–17.15 245 24.21 100 36.26 25 42.20 129 44.19-21 153 48.10 47 49.10 8 49.14 129 1 Maccabees 7.37 26 8.14 129 11.36 129 11.70 129 13.2 202 13.51 106

Jubilees 49.13 118

Testament of Dan 5.3 73 Testament of Issachar 5.1-2 73 7.5 73 Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 1.10-11 43 2.2-4 246 2.4-5 246 9.11 85 9.21-23 43 11.22 142 1QpHab 7.10-16 195 4Q158 fr. 14

245

4Q175 5–8

85

2 Maccabees 10.7 106

4QDeutn 5.12-15 245

Pseudepigrapha 4 Maccabees 18.14-19 225

8ev 1 8

264 CD 5.13-17 133 6.13 161 8.9 161 10.16 68 Mur 88 8 Philo De confusione linguarum 166 199

Index of References

Babylonian Talmud Ketubbit 30b 175

Apostolic Fathers 1 Clement 15.2 56, 221 18.1 92 23.5 196 50.4 196

Pesaim 68a 175

2 Clement 3.5 56, 221

Sanhedrin 106b-107a 115

Barnabas 3.3 85 5.2 4, 5 6.4 230 6.6 163 6.8 232 9.3 230 11.4 230 13.4 232 16.2 2, 3, 228, 235

Mo‘ed Qaṭan 3.9 175

Legum allegoriae 2.48 232 3.102 197

Tosefta Sukkah 3.3-18 103

De mutatione nominum 207 232

Other Rabbinic Works Deuteronomy Rabbah 2.30 175

Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum 2.82 197 2.90 197 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 19–20 232 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 2.205-237 39 10.35 8

Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1.7 175 Exodus Rabbah 15.21 175 30.3 175 Lamentations Rabbah 1.41 175 Mekilta Exodus 20.13 42

Nag Hammadi Codices Gospel of Thomas II 2 17 186 Classical and Ancient Christian Literature Alcinous Epithet 152.2-3 3 Ambrose De mysteriis 9.58 240

Against Apion 1.8 8

Midrash Tehillim 55.1 115

Jewish War 2.139 43

Numbers Rabbah 18.17 115

Aristotle Rhetorica 3.14.6 229

Targums Ps.-Jonathan Exodus 13.7 42

Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 9.2 138

Choerilus of Samos Fr. 4 229

Pesiqta Rabbati 25.2 138

Encheridion 53.1-4 229

Mishnah ’Abot 6.3 115

Epictetus Diatribai 3.1.20 245 Eupolemus Fr. 2.1-2 244 Fr. 2.1 244 Fr. 2.5 244 Euripides Phoenissae 439-40 218 fr. 959 226 fr. 960 226 Gregory of Nyssa In Diem luminum 235 240 237 241 Homer Iliad 1.1 229 2.188-91 74 2.198-202 74 11.630 75 11.638-39 75 12.127-28 75 12.141-42 75 14.205 74 14.209 74 20.61-65 75 21.388 75 22.15 74 22.20 74 22.56-68 74 22.74-78 74 23.670 75 23.673 75 Odyssey 1.1 229 Iamblichus Protrepticus 13 4

265

Index of References Jerome Commentariorum in Isaiam libri XVIII 64.4 186 Justin 1 Apologia 50.10 5 52.12 120 Dialogus cum Tryphone 14.8 120 27.3 133 27.4 56, 221 32.2 120 32.5 56, 221 38.2 56, 221 39.5 56, 221 48.2 56, 221 78.11 56, 221 80.4 56, 221 123.4 56, 221 140.2 56, 221 Longinus De sublimitate 9.6 75 Menander Monologues 500 219 Plato Apologia 29c 245 29e 245 30a 245

Moralia 15c 248 20e 224 21d 224 29d 248 33e 238 35c 248 35e 228 36c 226 88f 228 497b 218 497c 219 543f 75, 232 Phaedrus 67d8-10 3 Respublica 3.391a 74 7.521c6-8 4 Porphry Homeric Questions 12.127-32 ss5 75 Ps.-Clementine Recognitions 1.36 85 Ps.-Plutarch Consolatio ad Apollonium 24 74 Quintilian Institutio oratoria 1.9.2 231

Georgics 484b 228

Sophocles fr. 88 218

Ion 538c 75

Strabo Geographica 9.2.40 219

Plutarch Conjugalia Praecepta 38 74

266

Index of References

Theon Progymnasmata 107 231 Xenophon Memorabilia 1.2.58 74 Ostraca, Papyri and Tablets O.Crum 514 238 515 238 P.Berl. inv. 11710

238

P.Duke inv. 778 239 inv. 778 l.14 239 inv. 778 l.14 240 P.Iand. 1.6 239 1.6 col. 3 240 1.6 col. 3 239

P.Oslo II 11

67

P.Oxy. VIII 1077 239 76.5073 l.1 239

Inscriptions BKT 6.7.1 239 IK 39 241

P.Princ. 2.107 238

MAMA VI no. 385 240

P.Ryl. II 460

Prusa ad Olympum 212 241

67

P.Schoyen 1.16 238 P.Turner 79 239 P.Vindob. G 26034 + 30453 G 2312

238 238, 239

Ramsay Bishoprics 1/2, 740, no. 675

240

SEG 42, no. 1157 241 TGF 358 228

I n d ex of A ut hor s Adams, S. A. 1, 2, 6, 16, 62, 75, 77, 95, 96, 105, 126–28, 159, 163, 180, 203, 205, 209, 216, 220, 224–26, 231–33, 235, 238, 240, 241, 244 Albl, M. C. 67, 85, 164, 172, 191, 192, 221, 247 Alexander, P. 216 Allen, D. M. 199 Allen, G. V. 214, 243 Allison, D. C. 42, 43, 51, 215 Archer, G. L. 63, 65, 68, 77, 79, 80, 83, 89, 91 Attridge, H. W. 191, 195, 197, 199, 200, 202, 204 Babbitt, F. C. 238 Bacher, W. 53 Bailey, D. P. 121 Balla, P. 161, 167, 174 Barré, M. L. 170 Barrett, C. K. 83–86, 89, 91, 98, 100, 104, 105, 108, 119 Barth, M. 11, 190 Bates, H. W. 24 Bates, M. W. 227 Bauckham, R. 8, 24, 118, 124 Bauer, W. 42 Baxter, W. 40 Beale, G. K. 171, 172, 243 Beare, F. W. 45 Beentjes, P. C. 136, 137, 168 Berkley, T. W. 26 Bernasconi, R. 216 Bernstein, M. J. 244 Blass, F. 36 Bloedhorn, H. 238 Blumhofer, C. M. 217 Bobichon, P. 134, 242–43 Bock, D. L. 65, 69, 86, 90, 92 Boda, M. J. 67 Boer, M. C. de 177 Borgen, P. 99 Bornkamm, G. 134 Boyarin, D. 216 Bray, G. 223

Brenton, L. C. L. 64 Breytenbach, C. 240, 241 Brooke, G. J. 35, 246 Brown, R. E. 38, 101, 104, 105, 108, 113, 121, 123 Bruce, F. F. 85, 86, 91, 92 Brunson, A. C. 104, 110 Buckler, W. H. 240 Bultmann, R. 42 Bynum, W. R. 109, 119, 120 Caird, G. B. 190 Campbell, D. A. 13 Carson, D. A. 14 Chae, Y. S. 40 Chirichigno, G. 63, 65, 68, 77, 79, 80, 83, 89, 91 Ciampa, R. E. 167, 179, 182, 183, 185–87, 189 Cockerill, G. L. 193, 199, 207 Coloe, M. L. 100, 102 Corsten, T. 241 Cribiore, R. 219 Cross, F. M., Jr. 139 D’Angelo, M. R. 197, 206 Dabourne, W. 134 Daly-Denton, M. 95, 98, 99, 102, 114, 118 Davies, W. D. 42, 43, 51, 215 Debrunner, A. 36 Dempster, S. G. 185 Dimant, D. 242 Docherty, S. E. 190, 204, 243 Dodd, C. H. 5, 13, 67, 120, 243 Dunn, J. D. G. 225 Dunne, J. A. 11, 12 Dupont, J. 52 Duvall, J. S. 185 Dyer, B. R. 75 Ehorn, S. M. 1, 2, 4, 16, 60, 62, 75, 77, 95, 96, 105, 126–28, 159, 163, 180, 205, 209, 214–16, 219, 220, 225, 226, 231, 233, 235, 241

268

Index of Authors

Ellingworth, P. 192, 195, 199, 200, 202, 205, 206, 227 Emlyn-Jones, C. 4 Enns, P. 192 Evans, C. A. 65, 79, 94, 111, 185 Fee, G. D. 186, 187 Fensham, F. C. 170 Fisk, B. N. 216, 217, 245 Fitzmyer, J. A. 10, 133, 223, 242, 246 France, R. T. 17, 21, 31, 65, 70 Freed, E. D. 94, 96, 105, 113, 117, 120, 121 French, D. H. 240 Frey, J. 123 Gaston, L. 134 Gathercole, S. J. 24 Gignac, A. 146 Glenny, W. E. 8 Graham, M. 135 Grässer, E. 206 Green, W. S. 188 Gundry, R. H. 56, 58 Guthrie, G. 192, 193, 196, 197, 199, 201, 205 Häfner, G. 13 Ham, C. A. 46, 47 Hanson, A. T. 138, 139 Harris, J. R. 67, 168, 169, 171, 192 Harris, M. J. 161, 162 Hashtroudi, S. 4 Hatch, E. 192 Hatina, T. 22, 23 Hayes, J. D. 185 Hays, R. B. 23, 24, 31, 33, 176, 183, 221, 242 Hayward, R. 216 Heer, J. M. 230, 231 Hengel, M. 121 Holman, H. 242 Holtz, T. 84 Hooker, M. 50 Horster, M. 244 Horton, F. L. 203 Hughes, G. 190 Hughes, P. E. 193, 194 Jacobson, H. 245

Janzen, J. G. 140 Jewett, R. 156 Jobes, K. H. 13, 14 Johanssen, D. 31 Johnson, E. E. 138, 139 Johnson, F. 63 Johnson, L. T. 200 Johnson, M. K. 4 Jones, B. C. 239 Kalluveettil, P. 170 Karrer, M. 195 Katz, P. 199, 202 Keck, L. E. 130, 133, 134 Keener, C. S. 11 Keith, C. 66, 215 Kimball, C. A. 65–68, 73, 75, 80 Knibb, M. A. 185, 186 Koch, D.-A. 143, 145, 147, 148, 161, 164, 176, 182, 186 Koening, J. 35 Koester, C. R. 127 König, J. 246 Kraft, R. A. 231, 247 Kühschelm, R. 112, 113 Kynes, W. 139 Lane, W. L. 193, 194, 204 Law, T. M. 244 Lee, P. B. 69, 76 Lewis, T. W. 196 Liebengood, K. D. 121 Lieu, J. M. 99, 112, 116 Lim, T. H. 8, 242 Lincoln, A. T. 11, 98, 101, 103, 112, 114 Lindars, B. 98, 100, 120 Lindsay, D. S. 4, 108 Lohmeyer, E. 43 Longenecker, R. N. 156, 189, 221 Lunde, J. M. 11, 12 Luz, U. 39, 45, 52 Mánek, J. 69, 76, 82, 155 Manning Jr., G. T. 102 Marcus, J. 26, 30, 31 Marshall, I. H. 70, 71, 73, 76, 80, 84, 89, 92 Martin, R. P. 160 McCullough, J. C. 194, 195, 200, 201 McDonough, S. M. 243



Index of Authors

McLay, R. T. 10, 11 McNamee, K. 235 Meek, J. A. 8, 9, 11, 62, 86 Menken, M. J. J. 29, 34–36, 38, 41, 47, 48, 50–52, 55, 57, 58, 85, 94–96, 98, 102, 103, 106, 108–15, 117, 118, 120, 123, 222 Michel, O. 206 Moo, D. J. 222, 225 Moritz, T. 11, 12 Myers, A. D. 95, 100, 117 Nägele, S. 11 Neusner, J. 188 Newman, J. H. 246 Nieuviarts, J. 49 Nolland, J. 38, 71 Norton, J. D. H. 126, 218, 242 Noy, T. 238 Nünlist, R. 224 Obermann, A. 94–96, 98, 104, 106, 108, 109, 111, 113, 114, 116, 123, 127 Painter, J. 112 Panayotov, A. 238 Pao, D. W. 66, 70, 79–81, 247 Pate, C. M. 185 Perkins, L. 32 Pervo, R. 157, 213 Peterson, D. 9 Porter, S. E. 62, 65–67, 75, 81, 234, 242 Powery, E. B. 234 Preddy, W. 4 Prijs, L. 53 Prostmeier, F. R. 5 Pummer, R. 238 Quast, U. 162 Reasoner, M. 148, 149, 152, 243 Reim, G. 94, 99 Reitz, C. 244 Rese, M. 65, 84 Richard, E. 8 Richards, E. R. 185 Rosner, B. S. 167, 179, 186, 187 Royse, J. R. 126, 203, 223, 231, 232 Ruzer, S. 42

269

Samely, A. 191, 216 Sand, A. 42 Sanders, E. P. 134, 139, 221 Sanders, J. A. 54 Sandt, H. van de 71 Sanzo, J. E. 239 Schenk, W. 39 Schnabel, E. J. 66, 70, 79–81 Schnackenburg, R. 104, 111 Schnelle, U. 61 Schröger, F. 190 Schuchard, B. G. 94, 96, 105, 108, 110, 113, 115, 117, 121 Scott, M. 223 Seifrid, M. A. 149 Sheridan, R. 95, 96, 98, 101, 109, 110, 122 Skarsaune, O. 184 Smith, W. A. 235 Snodgrass, K. R. 19 Spicq, C. 204 Stanley, C. D. 2, 3, 35, 60, 63, 66, 68, 70, 74, 75, 78, 89, 97, 105, 107, 126, 129, 144, 149, 150, 156, 159, 161, 162, 164– 66, 168–70, 174, 175, 177, 179–83, 186-88, 193, 194, 203, 209, 214, 230, 233, 235, 241, 249 Steck, O. H. 185 Stendahl, K. 57 Steyn, G. J. 83, 192, 193, 195, 197–99, 201, 202, 204, 227, 228 Stone, M. 186 Strauss, M. 65, 92 Strugnell, J. 186 Synge, F. C. 192 Tatum, G. 148 Terrien, S. 139 Theobald, M. 98, 101, 103 Thiselton, A. C. 178, 187 Thomas, K. J. 62, 74, 79, 194, 195, 197, 198 Thompson, M. M. 122 Thrall, M. E. 160, 161, 166, 171 Tigay, J. H. 245 Toy, C. H. 63 Tucker Jr., W. D. 185 Tuckett, C. M. 120, 123

270

Index of Authors

Utzschneider, H. 8 Vang, P. 185 Vlachos, C. A. 179 Vos, L. H. 243 Wagner, J. R. 138, 139, 142–48, 150, 152, 219, 220 Watson, F. 135, 146, 183–85, 222 Watts, R. E. 16, 23, 32, 222, 234 Webb, W. J. 160, 161, 164–67, 171, 173, 174, 188 Weinfeld, M. 170 Wendel, S. 66 Werline, R. 133

Westcott, B. F. 194 Wevers, J. W. 151, 162 Whittaker, J. 3, 4 Wick, P. 58 Williams, C. H. 96, 99, 109, 122, 127 Witherington III, B. 8 Woolf, G. 246 Wright, N. T. 19, 31, 177, 185, 218 Zacharias, H. D. 115 Zahn, M. M. 245 Ziegler, J. 9, 175 Zimmerli, W. 170 Zumstein, J. 99, 100, 107, 123